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. 11,488,174
`Issued: November 1, 2022
`Filed: July 21, 2020
`Inventor: Paresh K. Patel
`Title: Method And System For Performing Mobile Device-To-Machine
`Payments
`
`______________________
`
`Post-Grant Review No. Unassigned
`______________________
`
`PETITION FOR POST-GRANT REVIEW
`
`
`
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 321-329 and 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.1-42.80, 42.200 et seq
`
`
`Mail Stop “PATENT BOARD”
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Petition for Post-Grant Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 11,488,174
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`I.
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES (37 C.F.R. §42.8) ................................................ 1
`A.
`Real Parties-in-Interest (37 C.F.R. §42.8(b)(1)) .......................................... 1
`B. Notice of Related Matters (37 C.F.R. §42.8(b)(2)) ...................................... 2
`C. Designation of Lead and Back-Up Counsel (37 C.F.R. §42.8(b)(3)) .......... 4
`D. Notice of Service Information (37 C.F.R. §42.8(b)(4)) ............................... 5
`III. STANDING AND ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS ................................. 5
`A.
`Time for Filing (37 C.F.R. §42.202) ............................................................ 5
`B.
`Payment of Fees (37 C.F.R. §42.203); Procedural Statements .................... 5
`C. Grounds for Standing (37 C.F.R. §42.204(a)) .............................................. 5
`D.
`Statement of Precise Relief Requested and Reasons Therefor (37 C.F.R.
`§42.204(b)) ................................................................................................... 6
`Claim Construction ....................................................................................... 7
`E.
`“trigger condition” ..................................................................................... 7
`1.
`“preemptively” .......................................................................................... 9
`2.
`IV. THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE UNPATENTABLE .......................... 10
`A. Overview of the Alleged Invention ............................................................ 11
`B.
`The State of the Art Prior to December 2013 ............................................. 14
`1.
`Electronic Payment at Unattended Automatic Retail Machines ............. 14
`2.
`RSSI: A Short-Range Communication Feature Routinely Used in
`Proximity Detection and Hands-Free Payment ....................................... 18
`Preemptive Authorization of Funds, Before Selection of Product
`/Service, and Use of Authorization and Payment Zones for Purchase
`Transaction by Mobile Device ................................................................ 20
`The ’174 Patent Prosecution History .......................................................... 22
`C.
`D. A Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art ................................................ 25
`E.
`Priority Date of the Challenged Claims ..................................................... 25
`F.
`Ground 1: Claims 1-20 Are Unpatentable Under §101.............................. 25
`
`3.
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`
`
`Petition for Post-Grant Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 11,488,174
`
`Legal standard ......................................................................................... 25
`1.
`Application to the Challenged Claims .................................................... 27
`2.
`a. Step 1 ....................................................................................................... 27
`b. Under Step 2A, All of the Challenged Claims Recite Judicial Exceptions
`With No Practical Application ............................................................. 27
`(i) Step 2A, Prong One .............................................................................. 27
`(ii) Step 2A, Prong Two ............................................................................. 42
`c. Under Step 2B, All of the Challenged Claims Simply Append Well-
`Understood, Routine, Conventional Activities .................................... 45
`G. Ground 2: Claims 1-20 Would Have Been Obvious Over Kamat in view
`of Arora and Dixon ..................................................................................... 51
`Overview of the Prior Art — Kamat, Arora, and Dixon ......................... 51
`1.
`a. Kamat (EX1006) ..................................................................................... 52
`b. Arora (EX1007) ....................................................................................... 55
`c. Dixon (EX1008) ...................................................................................... 59
`2. Motivation to Modify Kamat in view of Arora and Dixon ..................... 61
`3. Where Each Limitation is Found in the Prior Art ................................... 63
`V. DISCRETION UNDER 35 U.S.C. §325(d) .................................................. 82
`1.
`Factors (a) and (c): (a) The Similarities and Material Differences
`Between the Asserted Art and the Prior Art Involved 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 .................................................................................................. 83
`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 ................................ 86
`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 .......... 88
`VI. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 89
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`
`
`
`Petition for Post-Grant Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 11,488,174
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Cases
`Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l,
`573 U.S. 208 (2014) ............................................................................................ 25
`buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc.,
`765 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2014) .......................................................................... 44
`Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Servs.,
`859 F.3d 1044 (Fed. Cir. 2017) .................................................................... 34, 43
`Cyberfone Sys., L.L.C. v. CNN Interactive Grp., Inc.,
`558 F. App’x 988 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ..................................................................... 44
`In re Elbaum,
`No. 2021-1719, 2021 WL 3923280 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 2, 2021) ............................ 44
`Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A.,
`830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .................................................................... 47, 48
`Enfish LLC v. Microsoft Corp.,
`822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .......................................................................... 26
`Fort Props, Inc. v. Am. Master Lease LLC,
`671 F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .......................................................................... 42
`Gree, Inc. v. Supercell Oy,
`Case No. 2020-2125 (Fed. Cir. May 10, 2021) .................................................. 43
`Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp.,
`838 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .......................................................................... 44
`Inventor Holdings, LLC v. Bed Bath & Beyond, Inc.,
`876 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2017) .................................................................... 36, 51
`Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc.,
`566 U.S. 66 (2012) ............................................................................ 25, 26, 30, 45
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Petition for Post-Grant Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 11,488,174
`
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) .............................................. 7, 8, 9, 10
`Smart Sys. Innovations, LLC v. Chicago Transit Auth.,
`873 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2017) .................................................................... 33, 44
`Tranxition, Inc. v. Lenovo (United States) Inc.,
`664 Fed. Appx. 968 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ...................................................... 26, 30, 35
`Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc.,
`90 F.3d 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1996) .......................................................................... 8, 9
`Western Express Bancshares, LLC v. Green Dot Corp.,
`816 F. App’x 485 (Fed. Cir. 2020) ............................................................... 33, 44
`P.T.A.B. Cases
`Advanced Bionics, LLC v. MED-EL Elektromedizinishe Gerate Gmbh,
`IPR2019-01469, Paper 6 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 13, 2020) ...................................... 82, 83
`Advanced Energy Industries v. Reno Technologies,
`IPR2021-01397, Paper 7 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 16, 2022) ............................................ 84
`Apple Inc. v. Seven Networks, LLC,
`PR2020-00285, Paper 10 (P.T.A.B. July 28, 2020) ........................................... 85
`Becton, Dickinson & Co. v. B. Braun Melsungen AG,
`IPR2017-01586, Paper 8 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 15, 2017) ............................... 82, 83, 86
`J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. v. Maxim Integrated Products, Inc.,
`CBM2014-00179, Paper 11 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 20, 2015) ....................................... 87
`KioSoft Technologies, LLC v. PayRange Inc.,
`PGR2021-00077, Paper 38 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 26, 2022) .................................... 2, 48
`Ex Parte Latoya H. James,
`2019 WL 2763407 (P.T.A.B. June 21, 2019) ..............................................passim
`Lyft, Inc. v. RideShare Displays, Inc.,
`IPR2021-01602, Paper 7 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 11, 2022) ........................................... 86
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`Petition for Post-Grant Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 11,488,174
`
`
`Mmodal LLC v. Nuance Communications, Inc.,
`2019 WL 469510, IPR2018-01355, Paper 7,
`(P.T.A.B. Feb. 6, 2019) ....................................................................................... 88
`Ex Parte Oliver S. C. Quigley, Nathan Mccauley, And Bob Lee
`2019 WL 366814 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 15, 2019) ........................................................ 35
`Ex Parte Rajen S. Prabhu And David Chan,
`2018 WL 2131670 (P.T.A.B Apr. 27, 2018) ...................................................... 35
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v. Power2B, Inc.,
`IPR2021-01190, Paper 11 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 6, 2022) ............................................ 85
`Square, Inc. et al. v. Unwired Planet, LLC et al.,
`CBM2014-00156, Paper 40 (P.T.A.B Dec. 22, 2015)...................... 36, 41, 43, 47
`Statutes
`35 U.S.C. §101 ..................................................................................................passim
`35 U.S.C. §103 ....................................................................................................... 1, 6
`35 U.S.C. §314 ........................................................................................................... 3
`35 U.S.C. §314(a) .................................................................................................... 87
`35 U.S.C. §§321-329.................................................................................................. 1
`35 U.S.C. §324(a) ...................................................................................................... 4
`35 U.S.C. §324(b) ...................................................................................................... 3
`35 U.S.C. §325(d) .................................................................................. 82, 83, 85, 87
`Other Authorities
`37 C.F.R. §42.6(c) ...................................................................................................... 6
`37 C.F.R. §42.10(b). .................................................................................................. 5
`37 C.F.R. §42.15(b) ................................................................................................... 5
`37 C.F.R. §42.63(e) .................................................................................................... 5
`
`
`
`vi
`
`

`

`Petition for Post-Grant Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 11,488,174
`
`
`37 C.F.R. §42.200 et seq. ........................................................................................... 1
`37 C.F.R. §42.2000(b). .............................................................................................. 7
`37 C.F.R. §42.202 ...................................................................................................... 5
`37 C.F.R. §42.203 ...................................................................................................... 5
`37 C.F.R. §42.203(a) .................................................................................................. 5
`37 C.F.R. §42.204(a) .................................................................................................. 5
`37 C.F.R. §42.204(b) ................................................................................................. 6
`37 C.F.R. §42.8 .......................................................................................................... 1
`37 C.F.R. §42.8(b)(1) ................................................................................................. 1
`37 C.F.R. §42.8(b)(2) ................................................................................................. 2
`37 C.F.R. §42.8(b)(3) ................................................................................................. 4
`37 C.F.R. §42.8(b)(4) ................................................................................................. 5
`MPEP §2106.05(d) ................................................................................................... 26
`MPEP §2106.05(a)-(c), (e)-(h) ................................................................................ 26
`MPEP §2106.1 ......................................................................................................... 26
`84 Fed. Reg. 50-56 (Jan. 7, 2019) ......................................................... 25, 26, 27, 42
`83 Fed. Reg. 51340 (Oct. 11, 2018) .......................................................................... 7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`vii
`
`

`

`
`
`Petition for Post-Grant Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 11,488,174
`
`EXHIBIT LIST (37 C.F.R. §42.63(e))
`
`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
`
`1009
`1010
`1011
`
`
`
`
`
` 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”)
` Declaration of Safwan Zaheer
` Curriculum Vitae of Safwan Zaheer
` Bluetooth Specification 1.2
`
`viii
`
`

`

`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Petition for Post-Grant Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 11,488,174
`
`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. 11,488,174 (the “’174 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,” EX1009), 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)
`
`A. Real Parties-in-Interest (37 C.F.R. §42.8(b)(1))
`
`Petitioners are the real parties in interest for this matter.
`
`1
`
`

`

`According to a statement filed by the Patentee during prosecution of the
`
`Petition for Post-Grant Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 11,488,174
`
`
`
`’174 patent, pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §3.73(c), PayRange Inc. claims to be “the
`
`assignee of the entire right, title and interest in the patent application…by virtue
`
`of an assignment from the inventors of the parent application…. recorded…on
`
`August 14, 2014, at Reel 033538, Frame 0157….” EX1002, Statement filed July
`
`21, 2020.
`
`B. Notice of Related Matters (37 C.F.R. §42.8(b)(2))
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,719,833 (“’833 patent”), the parent of the ’174 patent, and
`
`U.S. Patent Nos. 10,891,614 (“’614 patent”) and 10,891,608 (“’608 patent”), have
`
`been asserted by the Patent Owner, PayRange, Inc. (“PayRange” or the “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.) (“’833 Patent
`
`Litigation”). The ’608 and ’614 patents share common priority claims with the ’833
`
`patent.
`
`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 38.
`
`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
`
`2
`
`

`

`
`was issued finding Claims 1–6, 8–10, 14-15, and 18–25 of the ’614 Patent
`
`Petition for Post-Grant Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 11,488,174
`
`unpatentable under §101. PGR2021-00093, Paper 38.
`
`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 (“’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.
`
`KioSoft Technologies, LLC et al., Case No.: 1:20-cv-20970-RS (S.D. Fla.) (“’296
`
`Litigation”), along with U.S. Patent No. 9,134,994 (“’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.
`
`3
`
`

`

`A petition for Post-Grant Review, docketed as PGR2022-00035, was filed on
`
`Petition for Post-Grant Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 11,488,174
`
`
`
`April 27, 2022, against U.S. Patent No. 11,074,580, which is a continuation-in-part
`
`of the ’833 patent. This PGR was denied institution pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §324(a).
`
`U.S. Patent No. 11,481,772 is the grandchild of the ’614 patent via two
`
`continuation applications. A petition for Post-Grant Review, docketed as PGR2023-
`
`00042, was filed on July 25, 2023. This PGR is awaiting consideration by the Board.
`
`C. 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
`
`Backup Lead Counsel
`
`Holiday W. Banta (Reg. No. 40,311)
`H.Banta@icemiller.com
`Ice Miller LLP
`One American Square, Suite 2900
`Indianapolis, IN 46282
`317-236-5882
`317-236-2219 (Fax)
`
`Safet Metjahic (Reg. No. 58,677)
`Safet.Metjahic@icemiller.com
`Ice Miller LLP
`1500 Broadway, 29th Floor
`New York, NY 10036
`212-824-4943
`212-824-4947 (Fax)
`
`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)
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Petition for Post-Grant Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 11,488,174
`D. 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, Safet.Metjahic@icemiller.com, and
`
`Tom.Rammer@icemiller.com.
`
`III. STANDING AND ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS
`
`A. Time for Filing (37 C.F.R. §42.202)
`
`The ’174 patent issued on November 1, 2022. This Petition is being filed by
`
`the nine-month deadline of August 1, 2023.
`
`B.
`
`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 (“PTO”) 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.
`
`C. Grounds for Standing (37 C.F.R. §42.204(a))
`
`The undersigned and Petitioners certify that (1) the ’174 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.
`
`5
`
`

`

`D.
`
`Statement of Precise Relief Requested and Reasons Therefor (37
`
`Petition for Post-Grant Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 11,488,174
`
`
`
`C.F.R. §42.204(b))
`
`Petitioners respectfully request PGR and cancellation of the Challenged
`
`Claims 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
`
`(EX1009), which Declaration explains what the prior art would have conveyed to a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”).
`
`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
`
`For at least the reasons set forth in this Petition, Petitioners respectfully
`
`request that the Board institute trial on the grounds set forth herein and determine
`
`that the Challenged Claims are unpatentable.
`
`6
`
`

`

`
`
`E. Claim Construction
`
`Petition for Post-Grant Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 11,488,174
`
`Claims in PGR petitions are construed using the same standard as in district
`
`court. See 83 Fed. Reg. 51340 (Oct. 11, 2018); Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d
`
`1303, 1312-13 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). Claims are construed in accordance with
`
`the ordinary and customary meaning of such claims as understood by a POSITA and
`
`the prosecution history pertaining to the patent. 37 C.F.R. §42.200(b). Claim terms
`
`are generally given their “ordinary and customary meaning,” i.e., “the meaning that
`
`the term would have to a [POSITA] in question at the time of the invention, i.e., as
`
`of the effective filing date of the patent application.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1313.
`
`Petitioners submit that, for purposes of this Petition, the Board need not
`
`construe any claim term other than those presented herein in order to resolve the
`
`parties’ dispute; and, with the exception of the claim terms presented herein, 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 ’833 Litigation, the ’296 Litigation, or as disputes may otherwise arise.
`
`1.
`
`“trigger condition”
`
`The term “trigger condition” appears in the claim limitation “detecting, by an
`
`application executing on the mobile device, a trigger condition to perform the
`
`cashless transaction with the automatic retail machine.” EX1001, 33:27-29, 34:61-
`
`63, 36:26-28. The term “trigger condition” should be construed to mean: “Received
`
`7
`
`

`

`
`Signal Strength Indicator (RSSI) value above a predetermined baseline value.”
`
`Petition for Post-Grant Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 11,488,174
`
`EX1009, ¶¶28-35.
`
`
`
`Each of the independent claims 1, 12, and 19 includes this same claim
`
`element, “detecting, by an application executing on the mobile device, a trigger
`
`condition to perform the cashless transaction with the automatic retail machine.”
`
`EX1001, 33:27-29, 34:61-63, 36:26-38. Starting with the claim language itself
`
`(Vitronics, 90 F.3d at 1582) and reading the term trigger condition in the context in
`
`which it appears in the Challenged Claims (Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1313), the meaning
`
`of the term trigger condition cannot be ascertained from a plain and ordinary reading
`
`alone. EX1009, ¶30.
`
`Turning to the ’174 patent specification, since the specification acts as a sort
`
`of dictionary (Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1321), the term trigger condition necessarily
`
`relates to an RSSI threshold. See, e.g., 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”).
`
`EX1009, ¶31. An analysis of the specification in its entirety, including drawings,
`
`8
`
`

`

`
`confirms that the words “trigger” and “trigger condition” are used solely in the ’174
`
`Petition for Post-Grant Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 11,488,174
`
`patent in relation to the RSSI calculated by the mobile device. EX1009, ¶¶32-36.
`
`The prosecution history that resulted in issuance of the ’174 patent does not provide
`
`any insight concerning the meaning of the words trigger condition or the claim
`
`limitation in which the words appear.
`
`2.
`
`“preemptively”
`
`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. The term “preemptively” should be construed to mean: “before
`
`authorizing an amount of funds for use in conjunction with the cashless transaction
`
`at that automatic retail machine.” EX1009, ¶27.
`
`Each of the independent claims 1, 12, and 19 includes this same 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, 33:13-19, 34:48-53, 36:13-18. Starting with the claim
`
`language itself (Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir.
`
`1996)) and reading the term preemptively in the context in which it appears in the
`
`Challenged Claims (Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1313), the meaning of the term
`
`preemptively cannot be ascertained from a plain and ordinary reading alone.
`
`9
`
`

`

`Turning to the ’174 patent specification, since the specification acts as a sort
`
`Petition for Post-Grant Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 11,488,174
`
`
`
`of dictionary (Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1321), the term preemptively necessarily relates
`
`to authorizing an amount of funds to be ready to conduct the cashless transaction at
`
`the automatic retail machine. EX1001, 32:35-38. The only instance in which the
`
`term “preemptively” appears in the patent, other than in Claims 1, 12, and 19, is in
`
`the specification where it states: “When a user is in range, the adapter module 100
`
`(via a mobile device 150) sends an AuthRequest to the server 130 to preemptively
`
`obtain authorization to make funds available.” Id. at 32:35-38.
`
`IV. THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE UNPATENTABLE
`
`The “invention” of the ’174 patent is directed to nothing more than identifying
`
`a merchant, setting aside funds to make a purchase, and enabling completion of a
`
`purchase from the merchant using conventional and generic wireless and mobile
`
`technology—an abstract matter that is patent-ineligible. EX1009, ¶¶97-99.
`
`The Challenged Claims should never have been allowed. The Challenged
`
`Claims are drawn to nothing more than using generic computers communicating by
`
`generic methods to perform an abstract idea that can, and has been, performed by
`
`a human alone using only the body and mind. Rather than presenting a technical
`
`solution to a technical problem, the Challenged Claims are directed only to the
`
`abstract idea of authorizing and enabling a financial transaction by means of well-
`
`understood, routine, conventional devices using well-understood, routine and
`
`10
`
`

`

`
`conventional methods to communicate information between a customer and
`
`Petition for Post-Grant Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 11,488,174
`
`merchant in performing a financial transaction. EX1009, ¶¶98-101.
`
`For similar reasons, the Challenged Claims are obvious in view of the prior
`
`art, which art discloses the same well-understood, routine, conventional technology
`
`operating as such technology does—i.e., by the same well-understood, routine,
`
`conventional methodologies.
`
`For the reasons set forth in this Petition and the attached Zaheer Declaration
`
`(EX1009), Petitioners respectfully request that the Board institute trial on the
`
`grounds set forth herein and determine that the Challenged Claims are unpatentable.
`
`A. Overview of the Alleged Invention
`
`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.
`
`11
`
`

`

`Figure 5 of the ’174 patent (reproduced below) depicts “block schematic[s]
`
`Petition for Post-Grant Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 11,488,174
`
`
`
`that show[] elements of the system.” Id., 6:51-54.
`
`
`
`Figure 1 of the ’174 patent (reproduced below) depicts a schematic diagram
`
`showing a payment accepting unit 120
`
`with an adapter module 100, and “three
`
`zones: a first ‘communication zone’
`
`(e.g., ‘Bluetooth range’), a second
`
`‘authorization zone,’ and a
`
`third
`
`‘payment zone.’” Id., 6:38–40. With
`
`a preloaded application 140 running on
`
`a mobile device 150, the device continuously scans for a signal, communication, or
`
`transmission from the adapter module 100, which constantly advertises its
`
`12
`
`

`

`
`availability via Bluetooth. Id., 29:18–25. The mobile device 150 then tracks and
`
`Petition for Post-Grant Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 11,488,174
`
`monitors the signal strength until the user is in the authorization zone threshold. Id.,
`
`29:25–28. The zone thresholds are determined by an In-Range Heuristics
`
`mathematical computation to derive an optimal RSSI threshold. Id., 14:45–56.
`
`As the user enters the authorization zone, the mobile device 150 creates and
`
`sends a request to authorize