Trials@uspto.

gov
Tel: 571-272-7822

Paper 7
Entered: November 29, 2016

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

____________
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________
UNIFIED PATENTS INC.,
Petitioner,
v.
SENTEGRA, LLC,
Patent Owner.
____________
Case IPR2016-01109
Patent 8,706,627 B2
_______________
Before JOSIAH C. COCKS, MATTHEW R. CLEMENTS, and
KEVIN C. TROCK, Administrative Patent Judges.
TROCK, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION
Instituting Inter Partes Review
37 C.F.R. 42.108

IPR2016-01109
Patent 8,706,627 B2
I. INTRODUCTION
Unified Patents Inc. (Petitioner) filed a Petition requesting an inter
partes review of claims 1, 4, 6, 7, 1013, and 16 (the challenged claims)
of U.S. Patent No. 8,706,627 B2 (Ex. 1001, the 627 patent). Paper 1
(Pet.). Sentegra, LLC (Patent Owner) filed a Preliminary Response to
the Petition. Paper 6 (Prelim. Resp.).
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. 314, which provides that an
inter partes review must not be instituted unless . . . the information
presented in the petition . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that
the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims
challenged in the petition. 35 U.S.C. 314(a). Upon considering the
Petition and Preliminary Response, we determine that Petitioner has
established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing the
unpatentability of at least one of the challenged claims. Accordingly, we
institute an inter partes review.
A.Related Proceedings
The parties have identified several district court proceedings relating
to the 627 patent, including Sentegra, LLC v. Asus Computer International,
No. 1:15-cv-03768 (S.D.N.Y. May 15, 2015); Sentegra, LLC v. Samsung
Electronics America, Inc., No. 1:15-cv-09266 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 24, 2015);
Sentegra, LLC v. BLU Products, Inc., No. 1:16-cv-00158 (D. Co. Jan. 21,
2016); Sentegra, LLC v. Azend Group Corp., No. 1:16-cv-00263 (D. Co.
Feb. 4, 2016); Sentegra, LLC v. LG Electronics MobileComm USA, Inc., No.
1:15-cv-01535 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 2, 2015) (settled & dismissed Nov. 17,
2015); Sentegra, LLC v. Lenovo Group Ltd., No. 1:14-cv-09096 (S.D.N.Y.
Nov. 14, 2014) (settled & dismissed Apr. 28, 2015); Sentegra, LLC v.
2

IPR2016-01109
Patent 8,706,627 B2
Blackberry Ltd., No.1:14-cv-08389 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 21, 2014) (settled &
dismissed Feb. 27, 2015); Sentegra, LLC v. Asus Computer Intl, No.
1:16-cv-00132-MSK-MJW (D. Colo. Jan. 19, 2016); and Sentegra, LLC v.
Asus Computer Intl, No. 3:16-cv-03136-WHA (N.D. Cal. May 15, 2015).
Pet. 23; Paper 5, 1.
B. The 627 Patent
The 627 patent relates to apparatus, systems and methods to
wirelessly pay for purchases, electronically interface with financial
accounting systems, and electronically record and wirelessly communicate
authorization transactions using Personal Digital Assistant (PDA).
Ex. 1001, Abstract. Figure 1e of the 627 patent is shown below:

IPR2016-01109
Patent 8,706,627 B2
Id. at Fig. 1e. Figure 1e illustrates major node relationships when a PDA
device is used to purchase an authorization transfer, tickets for example, in
an exemplary embodiment of the invention. Id. at 1:4445, 2:5760. The
627 patent explains that the purchase of various types of tickets is the
purchase of the authorization to do somethingto attend a movie, to take a
particular airline flight, and the like. Id. at 1:4547.
The 627 patent explains that a user could use PC (760) hosting a
browser client to order a ticket from ticket broker server (900) over the
Internet. Id. at 7:5559. Ticket broker (900) would open communications
link (905) to Immtec ticket server (770) and request an eTicket certificate.
Id. at 7:6163. The certificate would be sent to PC (760), where it would be
used to setup PDA device (700) by sending the eTicket certificate to the
PDA device via communications link (795). Id. at 7:6466, 8:79. Immtec
ticket server (770) would send a copy of the eTicket certificate via
communications link (775) to a POP (point of purchase) ticket server (780),
located at or accessible by a POP ticket terminal at the site where the ticket
would be used. Id. at 7:678:4. The 627 patent also explains that PDA
(700) would be equipped with a wireless interface (705) through which the
PDA could communicate with POP eTicket client terminal (710) located at
the site where the ticket would be used. Id. at 5:6063, 6:13. The eTicket
certificate would be verified by the POP eTicket client terminal via
communications link (785) to the POP ticket server. Id. at 8:1315.
C. Challenged Claims of the 627 Patent
Challenged claims 1 and 11 are independent, and claims 4, 6, 7, 10,
12, 13, and 16 depend therefrom. Claim 1 is illustrative and is reproduced
below:
4

IPR2016-01109
Patent 8,706,627 B2
1. A wireless handheld device for executing a mobile transaction
using the wireless handheld device, said wireless handheld
device comprising:
a data storage device adapted for storing data;
a user input device;
an executable memory storage device adapted for storing
executable program instructions, the executable memory storage
device encoded with a first set of executable computer program
instructions, and a second set of executable computer program
instructions;
a microprocessor programmed for executing the first set of
executable computer program instructions, and the second set of
executable computer program instructions;
wireless communication hardware adapted for communications
using wireless Internet protocols over a wireless Internet
connection;
short-range wireless communication hardware adapted for
communications using wireless short-range communication
protocols;
said microprocessor, executing the first set of executable
computer program instructions, accesses a content host computer
device at an Internet accessible address according to a user input
through said user input device of an indication of said Internetaccessible address, said accessing said content host computer
device comprising accessing said Internet-accessible address
through said wireless communication hardware using wireless
Internet protocols through said wireless Internet connection; and
said microprocessor, executing the second set of executable
computer program instructions:
requests said content host computer device for a particular
authorization certificate for exchange with a particular merchant,
receives from said content host computer device a request for
security and payment information to pay for said particular
authorization certificate,
5

IPR2016-01109
Patent 8,706,627 B2
communicates security and payment information to said content
host computer device to pay for said particular authorization
certificate,
receives an authorization from said content host computer device
to download said particular authorization certificate,
executes a downloading of data from a memory storage device
associated with either the content host computer device or a
content provider computer device, said executing said
downloading of data comprising downloading said data from
said memory storage device to said wireless handheld device
through said wireless communication hardware using wireless
Internet protocols through said wireless Internet connection, said
data comprising said particular authorization certificate,
activates a communication by said content host computer device
to said content provider computer device of confirmation data
comprising said payment information, security information, and
said particular authorization certificate, said content provider
computer system being accessible by point-of-sale devices for
said particular merchant, and
executes a storing of said data downloaded through the content
host computer device in the data storage device of said wireless
handheld device.
Ex. 1001, 62:4563:41. Independent claim 11 includes similar recitations.
D. Evidence Relied Upon
Petitioner relies upon the following references:
Maes
US 6,016,476
Jan. 18, 2000

Ex. 1004

Ikeda

JN H10-69553

Mar. 10, 1998

Ex. 1005 1

Paltenghe

WO 99/24892

May 20, 1999

Ex. 1006

Pet. 5, 6. Petitioner also relies upon the Declaration of Herbert Cohen

(Cohen Decl.). Ex. 1003.
1

Exhibit 1005 includes the Japanese language publication (pp. 124), an

English translation (pp. 2548), and an affidavit of accuracy (p. 49).
6

IPR2016-01109
Patent 8,706,627 B2

E. Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability

Petitioner contends the challenged claims are unpatentable on the
following grounds:
References
Maes and Ikeda
Maes and Paltenghe

Basis
103(a)
103(a)

Claims Challenged
1, 4, 6, 7, and 1113
1, 4, 6, 10, 11, and 16

Pet. 6.
II. ANALYSIS
A. Claim Construction
In an inter partes review, a claim in an unexpired patent is given its
broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification of the patent in
which it appears. 37 C.F.R. 42.100(b). Under this standard, claim terms
generally are given their ordinary and customary meaning, as would be
understood by one of ordinary skill in the art in the context of the entire
disclosure. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir.
2007).
The parties propose particular constructions for certain claim terms.
Pet. 1316; Prelim. Resp. 1114. We determine that it is necessary at this
time to address only the construction of said microprocessor, executing the
second set of executable computer program instructions . . . activates a
communication.
Petitioner does not address this term. Patent Owner proposes to
construe this term to mean capable of triggering a communication, and
not in direct response to a user input. Prelim. Resp. 11.

IPR2016-01109
Patent 8,706,627 B2
Figures 12 (12a12d-2) and 13 (13a13c) of the 627 patent are highlevel functional flow diagrams depicting exemplary embodiments of the
ticket purchasing, downloading, and redeeming aspects of the claimed
invention, some of the steps of which are recited in the disputed claims. Ex.
1001, 3:3945. Figures 12 and 13 illustrate some of the points of user
interaction during these aspects of the claimed invention. Notably, step 402
(Fig. 12a) indicates that the customer (user) has the choice to purchase
tickets or not, and only if the customer chooses to purchase tickets does the
transaction proceed toward completion. Step 408 indicates that the customer
chooses the PDA Pay & eTicket option at the merchants web site. Step 418
(Fig. 12b) indicates that the customer must input an ID and PIN, choose a
payment method, account, and amount to pay, and transmit the data to the
merchant before the transaction can proceed to completion. The system will
not complete the transaction, including sending the transaction data (Step
447) and the eTicket data (Step 450) to the redeeming merchant as well as
the eTickets to the wireless PDA (Step 452) until after these steps have been
completed by the customer (Fig. 12d-2).
Similarly, Figure 13a shows that the user must first access the PDA
(Step 500), choose the PDA Pay and eTicket software (Step 501), input the
user ID and PIN (Step 503), choose the eTicket icon (Step 510), choose the
eTickets to redeem (Step 512), and push the send button or icon to transmit
the eTicket (Step 513) before the eTicket can be redeemed and used at the
merchant.
The 627 patents explanation of the claimed invention indicates
repeated user interaction in order to complete the ticket purchasing,
downloading, and redeeming aspects of the claimed invention. Accordingly,
8

IPR2016-01109
Patent 8,706,627 B2
on the record before us, we decline to adopt Patent Owners proposed
construction as the broadest reasonable interpretation. We determine it is
not necessary to further construe this term to resolve the controversy before
us.

B. Maes (Ex. 1004)

Maes discloses a personal digital assistant (PDA) on which a user can
store his or her credit card and other personal information and then interact
with an ATM or point-of-sale (POS) system to perform a consumer
transaction. Ex. 1004, 2:2331.
Maes discloses a portable information and transaction processing
(PDA) device 10, that includes a central processing unit (CPU) 12, which
controls the operations of the PDA device 10 via programs stored in a
memory 14 and executed by the CPU 12. Ex. 1004, 4:655:4; Ex. 1003
45. Figure 1 of Maes is reproduced below:

IPR2016-01109
Patent 8,706,627 B2

Ex. 1004, Fig. 1. Figure 1 is a block diagram illustrating elements of a

portable information and transaction processing device. Maess PDA
includes a touch screen or equivalent user interface 34, central processing
unit (CPU) 12 for processing data, such as the biometric data used for user
verification, memory 14 (data storage device) for storing user information,
and ports that provide communication capability to other devices, such as a
central server 60 and POS systems. Ex. 1004, 3:1737, 7:578:9, 12:915.
For example, Maes discloses user communication between PDA 10 and both
central server 60 and a POS terminal using serial port 42, parallel port 44,
modem 42, IR port 54, or RF port 50. Ex. 1004, 7:578:9, 12:915. Maes
also discloses that PDA 10 can connect to central server 60 through a
digital communication channel such as internet, intranet, or local area
network or may be established through wireless communication. Ex.

10

IPR2016-01109
Patent 8,706,627 B2
1004, 7:368:2. Thus, Maess PDA could connect to external devices via
the Internet wirelessly. Ex. 1004, 8:59; Ex. 1003 46.
As shown in Figure 4 of Maes, [o]nce the communication has been
established, the user is prompted . . . to enter certain verification data (step
102), which is then transmitted to the central server via the
communication link L1. Ex. 1004, 8:1318. Figure 4 of Maes is
reproduced below:

Ex. 1004, Fig. 4. Figure 4 is a flow diagram illustrating the client/server

mode of operation. For example, the central server may ask a series of
questions or prompt the user to enter a PIN. Ex. 1004, 8:1828.
Additionally, the system can require biometric verification to obtain the
digital certificate from the central server. Ex. 1004, 10:1821; Ex. 1003
47.

11

IPR2016-01109
Patent 8,706,627 B2
C. Ikeda (Ex. 1005)
Ikeda discloses a remote, ticket-purchase system where a person can
remotely request, purchase, and receive a ticket from a ticket-issuing device
at a ticket-issuing facility. Ex. 1005 10.2
Figure 1 of Ikeda is reproduced below:

Ex. 1005, Fig. 1. Figure 1 illustrates the conceptual structure of the ticket
issuing system. Ex. 1005 75. Specifically, Ikeda discloses a personal
device (user device 2) that a user uses to input a ticket-issue request; ticketissuing device 102 that receives the request and issues a ticket; and ticketusing device 104 at, for example, the business that uses the purchased ticket
(e.g., airline or hotel). Ex. 1005 9, 7682. For example, as shown in Fig.
5, user device 2 can request a ticket, such as a hotel-lodging ticket, from
ticket-issuing device 1. Ex. 1005 129, Fig. 5, step S2; Ex. 1003 4849.

Citations are to the English translation beginning on page 25 of Exhibit

1005.
12

IPR2016-01109
Patent 8,706,627 B2
Figure 5 of Ikeda is reproduced below:

Ex. 1005, Fig. 5. Figure 5 is a flowchart illustrating the ticket processing

procedure when reserving a lodging ticket for a hotel. Ex. 1005 128.
Ikeda discloses that the ticket-issuing device can be a WWW server
installed in the travel agency or a WWW server installed in the hotel in
which case the user receives the ticket issuing service over the internet.
Ex. 1005 130. Once the ticket-issuing device retrieves the search results,
the user can select the desired hotel, as illustrated in Figure 6(C), below,
select a hotel (Fig. 6(G)), and input payment information (Fig. 5, step S6) to
pay the reserved hotels lodging fee. Ex. 1005 132138; Ex. 1003 50.

13

IPR2016-01109
Patent 8,706,627 B2
Figure 6 of Ikeda is reproduced below:

Figure 6 illustrates displays of the hotel ticket issuing processing procedure.

Ex. 1005 131149. The ticket-issuing device requests user information,
like name and password, to provide security for the ticket. Ex. 1005 145
148. Once the hotel reservation and charging information are confirmed, the
user device is alerted that the ticket information will be transmitted shortly
and that a fee will be withdrawn from the credit card (Fig. 6(H)). Ex. 1005
149. The ticket is then encoded and transmitted to the user device (Fig. 5,
step S14), and the user device decodes the ticket information and either
prints the ticketas shown in Figure 7 belowor records the information
on a portable recording medium. Ex. 1005 150151, 157; Ex. 1003 51.
14

IPR2016-01109
Patent 8,706,627 B2
Figure 7 of Ikeda is reproduced below:

Figure 7 illustrates a hotel lodging ticket. Ex. 1005 157.

D. Paltenghe (Ex. 1006)

Paltenghe discloses a virtual wallet system with a broad range of
functionalities, including allowing the owner to remotely request, purchase,
and receive a ticket from a POS at a ticket-issuing facility. Ex. 1006, Title,
21:1226.

15

IPR2016-01109
Patent 8,706,627 B2
Figure 2 of Paltenghe is reproduced below:

Ex. 1006, Fig. 2. Figure 2 is a schematic representation of a virtual wallet

system. Ex. 1006, 9:2728. Specifically, as shown in Figure 2 above,
Paltenghes virtual wallet system includes a personal storage device 12, that
a user uses to communicate with outside world 18 for purpose of point of
sale transactions 15. Ex. 1006, 12:1016, 13:2122.
POS transactions may include purchasing a theater ticket, where the
user shops for a particular theater ticket on a theater server using a PDA, the
theater server requests payment and sends the ticket, which the user
downloads and then uses at the theater to attend the show. Id. at 21:1226.
Paltenghe also discloses that a PDA may include multiple data types like
electronic currency (e-currency); coupons; tokens; tickets; loyalty credits
and the like and may be used for authenticating; digital signing; or
paying. Id. at 12:2125. Additionally, Paltenghes virtual wallets include
software programs that will reside on a client PC/PDA/STB. Id. at
13:3031; Ex. 1003 55.
16

IPR2016-01109
Patent 8,706,627 B2
E. Obviousness over Maes and Ikeda (Ground 1)
Petitioner contends that the subject matter of claims 1, 4, 6, 7, and 11
13 would have been obvious under 103(a) over the combination of Maes
and Ikeda. Pet. 2960. Patent Owner disagrees. Prelim. Resp. 1432.
1. Independent claims 1 and 11
Petitioner presents detailed explanations and relies on supporting
evidence demonstrating how Maes and Ikeda teach the limitations of
independent claims 1 and 11. Pet. 2947, 5260.
Independent claim 1 recites in pertinent part [a] wireless handheld
device for executing a mobile transaction . . . comprising . . . a
microprocessor programmed for executing . . . computer program
instructions . . . activates a communication by said content host computer
device to said content provider computer device of confirmation data
comprising said payment information, security information, and said
particular authorization certificate, said content provider computer system
being accessible by point-of-sale devices for said particular merchant. Ex.
1001, 63:3238. Independent claim 11 recites similar limitations. Ex. 1001,
65:1218.
Petitioner argues that Ikedas ticket issuing device 102 is the claimed
content host computer device, that Ikedas ticket using device 104 is the
claimed content provider computer device, and that Ikeda teaches the
ticket issuing device [102] also transmits the ticket information and user
code information transmitted to the user device 2 to the ticket using device
[104]. Pet. 4445 (citing Ex. 1005, Fig. 5, 108, 153).
Petitioner argues that when a user presents a lodging ticket at a hotel,
Ikedas ticket using device [104] reads the user code information from the
17

IPR2016-01109
Patent 8,706,627 B2
lodging ticket (id. at 45), and that when the information is stored on a
portable storage medium or a small device, Ikeda teaches that a medium
drive device, connection cable, light, wireless communication device, or the
like can be used to read the information (id. at 4546 (citing Ex. 1005
113)). Petitioner also argues that Ikedas ticket using device collates this
user code information with the user code information transmitted from the
ticket issuing device and that if the information presented by the user
matches the information sent from the ticket issuing device (content host
computer device) to the ticket using device (content provider computer
system), it is discriminated that the lodging ticket is a true lodging
ticket. Id. at 46 (citing Ex. 1005 83, 112113, 152, 154).
Petitioner further argues that because Ikedas ticket using device
(content provider computer device) is (1) accessible by a point-of-sale
device that is able to read the user code information of the lodging ticket
(particular authorization certificate) and (2) is able to collate with the
information received from the ticket issuing device (content host computer
device), a person of ordinary skill would understand that the content
provider computer system is accessible by point-of-sale devices for a
particular merchant and receives confirmation data from the content host
provider device. Id. at 47 (citing Ex. 1003 9293).
Patent Owner asserts, however, that Ikeda, at best, teaches that the
ticket issuing device transmits ticket information to the ticket using device.
Prelim. Resp. 3031. Patent Owner argues that Ikeda does not teach said
microprocessor, executing the second set of executable computer program
instructions . . . activates a communication because that term means
triggering a communication not in direct response to user input, whereas
18

IPR2016-01109
Patent 8,706,627 B2
Ikeda teaches that the communication by the ticket issuing device to the
ticket using device occurs after receiving the communication from the user
that the ticket information is the content of the desired ticket. Prelim. Resp.
31 (citing Ex. 1005 108). Specifically, Patent Owner argues that because
the user operates the user interface to transmit the communication, Ikeda
does not teach or suggest the disputed limitation. Id. at 32.
Patent Owners argument is based upon its proposed claim
construction, which we do not adopt for the reasons discussed above, and is,
therefore, not persuasive.
Patent Owner also contends that the motivation to combine Maes and
Ikeda is lacking. Prelim. Resp. 13, 1830. Patent Owner argues that Maes
does not teach using its PDA to carry out an entire consumer transaction
such as the purchase and redemption of an electronic ticket. Prelim. Resp. 2,
1923. Patent Owner also argues that even though Ikeda makes a reference
to PDAs, there is no suggestion in Ikeda that a PDA can be used to interact
with a ticket issuing device. Id. at 2, 2627. Patent Owner further argues
that Petitioner provides no evidence, except unsupported conclusory expert
statements, that it would have been obvious to combine Maes and Ikeda.
Prelim. Resp. 3, 2428.
Petitioner, however, argues it would have been obvious to a person of
ordinary skill in the art to use Maes PDA device with Ikedas ticketdistribution system because Maes envisioned using its PDA device for pointof-sale and consumer transactions and teaches that the device could be
immediately employed without having to change the existing
infrastructure because it was designed to work with existing consumertransaction systems. Pet. 2324 (citing Ex. 1004, 2:2330; 4:1218).
19

IPR2016-01109
Patent 8,706,627 B2
Petitioner also argues that, because Ikeda teaches that its user device may be
a palm-sized ultra-small PC, it would have been obvious to a person of
ordinary skill that Ikedas ticket-purchasing and use processes could be
incorporated onto Maes PDA device. Id. at 2425 (citing Ex. 1003 59;
Ex. 1005 107, 112). Using Maess PDA as Ikedas user device, Petitioner
argues, would have been an obvious step with predictable results and a
simple matter of design choice, because Maess PDA included all of the
hardware capabilities required by Ikedas system. Id. at 25 (citing Ex. 1004,
3:1737). Based on this record, we are persuaded that Petitioner has
provided a sufficient basis with a rational underpinning for combining Maes
and Ikeda.
Accordingly, Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that
it would prevail in showing the unpatentability of independent claims 1 and
11 of the 627 patent over the combination of Maes and Ikeda.
2. Claims 4, 6, 7, 12, and 13
In its Preliminary Response, Patent Owner does not address separately
Petitioners explanations and supporting evidence with respect to dependent
claims 4, 6, 7, 12, and 13. See generally Prelim. Resp. 1432. We have
reviewed Petitioners explanations and supporting evidence regarding these
dependent claims and find them persuasive. See Pet. 4852, 6061. Based
on the record before us, Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood
that it would prevail on its assertion that dependent claims 4, 6, 7, 12, and
13, of the 627 patent would have been obvious over the combination of
Maes and Ikeda.

20

IPR2016-01109
Patent 8,706,627 B2
F. Obviousness over Maes and Paltenghe (Ground 2)
Petitioner contends that claims 1, 4, 6, 10, 11 and 16 would have been
obvious under 103(a) over the combination of Maes and Paltenghe. Pet.
6690. Patent Owner disagrees. Prelim. Resp. 3241.
For the activates a communication . . . particular authorization
certificate limitation of claim 1, Petitioner relies upon Paltenghes teaching
that [u]pon arriving at the theater, the theater server requests a ticket and
the owner plugs the chip device into the wallet interface to access the ticket,
or alternatively into a theater interface. The owner is given access to the
theater once the ticket is then transferred to the theater server after a mutual
authentication process. Pet. 76, 77 (quoting Ex. 1006, 21:2426).
Petitioner argues that the theater interface is the claimed content
provider computer device, and that the theater server is the claimed
content host computer device. Pet. 77. Petitioner argues that the ability to
plug the chip device into the theatre interface (content provider computer
device) means that the theatre interface is a hardware device, e.g., terminals
at the theatre connected to the theatre server (content host computer device)
that the ticket owners could interact with. Id.
With respect to said content provider computer system being
accessible by point-of-sale devices for said particular merchant, Petitioner
argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art: (1) would understand that it
would be desirable to add additional connectivity to the theater interfaces
(Pet. 77); (2) would have recognized the benefit of having wireless
scanners or kiosks (POS devices) connected to the theater interfaces to more
efficiently process tickets and provide the information to the theater
interface (id.); and (3) would understand that the mutual authentication
21

IPR2016-01109
Patent 8,706,627 B2
process would require that the theater server (content host computer device)
had sent payment information and security information . . . to the theater
interface (content provider computer device) (id. at 78).
Patent Owner contends that the combination of Maes and Paltenghe
fails to teach or suggest this limitation because Paltenghe does not disclose
any connectivity between the theater server and theater interface (Prelim.
Resp. 39), and Petitioner offers no support for its conclusory allegations
about what a person of ordinary skill in the art would have known (id. at 39).
We agree. On this record, Petitioner has not explained adequately
why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that (1) it
would be desirable to add additional connectivity to Paltenghes theater
interface, or (2) the mutual authentication process would require that the
theater server send payment information and security information to the
theater interface. Moreover, Petitioner admits that Paltenghe does not teach
that the theatre server requests security information (Pet. 72) or that the
virtual wallet sends security information (Pet. 73) and the testimony of Dr.
Cohen merely repeats the same arguments made in the Petition. Compare
Pet. 7679, with Ex. 1003 160162.
Based on this record, Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable
likelihood that it would prevail in showing the unpatentability of
independent claims 1 and 11, as well as dependent claim 4, 6, 10, and 16, of
the 627 patent, over the combination of Maes and Paltenghe.

22

IPR2016-01109
Patent 8,706,627 B2

III. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, we determine that Petitioner has
established that there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail
in establishing the unpatentability of claims 1, 4, 6, 7, and 1113 of the 627
patent.

IV. ORDER
Accordingly, it is:
ORDERED that pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 314, an inter partes review is
hereby instituted as to the following ground:
1. Claims 1, 4, 6, 7, and 1113 of the 627 patent as unpatentable
under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) over a combination of Maes and Ikeda; and
FURTHER ORDERED that no other grounds are instituted; and
FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 314(a), inter
partes review of the 627 patent is hereby instituted commencing on the
entry date of this Order, and pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 314(c) and 37 C.F.R.
42.4, notice is hereby given of the institution of a trial.

23

IPR2016-01109
Patent 8,706,627 B2
PETITIONER:
Michael L. Kiklis
Scott A. McKeown
Thomas C. Yebernetsky
Katherine D. Cappaert
OBLON, MCCLELLAND, MAIER & NEUSTADT, LLP
cpdocketkiklis@oblon.com
cpdocketmckeown@oblon.com
cpdocketyebernetsky@oblon.com
cpdocketcappaert@oblon.com
Jonathan Stroud
UNIFIED PATENTS INC.
jonathan@unifiedpatents.com

PATENT OWNER:
Zachary Silbersher
zsilbersher@kskiplaw.com
Gaston Kroub
gkroub@kskiplaw.com

24