PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

Harland Clarke Corp. Petitioner v.

EZShield, Inc. Patent Owner Patent No. 8,346,637 Filing Date: October 14, 2003 Issue Date: January 1, 2013

Title: SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR PROVIDING RECOVERY FOR VICTIMS OF CHECK FRAUD

Covered Business Method Patent Review No.: CBM2013-00016 Petition Filed: April 23, 2013

PATENT OWNER'S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE UNDER 37 C.F.R. ? 42.207

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. Introduction..................................................................................................................... 1 II. Patent Owner's Background on Patent Owner, Petitioner, and Petitioner's Copying of

Patented Check Fraud Protection Program? ................................................................. 1 III. Background on the `637 Patent...................................................................................... 7 IV. Proper Construction of the Challenged Claims .............................................................. 8

A. Terms Requiring Construction............................................................................... 8 1. "A written limited power of attorney authorizing collection of an amount of money fraudulently obtained from the checking account"........................... 10 2. "Database"................................................................................................... 13 3. "Record" ...................................................................................................... 16 4. "Check"........................................................................................................ 16 5. "Printing"...................................................................................................... 17 6. A "check within the range of numbers of the checks in such order" ........... 18 7. "Check fraud protection".............................................................................. 20 8. "Computer implemented" ............................................................................ 22 9. "An assignment of a right of recovery by the consumer [/against a financial institution]" ................................................................................................... 23 10. "Indicia"........................................................................................................ 24

V. The Petition Should be Denied For Failing to Show that the Claims Are More Likely Than Not to be Invalidated ........................................................................................... 25 A. The Challenged Claims Are Patent Eligible Under 35 U.S.C. ? 101 (Petitioner's Ground 1)............................................................................................................. 25 1. Legal Standard............................................................................................ 25 2. The `637 Patent Does Not Claim an Abstract Idea ..................................... 30 3. Petitioner's Reliance on the Interim Bilski Guidance is Misplaced.............. 34 B. The Challenged Claims Are Patentable Under 35 U.S. C. ? 112........................ 36 1. The `637 Patent Provides an Adequate Written Description (Petitioner's Ground 2) .................................................................................................... 39 2. The `637 Patent Enables the Challenged Claims (Petitioner's Ground 3) .. 45

i

Case No.: CBM2013-00016 Patent Owner's Preliminary Response

3. The Challenged Claims are Definite (Petitioner's Ground 4) ...................... 52 C. The Challenged Claims Are Patentable Under 35 U.S.C. ? 103......................... 54

1. Overview of Petitioner's 35 U.S.C. ? 103 Arguments ................................. 54 2. Summary of References ............................................................................. 56 3. The Three- and Four-way Combinations of Carney With Other Art are

Missing Key Claim Limitations of the `637 Patent ....................................... 61 4. The Two- and Three-way Combinations of With Other

Art are Missing Key Claim Limitations of the `637 Patent ........................... 73 VI. Conclusion.................................................................................................................... 80

ii

Case No.: CBM2013-00016 Patent Owner's Preliminary Response

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

CASES

ALZA Corp. v. Andrx Pharm., LLC, 603 F.3d 935 (Fed. Cir. 2010)............................................................................. 46, 47, 48

Ariad Pharm., Inc. v. Eli Lilly and Co., 598 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2010)(en banc) ................................................................ passim

Auto. Techs. Int'l, Inc. v. BMW of N. Am., Inc., 501 F.3d 1274 (Fed. Cir. 2007)................................................................................. 47, 49

Bilski v. Kappos, 130 S. Ct. 3218 (2010).............................................................................................passim

In re Buchner, 929 F.2d 660, 18 U.S.P.Q.2d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 1991) ...................................................... 51

Catalina Mktg. Int'l, Inc. v, , Inc., 289 F.3d 801 (Fed. Cir. 2002)................................................................................... 22, 23

CLS Bank Int'l v. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd., 106 U.S.P.Q.2d 1696 (Fed. Cir. 2013)................................................................ 26, 27, 28

CRS Advanced Techs., Inc. v. Frontline Techs., Inc. (PTAB 2013) (Case CBM2012-00005) (JSB) ........................................................... 37, 38

Dealertrack, Inc. v. Huber, 674 F.3d 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2012)....................................................................................... 27

Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. 303 (1980)........................................................................................................ 25

Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (1981).................................................................................................. 26, 27

Exxon Research and Engineering Co. v. United States, 265 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2001)................................................................................. 38, 52

Free Motion Fitness, Inc. v. Cybex Int'l, Inc., 423 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2005)....................................................................................... 12

iii

Case No.: CBM2013-00016 Patent Owner's Preliminary Response

Genentech, Inc. v. Novo Nordisk A/S, 108 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 1997)....................................................................................... 47

Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63 (1972).......................................................................................................... 27

Ex parte Levy, 17 U.S.P.Q.2d 1461 (B.P.A.I. 1990) ......................................................................... 75, 76

Lockwood v. American Airlines, 107 F.3d 1565 (Fed. Cir. 1997)....................................................................................... 40

Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc. 132 S. Ct. 1289 (2012).................................................................................. 25, 26, 28, 29

In re Miller, 441 F.2d 689,169 U.S.P.Q. 597 (CCPA 1971) ............................................................... 53

Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584 (1978)........................................................................................................ 26

Personalized Media Commc'ns v. Int'l Trade Comm'n, 161 F.3d 696 (Fed. Cir. 1998)......................................................................................... 52

Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005)....................................................................................... 18

In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531, 28 U.S.P.Q.2d 1955 (Fed. Cir. 1993) ........................................................ 77

SanDisk Corp. v. Memorex Prods., Inc., 415 F.3d 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2005)....................................................................................... 20

SAP America, Inc. v. Versata Dev. Group, Inc., at 29 (PTAB 2013) .......................................................................................................... 29

Solomon v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 216 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2000)....................................................................................... 53

Teleflex, Inc. v. Focosa No. Am. Corp., 299 F.3d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2002)....................................................................................... 53

iv

Case No.: CBM2013-00016 Patent Owner's Preliminary Response

Ultramercial, Inc v. Hulu LLC, No. 2010-1544, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 12715 (Fed. Cir. June 21, 2013) ............... passim

Vas-Cath Inc. v. Sakharam D. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555 (Fed. Cir. 1991)................................................................................. 40, 41

In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731 (Fed. Cir. 1988)....................................................................... 46, 47, 49, 51

In re Wright, 866 F. 2d 422 (Fed. Cir. 1989)........................................................................................ 40

In re Wright, 999 F.2d 1557 (Fed. Cir. 1993)........................................................................... 46, 48, 49

STATUTES 35 U.S.C.

? 101 ........................................................................................................................ passim ? 103 ................................................................................................................... 25, 54, 80 ? 112 ........................................................................................................................ passim ? 273(a)(3) ...................................................................................................................... 35 ? 273(b)(1) ...................................................................................................................... 35 ? 324 ............................................................................................................................... 54 ? 324(a)........................................................................................................................... 55 ? 325(d)........................................................................................................................... 68 REGULATIONS 37 C.F.R. ? 42.207(a)........................................................................................................................ 1 ? 42.208 .......................................................................................................................... 54 ? 42.300(b)........................................................................................................................ 8

v

RULES

Case No.: CBM2013-00016 Patent Owner's Preliminary Response

MPEP ? 2143(F)......................................................................................................................... 69 ? 2161.01(III)............................................................................................................. 47, 48 ? 2164.01(a).............................................................................................................. 51, 52 ? 2164.03 ........................................................................................................................ 51 ? 2173 ............................................................................................................................. 52 ? 2173.04 ........................................................................................................................ 53

OTHER AUTHORITIES

American Heritage Dictionary (4th ed. 2002) ........................................................... 10, 15, 25

Barron's Law Dictionary (3rd ed. 1991) .......................................................................... 11, 23

The Computer Desktop Encyclopedia (2d. ed. 1999)..................................................... 15, 16

Webster Third New International Dictionary (3d. ed. 2002)............................................ 11, 24

vi

EXHIBIT LIST

Case No.: CBM2013-00016 Patent Owner's Preliminary Response

EXHIBIT NO. 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

2013 2014 2015

DESCRIPTION Definition of "power of attorney" from American Heritage Dictionary 1377 (4th ed. 2002) Definition of "power of attorney" from Barron's Law Dictionary 363 (3rd ed. 1991) Definition of "power of attorney" from Webster Third New International Dictionary 1779 (3d. ed. 2002) Definition of "database" from American Heritage Dictionary 463 (4th ed. 2002) Definition of "database" from The Computer Desktop Encyclopedia 202204 (2d. ed. 1999). Definition of "DBMS" from The Computer Desktop Encyclopedia 217-219 (2d. ed. 1999). Definition of "record" from The Computer Desktop Encyclopedia 758 (2d. ed. 1999). Definition of "assignment" from Barron's Law Dictionary 32 (3rd ed. 1991) Definition of "indicia" from Webster Third New International Dictionary 1150 (3d. ed. 2002) Definition of "indicia" from American Heritage Dictionary 892 (4th ed. 2002) Final Written Decision in SAP America, Inc. v. Versata Development Group, Inc. (PTAB 2013) (Case CBM2012-00001) (MPT) Decision instituting Covered Business Method Review in CRS Advanced Technologies, Inc. v. Frontline Technologies, Inc. (PTAB 2013) (Case CBM2012-00005) (JSB) MICR Basics Handbook U.S. Patent No. 5,347,302 to Simonoff U.S. Patent No. 7,788,175 to Hadfield

vii

 ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download