Post-Grant Review of U.S. Patent No. 11,488,174
`
`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 11,488,174
`
`DECLARATION OF SAFWAN ZAHEER IN SUPPORT OF PETITION
`FOR POST-GRANT REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 11,488,174
`
`Mail Stop “PATENT BOARD”
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent & Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`EX1009
`U.S. Patent No. 11,488,174
`
`Petitioner Kiosoft Exhibit 1009
`1
`
`

`

`
`
`Post-Grant Review of U.S. Patent No. 11,488,174
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1
`I.
`II. Qualifications and Experience .......................................................................... 1
`III. Summary of My Opinions ................................................................................ 3
`IV. Materials Considered ........................................................................................ 4
`V. Relevant Legal Standards ................................................................................. 5
`A.
`Level of Ordinary Skill ......................................................................... 6
`B.
`Claim Construction ............................................................................... 7
`1.
`“preemptively” ............................................................................ 8
`2.
`“trigger condition” ...................................................................... 9
`Subject Matter Eligibility .................................................................... 13
`C.
`D. Obviousness ......................................................................................... 14
`VI. The ’174 Patent ............................................................................................... 18
` Overview of the Alleged Invention ..................................................... 18
`The Patent Prosecution History ........................................................... 22
`
`The Patent Claims ............................................................................... 22
`
`VII. Technology Background ................................................................................ 25
`A.
`Electronic Payment at Unattended Automatic Retail Machines ......... 25
`B. RSSI: A Short-Range Communication Feature Routinely
`Used in Proximity Detection and Hands-Free Payment ................. 30
`Preemptive Authorization of Funds, Before Selection of
`Product or Service .............................................................................. 32
`VIII. Subject Matter Eligibility of the Challenged Claims ..................................... 37
`IX. Obviousness of the Challenged Claims in View of the Prior Art .................. 69
`A. Overview of the Prior Art — Kamat, Arora, and Dixon ..................... 69
`
`C.
`
`
`
`i
`
`Petitioner Kiosoft Exhibit 1009
`2
`
`

`

`1.
`
`2.
`3.
`
`
`
`Post-Grant Review of U.S. Patent No. 11,488,174
`
`U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2014/0074723 to Kamat
`(EX1006) ................................................................................... 69
`U.S. Patent No. 9,898,884 to Arora (EX1007) ......................... 73
`U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2011/0153495 to Dixon
`(EX1008) ................................................................................... 78
`B. Motivation to Modify Kamat in view of Arora and Dixon ................. 80
`C. Where Each Limitation is Found in the Prior Art ............................... 82
`X. Other Evidence Relevant to Obviousness ....................................................126
`XI. Conclusion ....................................................................................................128
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`Petitioner Kiosoft Exhibit 1009
`3
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Post-Grant Review of U.S. Patent No. 11,488,174
`
`
`I, Safwan Zaheer, declare as follows:
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`
`1. 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. 11,488,174 (“the
`
`’174 patent,” EX1001), which is titled “Method and System for Performing Mobile
`
`Device-to-Machine Payments.” Except as otherwise indicated, I have personal
`
`knowledge of the facts and opinions set forth in this declaration and believe them to
`
`be true. If called upon to do so, I will testify competently thereto.
`
`2.
`
`I am being compensated on an hourly basis 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. I have no
`
`financial interest in the outcome of this matter or any other litigation between
`
`Petitioners and PayRange, Inc.
`
`II.
`
`Qualifications and Experience
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`A copy of my curriculum vitae is provided as Exhibit 1010.
`
`I obtained a Bachelor of Science in Electrical Engineering from Texas
`
`A&M University in 1998, a Master of Engineering in Electrical Engineering from
`
`Texas A&M University in 2000, and a Master of Science in Engineering and
`
`Management from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) in 2008.
`
`
`
`1
`
`Petitioner Kiosoft Exhibit 1009
`4
`
`

`

`
`
`Post-Grant Review of U.S. Patent No. 11,488,174
`
`From 2001-2010, I was the Senior Product Manager of Mobile Products
`
`5.
`
`and a Wireless Engineer of the International Standards Development groups at
`
`Lucent Technologies/ Alcatel-Lucent (now Nokia).
`
`6.
`
`From 2010-2011, I was a management consultant at Peppers & Rogers
`
`Group, providing consulting services to global firms in the telecom and internet
`
`industries.
`
`7.
`
`From 2012-2015, I was employed by Barclays US as the Director of
`
`Digital Payments Product, where I led the development and launch of an innovative
`
`mobile payment wallet that enabled payment transactions between a mobile device
`
`and a point-of-sale (POS) at a merchant location to purchase goods or products.
`
`8.
`
`From 2015-2016, I was the Director of Digital Payments at Accenture,
`
`and from 2016-2019 Head of FinTech at KPMG. During my time at both firms, I
`
`controlled and led several digital payments, transformation, strategy and product
`
`development services to financial services, technology, and retail clients, increasing
`
`company brand reputation and repeat business.
`
`9.
`
`In 2021, I was the Executive Vice President & General Manager at
`
`LendingPoint, responsible for the POS Lending and Payments business. In that role,
`
`I led the launch of a payments and lending capability inside of Invisalign’s national
`
`mobile app enabling customers to get credit through an application within the mobile
`
`app for dental treatment.
`
`
`
`2
`
`Petitioner Kiosoft Exhibit 1009
`5
`
`

`

`
`
`Post-Grant Review of U.S. Patent No. 11,488,174
`
`I am currently the Managing Director of HundredX, an advisory firm in
`
`10.
`
`the payment and FinTech space. In that role, I helped to launch T-Mobile MONEY,
`
`T-Mobile’s revolutionary Neobank.
`
`11.
`
`I am also a named inventor on the following patents or applications: US
`
`Patent Appl. No. 13/647997 (US), UK Appl. No. 1209590.7 titled “Mobile Wallet
`
`System”; US Patent Appl. No. 13/725061 titled “Mobile Commerce Business
`
`System and Method for Sharing Merchant Content and creating Customer Index”;
`
`and US Patent No. 7,200,115: “A Method of Managing Non-acknowledgement
`
`responses in CDMA Wireless System.”
`
`III.
`
`Summary of My Opinions
`
`12. 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 of the ’174 patent (the “Challenged Claims”) to be obvious in
`
`view of the prior art. A POSITA would have also found each of the Challenged
`
`Claims, whether on an element-by-element basis or as a whole, to be well-
`
`understood, routine, and conventional.
`
`13. The specific grounds of unpatentability in which I render an opinion are
`
`identified below:
`
`
`
`3
`
`Petitioner Kiosoft Exhibit 1009
`6
`
`

`

`Post-Grant Review of U.S. Patent No. 11,488,174
`
`Ground Statute(s)
`1
`§101
`
`Challenge
`Non-statutory Subject Matter
`
`2
`
`§103
`
`Obviousness by U.S. Patent Application
`Publication No. 2014/0074723 to Kamat
`(“Kamat,” EX1006) in view of U.S. Patent
`No. 9,898,884 to Arora et al. (“Arora,”
`EX1007) and U.S. Patent Application
`Publication No. 2011/0153495 to Dixon et
`al. (“Dixon, EX1008)
`
`Challenged
`Claim(s)
`1-20
`
`1-20
`
`IV.
`
`Materials Considered
`
`14.
`
`In formulating my opinions, I have relied upon my training, knowledge,
`
`and experience that are relevant to the ’174 patent. I have specifically considered
`
`the following documents, in addition to all other documents cited in this declaration:
`
`Exhibit No. Description
`1001
` U.S. patent No. 11,488,174 to Patel (“’174 patent”)
`1002
` Prosecution History of the ’174 patent
` U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0117262 to Berger et
`al. (“Berger”)
`
`1003
`
`1004
`
`1005
`
`1006
`1007
`
`1008
`
` U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0030931 to
`Moshfeghi (“Moshfeghi”)
`
` U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0074714 to Melone
`et al. (“Melone”)
` U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0074723 (“Kamat”)
` U.S. Patent No. 9,898,884 to Arora et al. (“Arora”)
` U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2011/0153495 to Dixon et
`al. (“Dixon”)
`
`4
`
`Petitioner Kiosoft Exhibit 1009
`7
`
`

`

`
`
`Post-Grant Review of U.S. Patent No. 11,488,174
`
`
`1011
`
` Bluetooth Specification 1.2
`
`
`
`V.
`
` Relevant Legal Standards
`
`15.
`
`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.
`
`16.
`
`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 over the prior art as of its earliest filing date for it to be patentable. I
`
`have been asked to assume that the date upon which I should base my analysis is
`
`December 18, 2013. 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.
`
`17.
`
`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.
`
`18.
`
`I understand that a patent or other publication must first qualify as prior
`
`art before it can be used to invalidate a patent claim. I understand that documents
`
`
`
`5
`
`Petitioner Kiosoft Exhibit 1009
`8
`
`

`

`
`
`Post-Grant Review of U.S. Patent No. 11,488,174
`
`and materials that qualify as prior art can be used to render a claim unpatentable as
`
`anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102 or as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
`
`A. Level of Ordinary Skill
`I have been advised that a POSITA is a hypothetical person who is
`19.
`
`presumed to have known the relevant art at the time of the invention. I further
`
`understand that a POSITA is also a person of ordinary creativity and that in many
`
`cases a POSITA will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents or printed
`
`publications together. I also understand that the factors that may be considered in
`
`determining the level of ordinary skill in a particular field include: the level of
`
`education and experience of those working in the field, the types of problems
`
`encountered in the field, and the sophistication of the technology at the time of the
`
`invention, which I have been asked to assume is December 18, 2013. I understand
`
`that all of the above factors may be present in a particular case. I understand that a
`
`POSITA would have knowledge from the teachings of the prior art, including the art
`
`discussed below.
`
`20.
`
`It is my opinion that, on or before December 18, 2013, a POSITA
`
`relating to the technology of the ’174 patent would have had an education
`
`background of, or practical experience providing an equivalent to, a Bachelor of
`
`Science in Electrical Engineering, Computer Science, Information Technology, or a
`
`
`
`6
`
`Petitioner Kiosoft Exhibit 1009
`9
`
`

`

`
`
`Post-Grant Review of U.S. Patent No. 11,488,174
`
`related/equivalent field and at least 3 years of academic or industry experience in
`
`electronic payment systems.
`
`21. Well before December 18, 2013, my level of skill in the art was at least
`
`that of POSITA. I am qualified to provide opinions concerning what a POSITA
`
`would have known and understood as of December 18, 2013, and, unless otherwise
`
`stated, my analysis, opinions, and conclusions herein are made from the perspective
`
`of POSITA as of that date. I reserve the right to change my opinion if other facts
`
`are provided as the proceedings continue.
`
`B. Claim Construction
`I have been advised that claim terms are generally given their plain and
`22.
`
`ordinary meaning in light of the specification. I further understand that the plain and
`
`ordinary meaning may not apply when a patentee acts as his own lexicographer and
`
`sets out a definition for the term or when the patentee disavows the full scope of the
`
`claim term either in the specification or during prosecution.
`
`23.
`
`I have been advised that in this proceeding, the United States Patent and
`
`Trademark Office (“PTO”) interprets the claims of an unexpired patent, such as the
`
`’174 patent, under the same standards used in a United States District Court. This
`
`includes interpreting the claims through the lens of a POSITA in view of the entire
`
`patent. Accordingly, in formulating my opinions, I have reviewed the claims of the
`
`’174 patent as I perceive a POSITA would have understood them at the time of the
`
`
`
`7
`
`Petitioner Kiosoft Exhibit 1009
`10
`
`

`

`
`
`Post-Grant Review of U.S. Patent No. 11,488,174
`
`earliest claimed priority date of the ’174 patent, after reading the entire ’174 patent
`
`specification.
`
`24.
`
`I have been advised that claim construction is ultimately a question of
`
`law. Accordingly, I understand that a tribunal may choose to construe certain terms
`
`to provide clarity to the proceeding should any dispute arise between the parties over
`
`how a term should be construed. If the tribunal chooses to construe any term, then
`
`I reserve my right to review and potentially modify any opinions below in view of
`
`such constructions.
`
`25.
`
`I have read each word in the claims, and the claims as a whole, of the
`
`’174 patent in light of the specification, applying the plain and ordinary meaning of
`
`each such word as POSITA would understand it.
`
`26.
`
`In formulating my opinions, I reviewed the claims of the ’174 patent as
`
`I perceive a POSITA would have understood them as of December 18, 2013, after
`
`reading the entire ’174 patent specification.
`
`1. “preemptively”
`
`
`
`27. The term “preemptively” appears in the claim limitation “the
`
`transmission including a request to preemptively obtain authorization to make funds
`
`available for a cashless transaction with the automatic retail machine.” EX1001,
`
`33:16-19, 34:50-53, 36:15-18. I understand that the Petitioners have proposed in a
`
`patent litigation matter that the term “preemptively” be construed to mean: “before
`
`
`
`8
`
`Petitioner Kiosoft Exhibit 1009
`11
`
`

`

`
`
`Post-Grant Review of U.S. Patent No. 11,488,174
`
`authorizing an amount of funds for use in conjunction with the cashless transaction
`
`at that automatic retail machine.” I have taken this proposed construction into
`
`consideration.
`
`2. “trigger condition”
`It is my opinion that the term “trigger condition” found in the claim
`
`28.
`
`element “detecting, by an application executing on the mobile device, a trigger
`
`condition to perform the cashless transaction with the automatic retail machine” in
`
`the claims of the ’174 patent would have been understood by a POSITA to mean:
`
`“Received Signal Strength Indicator (RSSI) value above a predetermined baseline
`
`value.”
`
`29.
`
`In reading the claims of the ’174 patent, I read each word in each claim,
`
`and each claim as a whole, using the plain and ordinary meaning each such word
`
`would have had to a POSITA on or before December 18, 2013.
`
`30.
`
`In reading the claim “trigger condition” found in the claim element
`
`“detecting, by an application executing on the mobile device, a trigger condition to
`
`perform the cashless transaction with the automatic retail machine,” which claim
`
`element I will refer to as the “Trigger Condition term,” the meaning of the
`
`combination of words “trigger condition” is unclear to me based on the words alone
`
`as they appear in claims 1, 12, and 19.
`
`
`
`9
`
`Petitioner Kiosoft Exhibit 1009
`12
`
`

`

`Post-Grant Review of U.S. Patent No. 11,488,174
`
`31.
`
`I have been advised that the ’174 patent specification acts as a sort of
`
`dictionary for the words in the claims of the patent. In reading the ’174 patent
`
`specification I found that the words “trigger condition” are used throughout the
`
`patent specification consistently in relation to a Received Signal Strength Indicator
`
`(“RSSI”) threshold. See, for example, EX1001, FIG. 7 (“Trigger Payment Zone”),
`
`14:45-49 (“Mathematical computation (In-Range Heuristics) is conducted to derive
`
`the optimal RSSI threshold at which point payment should be triggered by an
`
`application 140 on a mobile device 150”), 21:14-21 (“…if the payment trigger
`
`threshold is having wide variances and so deemed unstable…”), 23:62-67 (“…a
`
`fixed threshold at which payment is triggered can be problematic”), 29:59-62 (“…an
`
`event threshold is triggered based on heuristics performed by the mobile device”).
`
`32.
`
`I also found the words “trigger condition” to appear in dependent claims
`
`6 and 17, which recite “wherein detecting the trigger condition comprises:
`
`determining whether the payment zone threshold criterion is satisfied; and in
`
`accordance with a determination that the payment zone threshold criterion is
`
`satisfied, detecting the trigger condition without user input from a user at the mobile
`
`device.” EX1001, 34:1-8, 35:36-43.
`
`33. Reading each word, and each of claims 6 and 17 as a whole, I found the
`
`words “trigger condition” in claims 6 and 17 to relate to the RSSI threshold. Reading
`
`claims 6 and 17 in light of the patent specification, I found the trigger condition to
`
`10
`
`Petitioner Kiosoft Exhibit 1009
`13
`
`

`

`
`
`Post-Grant Review of U.S. Patent No. 11,488,174
`
`comprise determining whether the payment zone threshold criterion is satisfied, and
`
`in accordance with that determination, detecting when the RSSI threshold is reached
`
`without user input from a user at the mobile device. Id., 34:1-8, 35:36-43. My
`
`understanding is based at least in part on claims 1, 6, 12, and 17, FIG. 7 (“Trigger
`
`Payment Zone”), column 14, lines 45-49 (“Mathematical computation (In-Range
`
`Heuristics) is conducted to derive the optimal RSSI threshold at which point
`
`payment should be triggered by an application 140 on a mobile device 150”), column
`
`31, lines 14-21 (“…if the payment trigger threshold is having wide variances and so
`
`deemed unstable…”), column 23, lines 62-67 (“…a fixed threshold at which
`
`payment is triggered can be problematic”), and column 29, lines 59-62 (“…an event
`
`threshold is triggered based on heuristics performed by the mobile device”).
`
`34.
`
`I also found the words “trigger condition” to appear in dependent claims
`
`7 and 18, which recite “wherein detecting the trigger condition comprises: detecting
`
`a user input from a user of the mobile device; and in response to detecting the user
`
`input, detecting the trigger condition to perform the cashless transaction with the
`
`automatic retail machine.” EX1001, 34:9-15, 35:43-50.
`
`35. Reading each word, and each of claims 7 and 18 as a whole, I found the
`
`words “trigger condition” in claims 7 and 18 to relate to the RSSI threshold. Reading
`
`claims 7 and 18 in light of the patent specification, I understand these claims specify
`
`that the trigger condition detecting step recited in claims 1 (id., 33:27-29) and 12 (id.
`
`
`
`11
`
`Petitioner Kiosoft Exhibit 1009
`14
`
`

`

`
`
`Post-Grant Review of U.S. Patent No. 11,488,174
`
`34:61-63), which is included in claims 7 and 18, respectively, requires the activity
`
`of detecting the trigger condition to perform the cashless transaction with the
`
`automatic retail machine. My understanding is based at least in part on claims 1, 7,
`
`12 and 18, FIG. 7 (“Trigger Payment Zone”), column 14, lines 45-49 (“Mathematical
`
`computation (In-Range Heuristics) is conducted to derive the optimal RSSI
`
`threshold at which point payment should be triggered by an application 140 on a
`
`mobile device 150”), column 31, lines 14-21 (“…if the payment trigger threshold is
`
`having wide variances and so deemed unstable…”), column 23, lines 62-67 (“…a
`
`fixed threshold at which payment is triggered can be problematic”), and column 29,
`
`lines 59-62 (“…an event threshold is triggered based on heuristics performed by the
`
`mobile device”).
`
`36. After reading the entirety of the ’174 patent, I was unable to find any
`
`description or example related to the “trigger condition” other than an RSSI value
`
`above a predetermined baseline value. My finding is based on the patent’s usage of
`
`trigger condition in claims 1, 6, 7, 12, 17-19, FIG. 7, 14:45-49, 21:14-21, 23:62-67,
`
`29:59-62.
`
`
`
`12
`
`Petitioner Kiosoft Exhibit 1009
`15
`
`

`

`Post-Grant Review of U.S. Patent No. 11,488,174
`
`C. Subject Matter Eligibility
`I understand that in order to receive a patent an inventor must invent or
`
`37.
`
`discover a new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
`
`38.
`
`I understand
`
`that claims directed
`
`to
`
`laws of nature, natural
`
`phenomenon, and abstract ideas are not patent eligible.
`
`39.
`
`I understand that when a patent claim is directed to an abstract idea, the
`
`claim is invalid unless the claim contains an “inventive concept” which must be an
`
`element or some combination of elements that ensures the patent claim amounts to
`
`significantly more than a patent claim on the abstract idea itself. I understand that
`
`an inventive concept cannot be a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity
`
`previously known to the industry. I also understand that a “wholly generic computer
`
`implementation” is not generally sufficient to provide an inventive concept. I
`
`understand that the elements of a claim must be considered both individually and
`
`also as an ordered combination in determining whether they include an inventive
`
`concept.
`
`40.
`
`I understand that it is insufficient for patent-eligibility if the additional
`
`elements merely append to the claim well-understood, routine, and conventional
`
`activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality.
`
`13
`
`Petitioner Kiosoft Exhibit 1009
`16
`
`

`

`
`
`Post-Grant Review of U.S. Patent No. 11,488,174
`
`
`D. Obviousness
`I understand that the claims of a patent must be non-obvious in order to
`41.
`
`be eligible for patent protection under 35 U.S.C. §103. I understand that a patent
`
`claim may be invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 103 if the differences between the claimed
`
`invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention, as a whole, would
`
`have been obvious to a POSITA in view of a prior art reference or combination of
`
`prior art references before the earliest filing date of the claimed invention.
`
`42.
`
`I understand that obviousness is determined from the perspective of
`
`POSITA and that the asserted claims of the patent should be read from the point of
`
`view of such a person at the time the claimed invention was made. Additionally, I
`
`understand that a POSITA is presumed to know and be familiar with the relevant
`
`prior art in the field of endeavor covered by the patent in suit or reasonably pertinent
`
`to the particular problem faced by the inventor.
`
`43.
`
`I understand that prior art used in an obviousness analysis must be
`
`analogous—and that there are two criteria for determining whether prior art is
`
`analogous and thus would be assumed to be known to a POSITA: first, whether the
`
`art is from the same field of endeavor as the invention, regardless of the problem
`
`addressed, and, second, if the reference is not within the same field of endeavor as
`
`the invention, whether the reference still is reasonably pertinent to the particular
`
`problem with which the inventor was faced.
`
`
`
`14
`
`Petitioner Kiosoft Exhibit 1009
`17
`
`

`

`
`
`Post-Grant Review of U.S. Patent No. 11,488,174
`
`I further understand that the field of endeavor of a patent is not limited
`
`44.
`
`to the specific point of novelty, the narrowest possible conception of the field, or the
`
`particular focus within a given field. I also understand that a reference is reasonably
`
`pertinent if, even though it is in a different field from that of the inventor’s endeavor,
`
`it is one which, because of the matter with which it deals, logically would have
`
`commended itself to an inventor’s attention in considering the problem.
`
`45.
`
`I understand that an analysis of whether a claimed invention would have
`
`been obvious should be considered in view of (i) the scope and content of the prior
`
`art, (ii) any differences between the prior art and the claimed invention, (iii) the level
`
`of ordinary skill in the relevant art, and (iv) secondary considerations of non-
`
`obviousness (discussed below). I also understand that a prior art reference should
`
`be viewed as a whole.
`
`46.
`
`I understand that a prior art reference can disclose a claimed feature
`
`either because that feature is expressly described in the prior art reference, or because
`
`that feature is inherent in the disclosure of the prior art reference. I understand that
`
`something is inherent in a prior art reference only if the missing descriptive matter
`
`must necessarily be present. I also understand that inherency cannot be established
`
`by probabilities or possibilities, and the mere fact that something may result from a
`
`given set of circumstances is not enough for inherency.
`
`
`
`15
`
`Petitioner Kiosoft Exhibit 1009
`18
`
`

`

`
`
`Post-Grant Review of U.S. Patent No. 11,488,174
`
`I understand that, for a patent to be obvious, a POSITA must have had
`
`47.
`
`(in addition to a motivation to combine) a reasonable expectation of success in
`
`practicing the claimed invention based on the prior art. Whether a skilled artisan
`
`would have had a reasonable expectation of success is determined based on the
`
`degree of unpredictability in the art as well as the guidance provided by the art.
`
`48.
`
`I 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
`
`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 when 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.
`
`49.
`
`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 POSITA has good
`
`
`
`16
`
`Petitioner Kiosoft Exhibit 1009
`19
`
`

`

`
`
`Post-Grant Review of U.S. Patent No. 11,488,174
`
`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.
`
`50.
`
`I understand that when a POSITA would have reached the claimed
`
`invention through routine optimization, the invention may be deemed obvious. I
`
`understand that such routine optimization can involve testing an element or
`
`parameter that is termed a “results-effective” variable (that is, a variable that
`
`achieves a recognized result). I understand that routine optimization involves using
`
`only routine techniques and ordinary skill of a POSITA.
`
`51.
`
`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 POSITA to try such solutions. When the general conditions of a claim
`
`are disclosed in the prior art, I understand it is not inventive to discover the optimum
`
`or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
`
`52.
`
`I understand that a dependent claim (that is, each of claims 2-11, 13-18,
`
`and 20 of the ’174 patent) contains all of the elements of the independent claim from
`
`which it depends (as well as any elements of any dependent claim from which
`
`another dependent claim depends), in addition to the additional elements recited in
`
`the dependent claim language itself.
`
`
`
`17
`
`Petitioner Kiosoft Exhibit 1009
`20
`
`

`

`
`
`Post-Grant Review of U.S. Patent No. 11,488,174
`
`I understand that when considering the obviousness of an invention, a
`
`53.
`
`POSITA 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, but are not limited to,
`
`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 ’174 patent.
`
`54. As discussed herein, I have concluded that each of the Challenged
`
`Claims would have been obvious in view of the prior art references described below.
`
`
`VI.
`
`The ’174 Patent
`
`Overview of the Alleged Invention
`
`55. The ’174 patent is titled “Method and System for Performing Mobile
`
`Device-to-Machine Payments” and relates to “mobile-device-to-machine payment
`
`processing systems over a non-persistent network.” EX1001, 1:24-27.
`
`56. The ’174 patent describes “mobile-device-to-machine payment systems
`
`[for processing transactions] over a non-persistent network connection,” EX1001,
`
`1:25-26, and “facilitating a cashless transaction for purchase of at least one product
`
`or service by a user from a payment accepting unit that preferably has input
`
`mechanisms.” EX1001, 3:52-55.
`
`
`
`18
`
`Petitioner Kiosoft Exhibit 1009
`21
`
`

`

`
`
`Post-Grant Review of U.S. Patent No. 11,488,174
`
`57. The ’174 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.” Id., 9:46-53.
`
`The ’174 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 washer and dryers, and kiosks. Id.,
`
`1:54-65.
`
`58. The ’174 patent acknowledges that “[v]ending machines (or ‘automatic
`
`retailing’ machines), in the broadest sense, have been around for thousands of
`
`years.” Id., 1:28-29. However, the ’174 patent 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. 1:60-62.
`
`59. The ’174 patent describes “wireless communications”