Fiserv, Inc.v.DataTreasury Corporation

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 1, 2015

09081012 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 1, 2015)

Trials@uspto.gov Paper 22
Tel: 571-272-7822 Entered: September 1, 2015

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_______________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
_______________

FISERV, INC.,
Petitioner,

v.

DATATREASURY CORPORATION,
Patent Owner.
____________

CBM2014-00088
Patent 6,032,137 C1
____________

Before MICHAEL P. TIERNEY, WILLIAM V. SAINDON, and
MATTHEW R. CLEMENTS, Administrative Patent Judges.

SAINDON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION
Final Written Decision
35 U.S.C. § 328(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73

Dismissing Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude as Moot
37 C.F.R. § 42.64(c)

CBM2014-00088
Patent 6,032,137 C1

2

I. INTRODUCTION
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(c). This Final Written
Decision is entered pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 328(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73.
With respect to the grounds asserted in this trial, we have considered
the papers submitted by the parties and the evidence cited therein. For the
reasons discussed below, we determine that Petitioner has shown by a
preponderance of the evidence that claims 1, 2, 16, 18, 22, 25, 26, 29, 36,
38–43, 50, 51, 55, 62, and 63 of U.S. Patent No. 6,032,137 C1 (Ex. 1002,
“the ’137 patent”) are unpatentable, but has not shown that claims 9, 19, 48,
54, 60, and 66 are unpatentable.1 In addition, for the reasons discussed
below, we dismiss Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude as moot because we
expunge the exhibits sought to be excluded, for being improperly filed.
A. Procedural History
Petitioner filed a Petition (Paper 1, “Pet.”) requesting a covered
business method patent review of claims 1–7, 9–27, and 29–67 of the ’137
patent over five proposed grounds of unpatentability. See Pet. i–iii.
Petitioner filed therewith a Declaration including the testimony of James
Knox, Ph.D. Ex. 1003. Patent Owner filed a Preliminary Response. Paper
5 (“Prelim. Resp.”). Reviewing the arguments and evidence then before us,
we issued a Decision Instituting Covered Business Method Review (Paper 6,
“Dec. Inst.”), instituting review on claims 1, 2, 9, 16, 18, 19, 22, 25, 26, 29,

1 Patent Owner argues that the evidentiary standard is “clear and convincing
proof” (Paper 9, 2) but 35 U.S.C. § 326(e) makes clear the appropriate
standard is “preponderance of the evidence.”
CBM2014-00088
Patent 6,032,137 C1

3

36, 38–43, 48, 50, 51, 54, 55, 60, 62, 63, and 66 over one of the five
proposed grounds of unpatentability. Dec. Inst. 15.
Patent Owner subsequently filed a Response to the Petition (Paper 9,
“PO Resp.”), including the testimony of Paul M. Ginsberg (Ex. 2004).
Petitioner filed a Reply (Paper 10, “Pet. Reply”). Upon the request of the
parties, an Oral Hearing was held. See Paper 21 (Transcript of the Hearing,
cited as “Tr.”).
Patent Owner filed a Motion to Exclude certain evidence. Paper 16
(“PO Mot. Excl.”). Petitioner filed an Opposition to that Motion (Paper 17,
“Pet. Opp. Mot. Excl.”), to which Patent Owner filed a Reply (Paper 20,
“PO Reply Mot. Excl.”).
B. Related Matters
The parties indicate that the ’137 patent is asserted in a number of
district court actions. Pet. xi–xii; Paper 4. The ’137 patent is the subject of
a number of proceedings before this Board, including Fidelity National
Information Services, Inc. v. DataTreasury Corp., Case CBM2014-00020
(PTAB) (“Fidelity CBM”)2 and Jack Henry and Associates, Inc. v.
DataTreasury Corp, Case CBM2014-00056 (PTAB) (“Jack Henry CBM”).3
Paper 4.

2 In the Fidelity CBM proceeding, a Final Written Decision (Paper 34) was
issued on April 29, 2015 determining claims 1–67 of the ’137 patent to be
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §§ 101 and 112, first paragraph. The Board
received a Notice of Appeal to the Federal Circuit of this Decision on
August 27, 2015.
3 In the Jack Henry CBM, a Final Written Decision (Paper 37) was issued on
July 8, 2015 determining claims 42 and 43 of the ’137 patent to be

CBM2014-00088
Patent 6,032,137 C1

4

The ’137 patent is a continuation-in-part of the application that issued
as U.S. Patent No. 5,910,988 C1, which is also the subject of a number of
district court actions and matters before the Board. Pet. xi–xii.
C. The ’137 Patent
The ’137 patent is directed to a system for remote data acquisition,
and centralized processing and storage of the acquired data. Ex. 1002,
Abstract. An object of the invention is to provide an automated system to
manage and store captured electronic and paper transactions from various
activities including banking and consumer applications. Id. at 3:22–26.
Generally, the ’137 patent describes scanning documents using a scanner
attached to a general purpose network computer that is connected via a
carrier cloud to a server that inserts images and data received into a
database. Id. at Figs. 1–2, 3:37–58, 4:65–5:15, 5:45–51, 16:53–60.
Additionally, the general purpose network computer encrypts the images and
data to provide a system with maximal security. Id. at 3:30–36, 7:38–46,
8:10–15.

unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102. The Board received a Notice of Appeal
to the Federal Circuit of this Decision on August 27, 2015.
CBM2014-00088
Patent 6,032,137 C1

5

Figure 1 of the ’137 patent, provided below, depicts a preferred
embodiment of the system having three major operational elements:

The ’137 patent describes the tiered arrangement depicted in Figure 1
as follows:
FIG. 1 shows the architecture of the
DataTreasury™ System 100. The DataTreasury™
System 100 has three operational elements: the
DataTreasury™ System Access Terminal (DAT)
200 (the remote data access subsystem), the
DataTreasury™ System Access Collector (DAC)
400 (the intermediate data collecting subsystem),
and the DataTreasury™ System Processing
CBM2014-00088
Patent 6,032,137 C1

6

Concentrator (DPC) 600 (the central data
processing subsystem).
Id. at 4:66–5:6.
Figure 2 of the ’137 patent, provided below, depicts a block diagram
of the DAT:

As shown in Figure 2, scanner 202 is connected to workstation 210, which is
connected to data system access collector 400. The workstation can be a
general purpose computer and performs tasks including compressing,
encrypting, and tagging a scanned bitmapped image. Id. at 5:40–45, 7:31–
35.
The specification of the ’137 patent states that the disclosed system
improves upon the prior art by providing an automated, reliable, secure
system to process electronic and paper transactions. Id. at 3:32–37.
CBM2014-00088
Patent 6,032,137 C1

7

D. Illustrative Claims
Of the claims challenged, claims 1, 26, 42, and 43 are independent.
Claims 42 and 43 are illustrative:
42. A system for central management, storage and report
generation of remotely captured paper transactions from
checks comprising:
one or more remote data access subsystems for
capturing and sending paper transaction data and
verifying transaction data from the checks comprising at
least one imaging subsystem for capturing the checks and
at least one data access controller for managing the
capturing and sending of the transaction data;
at least one central data processing subsystem
for processing, sending, verifying and storing the paper
transaction data and the subsystem identification
information comprising a management subsystem for
managing the processing, sending and storing of the . . .
transaction data; and
at least one communication network for the
transmission of the transaction data within and between
said one or more data access subsystems and said at least
one data processing subsystem, with the data access
subsystem providing encrypted subsystem identification
information and encrypted paper transaction data to the
data processing subsystem.

43. A method for central management, storage and
verification of remotely captured paper transactions from
checks comprising the steps of:
capturing an image of the check at one or more
remote locations sending a captured image of the check;
managing the capturing and sending of the
transaction data;
collecting, processing, sending and storing the
transaction data at a central location;
managing the collecting, processing, sending
and storing of the transaction data;
CBM2014-00088
Patent 6,032,137 C1

8

encrypting subsystem identification information
and the transaction data;
verifying the transaction data from the check;
and
transmitting the transaction data and the
subsystem identification information within and between
the remote location(s) and the central location.

E. Asserted Grounds and Prior Art
A covered business method patent review was instituted as to claims
1, 2, 9, 16, 18, 19, 22, 25, 26, 29, 36, 38–43, 48, 50, 51, 54, 55, 60, 62, 63,
and 66 as anticipated by Campbell under 35 U.S.C. § 102. Dec. Inst. 15.
II. ANALYSIS
A. The ’137 Patent Is a Covered Business Method Patent
Patent Owner argues that the ’137 patent is not eligible for covered
business method patent review because one or more of its claims are
directed to a technological invention. PO Resp. 22–26. We have discussed
whether the ’137 patent is eligible for covered business method patent
review at length in our Decision to Institute and Final Written Decision in
the Fidelity CBM. See Fidelity CBM, Paper 13, 9–13; id. at Paper 34, 8–9.
For the same reasons as those we expressed in the Fidelity CBM, we hold
that the ’137 patent is eligible for covered business method patent review.
B. Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude
Patent Owner moves to exclude Exhibits 1062–1065, filed by
Petitioner on April 7, 2015, over two months after Petitioner filed its Reply
and 22 days before oral hearing. PO Mot. Excl. 2–3. Petitioner
characterizes its submission as “supplemental information” and “apologizes
CBM2014-00088
Patent 6,032,137 C1

9

for its oversight” of the “minor procedural defect” of not seeking
authorization to file a motion for supplemental information. Pet. Opp. Mot.
Excl. 2. We dismiss as moot Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude because we
hereby order the expungement of Exhibits 1062–1065 for being filed
without prior authorization.
C. Claim Construction
We interpret the claims of an unexpired patent using the broadest
reasonable interpretation in light of the specification of the patent. 37 C.F.R.
§ 42.100(b); In re Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC, 793 F.3d 1268, 1278–80 (Fed.
Cir. 2015). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation standard, claim
terms 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). Any special definition for a claim term must be set forth with
reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision. In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d
1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
In our Decision to Institute this trial, we determined the broadest
reasonable interpretation of “subsystem identification information” is
“information that identifies a subsystem.” Dec. Inst. 8. There, as here, we
relied on our prior interpretation of this term in the Jack Henry CBM. See
id.; see also Jack Henry CBM, Paper 17, 9–10 (explaining that we adopt
neither Petitioner’s nor Patent Owner’s proposed constructions); id., Paper
37, 8–11 (keeping the same construction, based upon Patent Owner’s
admission and a more developed record). Notably, we determined, as an
ancillary matter to construing the term, that “nothing in the claims, as would
CBM2014-00088
Patent 6,032,137 C1

10

be understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art in view of the
specification, requires any form of ownership or other type of corporate
relationship between the various subsystems; only that they function in the
manner set forth in the claims.” Id., Paper 37, 10.4
Patent Owner does not comment specifically on or discuss our prior
claim construction of “subsystem identification information” (“SSID”).
Instead, Patent Owner attacks as “Completely Unacceptable” Petitioner’s
proposed construction in the Petition, which we did not adopt. PO Resp. 20;
Dec. Inst. 8 (adopting our prior construction of the term in the Jack Henry
CBM rather than Petitioner’s proposed construction); Jack Henry CBM,
Paper 17, 8–10 (adopting neither Petitioner’s nor Patent Owner’s then-
proffered constructions of SSID).5 Patent Owner then suggests that we
consider and accept a district court construction of SSID, without providing
any explanation for why we should adopt that construction, especially given
that we have explicitly considered and did not accept that construction

4 Our reasoning in this regard was confirmed by Patent Owner’s admission
during Oral Argument during the Jack Henry CBM that common ownership
is not required. See Jack Henry CBM, Paper 37, 10. Although Petitioner
impermissibly filed the transcript of this Oral Argument as Exhibit 1064,
which we expunged, we are nevertheless aware of Patent Owner’s admission
because we took part in the Jack Henry CBM oral hearing.
5 Patent Owner does not explain what errors it sees in the construction
offered by Petitioner in its Petition. Petitioner proposed: “Information that
identifies a remote data access subsystem, such as the identification of a
specific branch or terminal of a banking institution, or a subsystem or
component that is a part of a remote data access subsystem.” Pet. 7
(emphasis added). The difference between Petitioner’s and Patent Owner’s
construction lies in the emphasized language, which appears to be a non-
limiting example.
CBM2014-00088
Patent 6,032,137 C1

11

before (Jack Henry CBM, Paper 17, 9–10).6 PO Resp. 21–22. Patent Owner
notes that, if we do not adopt that construction, it will “abide by the Board’s
decision.” Id. at 21. We decline to adopt the district court construction, a
construction previously considered and not adopted, in the absence of
arguments explaining why we should adopt that construction, and in the
presence of a statement that Patent Owner will abide by our construction
should we not choose to adopt that construction.
Upon consideration of the record before us, we maintain that the
broadest reasonable interpretation of “subsystem identification information”
is “information that identifies a subsystem.”
D. Anticipation by Campbell
Petitioner asserts that claims 1, 2, 9, 16, 18, 19, 22, 25, 26, 29, 36, 38–
43, 48, 50, 51, 54, 55, 60, 62, 63, and 66 are anticipated by Campbell. Pet.
10–39.7
Campbell discloses a system that transmits check images and routes
those images between banks. Ex. 1019, Abstract. A first entity in the
system lies within sending bank 14. Id. at Fig. 1. Within this first bank,

6 The difference between the district court interpretation and ours is minor
and not outcome-determinative in this case. The district court limited the
SSID to identification of the remote access device, whereas our analysis
concluded that the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term did not
require limiting the SSID to identifying any particular subsystem, so long as
it identified some subsystem of the system. See Jack Henry CBM, Paper 17,
9–10. In application to this case, the difference is immaterial because, in
Petitioner’s ground, the alleged SSID in Campbell identifies the remote
access device (sending bank).
7 The Petition also lists claims 49 and 61 (Pet. 13), but we did not institute a
review of those claims. Dec. Inst. 13.
CBM2014-00088
Patent 6,032,137 C1

12

hardware and software are configured to create a check image and other data
(e.g., source and destination identifiers). Id. at 2:64–3:32, 5:23–28; see also
id. at 4:10–25 (describing the same hardware and software performing the
same operations for a dishonored check). The first bank sends the gathered
information to a second entity of the system, node 12, over a network. Id. at
3:20–36; see also id. at 4:26–29 and 4:59–5:1 (describing the transmission in
the dishonored check example). Node 12 performs various tasks with the
sent information, one task being the forwarding of the check image to the
appropriate receiving bank. Id. at 1:60–67, 2:30–32. Receiving bank 16,
therefore, is a third entity in the system. See id. at Figs. 1, 2. The system is
equipped to send and receive encrypted information between the banks and
within its own central node 12. Id. at 5:55–60, 6:37–38.
We have reviewed Patent Owner’s arguments against Petitioner’s
ground (PO Resp. 28–60); the principal arguments are addressed below.
1. Claim 1
Independent claim 1 requires, inter alia, a remote data access
subsystem that captures images of paper transaction data and provides
encrypted SSID and image data. Claim 1 also requires a central data
processing system and a communications network.
Petitioner reads the remote data access subsystem on the sending bank
of Campbell, the central data processing subsystem on the node of
Campbell, and the communications network on the communications network
in Campbell. Pet. 28 (addressing the particular limitations found in claim 1
but directing the reader to its analysis of claim 42), 19–24 (setting forth
Petitioner’s assertions for these limitations as also found in independent
CBM2014-00088
Patent 6,032,137 C1

13

claim 42). Petitioner asserts that Campbell captures images of checks and
sends that data to the central subsystem via the network. Id. at 19–24.
Petitioner also asserts that Campbell transmits an encrypted SSID in the
form of an endorsement or as additional identifying data sent along with the
encrypted check image. Id. at 13–19.
With respect to independent claim 1, Patent Owner principally argues
that Campbell fails to disclose a) “subsystems” and b) “encryption” of the
SSID in the manner required by the claim. See, e.g., PO Resp. 30–31, 33,
35, 36 (arguing “subsystem”); id. at 31–32, 33–36 (arguing “encryption”).
a. “subsystem”
Campbell discloses a system for transporting the images of checks.
Ex. 1019, 2:18–20 (“FIG. 1 shows an example of a system for transporting
images of checks”). As such, we are persuaded by Petitioner’s position that
the various separately identifiable objects operating within this system—
namely, the first bank, the node, and the second bank—are subsystems
within this system.8 Except for the “encryption” aspect of the claim,
discussed below, Patent Owner raises no credible argument that the first
bank, the node, or the second bank in Campbell fail to disclose any element
of claim 1. Instead, Patent Owner’s argument appears to be that one or more
entities in Campbell are not commonly owned or are not subsystems of each

8 “system. A collection of components organized to accomplish a specific
function or set of functions.” IEEE Standard Glossary of Software
Engineering Terminology 73 (IEEE Std 610.12-1990, 1990) (Ex. 3001).
“subsystem. A secondary or subordinate system with a larger system.” Id.
at 72.
CBM2014-00088
Patent 6,032,137 C1

14

other. See, e.g., PO Resp. 31, 33.9 As we noted in our claim construction of
SSID, however, there is no ownership requirement to be a “subsystem” of
the claimed system. Further, the claims do not require one subsystem to be a
subsystem of another subsystem, but merely that there are subsystems of the
claimed system. Accordingly, Patent Owner’s arguments are unpersuasive.
Reviewing the record before us, we are persuaded that Petitioner has
established that the “remote data access subsystem” reads on the first bank
in Campbell, and the “central data processing system” reads on the node.
b. “encryption”
Patent Owner’s arguments regarding “encryption” fall in two lines:
i) arguments that Campbell does not disclose an encrypted SSID because
Campbell does not disclose a SSID (see, e.g., PO Resp. 31, 35); and
ii) arguments that Campbell does not require encryption of check images
(see, e.g., id. at 32, 33, 36).
i. SSID
We have determined already that the hardware and software system at
the first bank is a subsystem of the check image processing system of
Campbell. When the system of the first bank transmits the check to the
node, it includes information identifying itself. Pet. 14–19, 20–21; see also
id. at 28 (stating that the analysis for claims 42 applies to claim 1); Ex. 1019,
5:23–28 (“The [node] may read some data accompanying check images, for

9 Patent Owner’s Declarant, Mr. Ginsberg, testifies that “Petitioner (and also
the Board) mistakes the two banks in Figure 1 of the Campbell patent as
being remote data access subsystems of a single bank.” Ex. 2004 ¶ 11. We
cannot find any such assertion by Petitioner or the Board, and neither PO nor
its Declarant direct us to where such an assertion exists.
CBM2014-00088
Patent 6,032,137 C1

15

example . . . information may instruct the node 12 about the identity of the
sending institution and the intended receiving institution.”). Accordingly,
we are persuaded by Petitioner’s assertion that the first bank transmits a
SSID because it transmits information that identifies a subsystem (the first
bank subsystem).10 Patent Owner argues:
Again, Campbell does not state that the identity of
the sending and/or receiving institutions has been
encrypted. But even if the identity of the sending
and/or receiving institutions were encrypted in the
Campbell patent, a given bank such as a Sending
Bank or a Payor Bank is simply not a subsystem of
a Receiving Bank or a Bank of First Deposit.
Thus, Campbell might be able to identify a given
Sending Bank and/or a given Bank of First
Deposit, but the identity of such banks does not
qualify as subsystem identification information.
Placing a serial number, or other identification
number, on a scanner that imaged a check in a
Sending Bank or a Bank of First Deposit does not
necessarily provide subsystem identification
information, since it is the identification
name/number of the subsystem, and not the serial
number of a scanner, or a name of bank, that is
encrypted in the ’137 Patent.
PO Resp. 35.11,12

10 Petitioner also provides an alternative reading of SSID on Campbell: that
the endorsement printed on the check itself is a SSID. See Pet. Reply 5–6;
see also Dec. Inst. 10 (pointing out that Petitioner has two readings of the
term on Campbell). Although Patent Owner does not appear to discuss this
particular alternative reading, we do not rely on this alternative reading in
reaching our Decision.
11 Patent Owner’s Declarant, Mr. Ginsberg, seems to contradict Patent
Owner here, by implying that the ID number of a scanner would be a SSID:

CBM2014-00088
Patent 6,032,137 C1

16

Patent Owner here appears to argue that the name of a bank is not a
SSID because one bank is not the subsystem of another bank. Patent Owner
also appears to argue that a SSID is “not the serial number of a scanner, or a
name of bank” that is encrypted. Id. Patent Owner points to no portions of
the record and provides no credible analysis in support of these assertions.
We are persuaded that the bank is a subsystem; thus, the name of the bank
would serve to identify that subsystem and meets the limitation of claim 1
requiring a SSID.13 Reviewing the record before us, Patent Owner’s
argument that Campbell does not describe an encrypted SSID because it
does not disclose a SSID is unpersuasive in view of the arguments and
evidence offered by Petitioner.

“Nowhere does Campbell teach that a receiving institution would have any
use for information such as the ID number of a scanner in a sending
institution.” Ex. 2004 ¶ 15.
12 Patent Owner seems to have taken an opposite position in its Preliminary
Response, suggesting that information that identifies a scanner is a SSID:
“claim 1 requires encrypting identification information that identifies ‘at
least one imaging subsystem’ (such as the 3897 scanner of the IBM 3890
system . . . ) and requires identification information that identifies ‘at least
one data access controller’ (such as a workstation that operates the 3897
scanner).” Prelim. Resp. 22.
13 Further, although not necessary to reach our finding here, we are
persuaded by Petitioner’s logic that the SSID is “particularly apt where
financial institutions have myriad branches or equipment that send data to a
central location.” Pet. 16. In other words, Petitioner implies that one of
ordinary skill would understand that the identifying information (SSID) in
Campbell is not just a bank name but the name of a particular bank.
CBM2014-00088
Patent 6,032,137 C1

17

ii. Requiring Encryption
Campbell discusses encryption of information as follows:
The controller 42 may read some data
accompanying check images, for example, it may
identify that TCP/IP protocol information
accompanying those images. That information
may instruct the node 12 about the identity of the
sending institution and the intended receiving
institution. That information may also identify the
disposition of the check . . . .
The controller 42 may also be configured to handle
information encrypted by sending institutions to
provide security for the images transported by the
network 38. The controller 42 may have its own
encryption and decryption equipment to provide a
secure environment in the node 12.
Ex. 1019, 5:14–60; see also Pet. 13–19 (explaining Petitioner’s position
regarding encrypting the SSID). In our Decision to Institute this trial, we
determined that Campbell’s system “is equipped to send and receive
encrypted information between the banks,” relying on the above-cited
passage in Campbell. Dec. Inst. 8–9 (citing Ex. 1019, 5:55–60).
With a full record, we find that the preponderance of the evidence
supports Petitioner’s position. Campbell does not state that only the image
is encrypted. Instead, Campbell states that “information [is] encrypted . . . to
provide security for the images transported.” Ex. 1019, 5:55–58 (emphasis
added). Thus, Campbell uses the terms information and image to refer to
different collections of data. Earlier in that column, Campbell also explains
what it means by “information,” and it is clear that this information is not
just images but rather includes “information [that] accompan[ies] those
images.” Id. at 5:25–26 (emphasis added). For example, the information
CBM2014-00088
Patent 6,032,137 C1

18

identifies the “sending institution,” “receiving institution,” and “the
disposition of the check.” Id. at 5:26–31. As we discussed in a prior claim
construction of this term, we are persuaded that information identifying the
sending institution is a SSID. See Jack Henry CBM, Paper 37, 8–11. Thus,
when this information is encrypted, it is an encrypted SSID, as required by
claim 1. See also Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 64–65, 78–84, 91 (Petitioner’s Declarant, Dr.
Knox, testifying that the encrypted information in Campbell identifies the
receiving institution).
Patent Owner argues that Campbell discloses that the controller may
be configured to handle encrypted information, which means that it “does
not necessarily encrypt subsystem information” and that encryption is not
“necessarily always . . . accomplished.” PO Resp. 32–34.14 Patent Owner
does not provide an explanation as to how this, even if true, would preclude
anticipation: Campbell would still disclose encrypted SSIDs if it disclosed
the encryption as a capability but not a necessity of the system. Kalman v.
Kimberly-Clark Corp., 713 F.2d 760, 772 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (“The law of
anticipation does not require that the reference ‘teach’ what the subject
patent teaches. . . . . [I]t is only necessary that the claims under attack, as
construed by the court, ‘read on’ something disclosed in the reference, i.e.,
all limitations of the claim are found in the reference, or ‘fully met’ by it”);
see also Pet. Reply 5–6 (arguing that there is no requirement that the prior

14 Later in its Response, Patent Owner argues that, although Campbell may
“encrypt the name of th[e] bank,” Campbell does not “encrypt[]
identification information that identifies a particular subsystem of the . . .
Bank.” PO Resp. 48–49. Thus, Patent Owner appears to recognize that in
fact Campbell discloses encrypting the name of the bank (while disputing
that the name is sufficient to be a SSID).
CBM2014-00088
Patent 6,032,137 C1

19

art mandate the use of a disclosed feature). Notwithstanding, we disagree
that Campbell only occasionally encrypts SSIDs, for the reasons explained
in the prior paragraph. Reviewing the record before us, we are persuaded
that Campbell discloses transmitting an encrypted SSID.
c. Conclusion Regarding Claim 1
In view of the above, we determine that Petitioner has shown, by a
preponderance of the evidence, that Campbell anticipates the subject matter
of claim 1.
2. Claim 2
Claim 2 depends from claim 1 and further requires that the data access
subsystem comprises a scanner. Petitioner asserts that Campbell’s imaging
equipment scans the check. Pet. 29.15 Patent Owner identifies the claim
language in claim 2 and argues that Petitioner’s ground is deficient because
Campbell does not anticipate claim 1. PO Resp. 36. We determine that
Petitioner has shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Campbell
anticipates the subject matter of claim 2.
3. Claims 9 and 19
Claim 9 depends from claim 1 and further requires “at least one server
for polling said one or more remote data access subsystems for transaction

15 Petitioner misquotes the Decision to Institute as having said that: “‘Patent
Owner did not discuss these claims in its Preliminary Response and that the
claims will remain invalid unless rebutted.’ Paper 6, p. 13.” Pet. Reply 9.
The cited portion of our Decision to Institute states: “Patent Owner does not
discuss these claims at this time. Prelim. Resp. 24. We have reviewed
Petitioner’s assertions and determine that, if unrebutted, they demonstrate
that these claims are more likely than not anticipated by Campbell.”
CBM2014-00088
Patent 6,032,137 C1

20

data.” Claim 19 includes the same limitation. Petitioner asserts that “billing
interface in the interface 52 will periodically poll the node controller 42.”
Pet. 29 (citing Ex. 1019, 7:33–42). Patent Owner argues that polling for
information about billing is not the same thing as polling the remote data
access subsystems for transaction data. PO Resp. 37–38.
Patent Owner’s argument is persuasive. The portions of Campbell
Petitioner cites are directed to a component of the node polling another
component of the node, not the remote data access subsystems as claimed.
Petitioner offers no further analysis in its Petition; Petitioner only cites to the
above-noted portion of Campbell. In its Reply, Petitioner explains how
Campbell describes polling for various types of information, but does not
explain how the node polls the remote data access subsystem in Campbell
(i.e., the bank). See Pet. Reply 9–10. Accordingly, we determine that
Petitioner has not shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Campbell
anticipates the subject matter of claims 9 and 19.
4. Claim 16
Claim 16 depends from claim 1 and further requires that the remote
data access and data processing subsystems each contain a local area
network (LAN) and that they are connected by a wide area network (WAN).
Petitioner asserts that Campbell’s imaging equipment is formed of “large
multiworkstation systems” that sends images to “a network interface” of the
remote data access subsystem (sending bank) and then subsequently sends
information to the data processing subsystem (node), which has its own
LAN 56. Pet. 23–24, 30–32 (explaining how Campbell discloses LANs and
a WAN). Patent Owner argues that “Campbell teaches a single LAN 56, and
CBM2014-00088
Patent 6,032,137 C1

21

does not teach a WAN.” PO Resp. 39–40. Patent Owner, aside from citing
to its Declarant, Mr. Ginsberg, provides no further credible explanation for
its argument. We address each of these challenged limitations below.
a. WAN
A WAN is simply a network that spans geographically separated
areas.16 As explained by Petitioner’s Declarant, Dr. Knox:
Campbell discloses the transmission of data
between sending bank 14 and node 12 using a
public switched telephone network 10. Campbell
further discloses that the network 10 may be a
frame relay network. Ex. 1019, 2:61. “Frames” is
a general term in telecommunication, and is
included in many protocols. A frame relay
network is a type of Wide Area Network.
Ex. 1003 ¶ 158.
Notably, the ’137 patent also describes its WAN as using a frame
relay network over a telecommunications company network. Ex. 1002,
12:50–61. Patent Owner’s Declarant, Mr. Ginsberg, acknowledges that
Campbell describes transmission of signals over a public switched telephone
network, but states that “the ‘central offices’ are not described as being
remote from the receiving bank.” Ex. 2004 ¶ 22. Mr. Ginsberg appears to
be discussing the portion of Campbell where it describes the signals

16 “Wide Area Network (WAN)[:] A data communications network that
covers geographically separated areas, typically containing cities. Thus a
WAN is usually composed of Local Area Networks (LAN) interconnected
by other communications links hired from a PTT or other common carrier.”
Focal Dictionary of Telecommunications (1999) available at
http://search.credoreference.com/content/entry/bhfidt/wide_area_network_w
an/0 (Ex. 3002).
CBM2014-00088
Patent 6,032,137 C1

22

produced by the sending bank being transmitted on network access lines 22
to reach telephone network 10 and, more specifically, that “[t]he signals
received by the network on line 22 may be transmitted through the network
10 via . . . one or more central offices to the check image processing node
12.” Ex. 1019, 3:17–43. Mr. Ginsberg does not explain how this passage
supports his conclusion. Whether the “central offices” (not relied on by
Petitioner for this claim) are remote to the sending bank has no bearing,
which we can see, on whether Campbell describes a WAN.
Campbell describes transmission of information between the sending
bank and the node over a public switched telephone network; it is that
communication that Petitioner asserts occurs over a WAN. See Pet. Reply
11–12; Pet. 30–31. A public switched telephone network covers
geographically distinct locations. One of ordinary skill in the art would
understand that transmitting information over such a network generally
involves the sender and receiver being in different locations; likewise, the
system of Campbell makes little sense if the banks and the node are all in the
same location.17 Accordingly, Mr. Ginsberg’s testimony on this point is
unpersuasive. On the other hand, Petitioner’s Declarant, Dr. Knox, explains
how the Campbell system uses a public switched telephone network and a
frame relay network, which Dr. Knox testifies is a type of WAN. Ex. 1003 ¶
158. This testimony is persuasive, under its own reasoning and because, as

17 See also PO Resp. 47, “Patent Owner also agrees in principle that
Campbell’s sending institution may be considered to be a remote location”
(emphasis added).
CBM2014-00088
Patent 6,032,137 C1

23

we mentioned above, the WAN in the ’137 patent involves a frame relay
network over a telecommunications company’s network.
Patent Owner’s Declarant also testifies that “Campbell does not teach
. . . a wide area network that transmits data within and between the [claimed
subsystems].” Ex. 2004 ¶ 22. The wide area network in claim 16 does not
require data to be transmitted “within and between,” but rather just
“between,” the remote and data processing subsystems. Accordingly, Mr.
Ginsberg’s testimony is directed to language not found in the claims (and
even if it were, his conclusory statement is entitled to little or no weight).
Lastly, Patent Owner’s Declarant argues that Campbell does not teach
a “carrier cloud.” Id. ¶ 23.18 Mr. Ginsberg here directs us to the testimony
of Petitioner’s Declarant, Dr. Knox, at Exhibit 1003, paragraphs 174 and
175. Dr. Knox’s testimony there is directed to claim 22, not claim 16; Dr.
Knox does not discuss a “carrier cloud” with respect to claim 16. See
generally Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 169–177 (Dr. Knox’s testimony discussing claim 22);
see also ¶¶ 154–158 (Dr. Knox’s testimony discussing claim 16). Thus, Mr.
Ginsberg’s testimony is unpersuasive.
Reviewing the arguments and evidence before us, we are persuaded
that Campbell discloses a WAN as claimed.
b. LAN
Petitioner’s position is that the “multiworkstation systems [at the
banks] cited in Campbell necessarily include a LAN.” Pet. 23 (citing Ex.
1003 ¶ 112, Ex. 1020, 2); Ex. 1019, 3:10–12 (“The imaging equipment may
be large multiworkstation systems available from companies such as IBM,

18 Neither claim 16 nor claim 22 include a “carrier cloud” limitation.
CBM2014-00088
Patent 6,032,137 C1

24

UNISYS, or NCR.”).19 To bolster that point, Petitioner’s Declarant, Dr.
Knox, testifies and offers evidence that the imaging device mentioned by
Campbell and offered for sale by IBM at that time “manage[d] the
distribution of image and coded data on the LAN.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 112 (quoting
Ex. 1020, 193654). We find Dr. Knox’s testimony persuasive. Patent
Owner offers no persuasive evidence or explanation to the contrary, merely
stating that Petitioner’s claim chart “simply does not address the two LANs
recited in claim 1.” PO Resp. 40. Reviewing the arguments and evidence
before us, we are persuaded that Campbell discloses the LANs as claimed.
c. Conclusion for Claim 16
Reviewing the arguments and evidence before us, we determine that
Petitioner has shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Campbell
anticipates the subject matter of claim 16.
5. Claim 18
Claim 18 depends from claim 1 and requires “a further management
subsystem for managing the collecting and sending of the transaction
data.”20 In effect, this subsystem serves as an intermediary, collecting data

19 Petitioner’s assertion that node 12 includes a LAN is supported by the
evidence and does not appear to be in dispute.
20 Claim 18 depends from claim 1 and refers to “the electronic or paper
transaction data” of claim 1 but there is no antecedent basis for “electronic
transaction data.” In addition, claim 1 limits the data to “paper transaction
data”; it would be impermissible for dependent claim 18 to expand the scope
of claim 1 beyond paper transaction data. 35 U.S.C. §112(d). We take no
position on the definiteness of the claims but limit our application of them
on the art to the “paper transaction data” aspect of the “the electronic or
paper transaction data” element.
CBM2014-00088
Patent 6,032,137 C1

25

and then sending it on. See Ex. 1002, Fig. 4 (wherein the DAC collects data
from the DAT and sends it to the DPC). Petitioner asserts that Campbell
discloses check processing and transmitting equipment and that banks may
transmit images through one or more central offices. Pet. 31 (citing Ex.
1019, 3:32–41 (describing sending data to node 12), 3:17–20 (describing
images collected by the imaging equipment and sent across the network));
Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 159–168 (Dr. Knox’s explanation for how the limitation is met).
Reviewing Petitioner’s citations, we understand Petitioner to be
asserting that the claimed “data collecting subsystem” that has the
“management subsystem” is one of the intermediaries Campbell describes as
between the banks and the node. See, e.g., Pet. 31 (citing to portions of
Campbell that discuss routing the images through intermediaries); Ex. 1003
¶ 161 (“sending bank 14 can send images indirectly to a node 12 through a
trunk or central office. Ex. 1019, 3:32–36. The trunks and/or central office
may be another bank 14 and/or 16.”).
Patent Owner argues that, “[a]lthough Dr. Knox’s analysis is
interesting, it is irrelevant and without support, since claim 18 depends
directly from claim 1,” and that “Campbell . . . does not indicate that any
two banks are subsidiaries of one another.” PO Resp. 41. As we explained
above, however, the claims do not require such a “subsidiary” feature, and
we have determined already claim 1 is anticipated by Campbell.
Reviewing the arguments and evidence before us, we determine that
Petitioner has shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Campbell
anticipates the subject matter of claim 18.
CBM2014-00088
Patent 6,032,137 C1

26

6. Claim 22
Claim 22 depends from claim 18 and specifies that each of the (now
three) subsystems include a LAN, and that each of the subsystems are
connected by a WAN. Petitioner largely points to the same things in
Campbell as it did for claim 18. Pet. 31–33; see also Ex. 1019, 3:46–48
(“The check image processing equipment [at the receiving bank] may be
similar to the imaging equipment 18 located in the sending institution 14”).
Petitioner’s Declarant, Dr. Knox, testifies that Campbell describes an
intermediary bank being a second sending bank, which would then have its
own multi-workstation system forming a LAN. Ex. 1003 ¶ 172; see also id.
¶ 161 (setting forth Dr. Knox’s reasons for concluding that the “trunks
and/or central office may be another bank 14 and/or 16”). As we discussed
above, Petitioner has shown persuasively that the banks have LANs (via
multi-workstation systems) and are connected via a WAN (over the public
switched telephone network).
Patent Owner argues that “Campbell simply does not mention a wide
area network at all.” PO Resp. 42. It is well established that a reference
need not teach a limitation in haec verba. In re Bode, 550 F.2d 656, 660
(CCPA 1977). Patent Owner’s argument is nothing more than observing
that the term does not appear in Campbell; such is not the test for
anticipation. See id. Apparently in contesting Petitioner’s assertion that the
frame relay network 38 shown in Figure 2 of Campbell is a WAN, Patent
Owner also argues that Figure 2 “is illustrative and certainly not drawn to
scale in any manner, [such that] it is impossible to conclude from the
drawings that Campbell teaches anything remotely resembling a wide area
network.” PO Resp. 42. A wide area network is not defined by its size but
CBM2014-00088
Patent 6,032,137 C1

27

rather by the geographic separateness of the entities communicating over it.
See supra n.16. As we discussed in our analysis of claim 16, addressing
whether Campbell describes a WAN, we are persuaded that frame relay
network 38 (over the public switched telephone network) is a WAN, because
it connects geographically separate entities.
Reviewing the arguments and evidence before us, we determine that
Petitioner has shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Campbell
anticipates the subject matter of claim 22.
7. Claim 25
Claim 25 depends from claim 1 and further specifies that the LANs
recited in claim 22 include “at least one network switch for routing
transaction data within [the LAN].” Petitioner asserts that Campbell
discloses multi-workstation imaging systems that form a LAN at the bank
and that a network switch is inherent to a LAN. Pet. 33 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶
182–185).
Patent Owner argues that “Campbell is completely silent regarding
network switches.” PO Resp. 43. Petitioner’s ground, however, asserts that
Campbell inherently describes the feature; by this, Petitioner is admitting
that Campbell is silent on the matter.
Patent Owner also points us to “several documents that describe
means other than a network switch to operate a network,” citing us to
“[f]ootnote 5, at page 10, supra.” Id. We find no such footnote on page 10
of the Response, but find a series of URLs on page 28 in a footnote 5. There
is no indication that the documents at the URLs are in evidence, nor do we
see them in the record. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.63(a) (“All evidence must be
CBM2014-00088
Patent 6,032,137 C1

28

filed in the form of an exhibit”). There is no explanation of what these
documents contain, when and whether they were published, or how,
specifically, they are relevant to the discussion at hand. See 37 C.F.R. §
42.23(b) (“All arguments for the relief requested in [a Response] must be
made in the [Response]”); see also 37 C.F.R. § 42.220(a) (indicating the
Response is filed as an opposition, and thus subject to Rule 42.23). The
documents at these URLs are not in evidence, not discussed in a paper, and,
therefore, are not considered.
Petitioner’s Declarant, Dr. Knox, sets out his reasoning that network
switches are a standard part of LANs and that a person of ordinary skill in
the art envisioning a LAN would also envision it having a network switch.
Ex. 1003 ¶ 184 (testifying, “such a switch is a standard part of a modern
local area network”); id. at ¶¶ 182–185 (setting forth Dr. Knox’s reasoning
on the network switch, which includes testimony that the claimed network
switch “would be a part of virtually all of the prior art disclosing a LAN”).
Whether a network switch is “standard” or in “virtually all” of the prior art,
however, goes to whether a network switch is obvious, not whether a
network switch is inherent in Campbell.
Reviewing the record before us, we determine that Petitioner has not
shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Campbell anticipates the
subject matter of claim 25.
8. Claim 48
Claim 48 depends from claim 1 and further requires that the system
“automatically generates at least one of credit card statements, bank
statements, and tax reports.” Petitioner points to the disclosure in Campbell
CBM2014-00088
Patent 6,032,137 C1

29

of the data used in the billing interface: tracking the “number of checks
processed, converted, stored, and transmitted.” Pet. 37 (citing Ex. 1019,
5:35–38, 7:33–42). The testimony of Petitioner’s Declarant, Dr. Knox,
simply quotes language from Campbell, without analysis or explanation.
Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 304–305.
Reviewing the arguments and evidence before us, we determine that
Petitioner has not shown sufficient evidence that this billing interface
information is, or produces, one of the claimed statements or reports. The
billing interface certainly provides reports, but the claims require the
functionality to gather and present certain information in those reports.
Credit card and bank statements typically are understood to refer to a list of
account activities for a consumer account; a tax report is typically
understood to refer to taxes. Although the number of checks processed, etc.,
may be related to things that eventually make it on a bank statement,
Petitioner does not set forth a claim construction or analysis that would
allow us to conclude, by a preponderance of the evidence, that such features
are a “bank statement” as claimed (or any of the other claimed reports). As
such, we determine that Petitioner has not shown, by a preponderance of the
evidence, that Campbell anticipates the subject matter of claim 48.
9. Claim 50
Claim 50 depends from claim 1 and specifies that the “transaction
data comprises more than one type of transaction data.” Petitioner cites to
the description in Campbell of the multi-workstation imaging systems as
well as the testimony of Dr. Knox. Pet. 37–38 (citing Ex. 1019, 2:64–66,
3:10–12; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 689–690). At the cited portion of Dr. Knox’s
CBM2014-00088
Patent 6,032,137 C1

30

testimony, we are directed to “the discussion above regarding the ’988
Patent, Claim 57.” At that portion of his testimony, Dr. Knox characterizes
the various types of transaction data as “including images, [Magnetic Ink
Character Recognition] codeline data and various types of transaction data
derived through optical character recognition.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 308; see also id.
¶¶ 307–309 (setting out Dr. Knox’s testimony regarding this limitation).
Patent Owner argues that Petitioner’s claim chart “fails to address” this
limitation and that claim 50 is not anticipated by way of its dependency from
claim 1. PO Resp. 45–46. On the contrary, however, Petitioner does
address the limitation in the claim chart, and we have determined already
that Campbell anticipates claim 1. Petitioner’s unrebutted assertion that the
image and magnetic data types are the claimed more than one types of
transaction data is persuasive. We determine that Petitioner has shown, by a
preponderance of the evidence, that Campbell anticipates the subject matter
of claim 50.
10. Claim 26
Independent claim 26 is similar in scope to independent claim 1.
Petitioner’s assertions for unpatentability and Patent Owner’s arguments are
substantially similar to those we discussed in our analysis of claim 1. See
Pet. 24–28; PO Resp. 46–49. For the reasons expressed above, we
determine that Petitioner has shown, by a preponderance of the evidence,
that Campbell anticipates the subject matter of claim 26.
11. Claims 29, 36, and 38–41
Claim 29 depends from claim 26 and requires a plurality of remote
locations and a plurality of central locations. Claim 36 depends from claim
CBM2014-00088
Patent 6,032,137 C1

31

29 and requires intermediate locations between the remote and central
locations. Claims 38–41 depend indirectly from independent claim 26 and
generally provide more detail to the steps previously recited. Claim 41, in
particular, specifically recites that the transmission between the intermediate
location and the central location occurs via frames.
For claim 29, Petitioner asserts that there are a plurality of remote
locations (banks) and a plurality of central locations (nodes). Pet. 33–34;
Ex. 1019, 2:27–29 (disclosing “network 10 contains at least one check image
processing node”). For claim 36, Petitioner also asserts that there are
intermediate locations between the bank and node. Pet. 34–35; Ex. 1019,
2:46–49 (“One or both of institutions 14 and 16 may also be any
intermediary institution . . . between a bank of first deposit and a payor
bank.”). For claims 38–40, Petitioner’s position is largely the same as for
claims 29 and 36. See Pet. 35–36. For claim 41, Petitioner asserts that
Campbell describes a frame relay network transmitting data between the
banks and the node. Id. at 37.
For claims 29 and 36, Patent Owner reiterates its unpersuasive
arguments about the banks not being subsystems of one another. See PO
Resp. 49–51. For claims 38–41, Patent Owner argues that the claims require
“transmitting data within and between subsystems,” or depend from a
patentable parent claim. Id. at 51–53. Patent Owner’s arguments are
unpersuasive because we have determined already the parent claims are
shown to be unpatentable and because none of these claims require
transmission between subsystems of the same tier, as Patent Owner implies.
Specifically, claims 26, 29, 36, and 38–41 do not require transmitting
information between subsystems at the same level, i.e., the claims require
CBM2014-00088
Patent 6,032,137 C1

32

transmitting information “within” the same level and “between” different
levels. See, e.g., Ex. 1002, 27:23–32 (claim 38 claiming transmitting data
“within the [remote/intermediate/central] locations” and separately claiming
transmitting data “from [remote/intermediate] location to a corresponding
[intermediate/central] location”); id. at Figs. 1, 2, 4 (showing each so-called
tier as only communicating with other tiers, not with other entities in the
same tier).
Reviewing the arguments and evidence before us, we determine that
Petitioner has shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Campbell
anticipates the subject matter of claims 29, 36, and 38–41.
12. Claim 51
Claim 51 depends from claim 26 and further requires “capturing
electronic transaction data.” Petitioner asserts that Campbell discloses this
limitation where it describes the multi-workstation imaging equipment. Pet.
38 (citing Ex. 1019, 2:64–66, 3:10–12; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 691–693). Dr. Knox’s
Declaration discusses his understanding of the term to read on “any
transaction data that is in electronic form, [i.e.,] a scanned image [of a
check].” Ex. 1003 ¶ 310.
Patent Owner appears to consent to this construction because Patent
Owner argues that Campbell “does not necessarily produce electrical signals
representing the image of a check” because Campbell teaches that “optical
signals may represent the image of a check” and the optical signals are
“converted for transmission” over the network. PO Resp. 54 (citing Ex.
1019, 2:65–3:48. The portion of Campbell cited by Patent Owner, however,
makes clear that “check imaging equipment . . . produce[d] electrical or
CBM2014-00088
Patent 6,032,137 C1

33

optical signals representing the image of a check.” Ex. 1019, 2:64–66
(emphasis added). Those signals are then converted “into signals suitable
for transmission on the telephone network,” for example, “digital
transmission.” Id. at 3:17–31 (emphasis added). Based on these disclosures,
Patent Owner’s arguments are unpersuasive. Instead, we are persuaded that
Campbell discloses capture of electronic transaction data in the form of
digital data.
Reviewing the arguments and evidence before us, we determine that
Petitioner has shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Campbell
anticipates the subject matter of claim 51.
13. Claim 54
Claim 54 is similar in scope to claim 48 above, requiring the
generation of reports. Petitioner’s position is the same unpersuasive position
it took for claim 48. Pet. 37. Accordingly, for the reasons discussed above
with respect to claim 48, we determine that Petitioner has not shown, by a
preponderance of the evidence, that Campbell anticipates the subject matter
of claim 54.
14. Claim 55
Claim 55 is similar in scope to claim 50 above, requiring two or more
types of transaction data. Petitioner’s position is the same position it took
for claim 50. Pet. 37–38. Patent Owner’s argument is also the same. PO
Resp. 55–56. Accordingly, for the reasons discussed above with respect to
claim 50, we determine that Petitioner has shown, by a preponderance of the
evidence, that Campbell anticipates the subject matter of claim 54.
CBM2014-00088
Patent 6,032,137 C1

34

15. Claims 42, 60, and 62
Independent claim 42 is similar to independent claim 1. PO Resp. 56.
Petitioner’s analysis of claims 1 and 42 are virtually the same. Pet. 28
(Petitioner’s assertions for claim 1 relying on those for claim 42); id. at 19–
24 (setting forth Petitioner’s assertions for the limitations in claim 42).
Patent Owner’s arguments are the same as those we addressed with respect
to claim 1 above. See PO Resp. 56.
Claim 60 depends from claim 42 and, similar to claim 48, requires the
generation of reports. Petitioner’s and Patent Owner’s positions are the
same as for claim 48. Pet. 37; PO Resp. 56–57.
Claim 62 depends from claim 42 and, similar to claim 50, requires
two or more transaction data types. Petitioner’s and Patent Owner’s
positions are the same as for claim 50. Pet 37–38; PO Resp. 57.
For the reasons we discussed above with respect to claims 1, 48, and
50, we determine that Petitioner has shown, by a preponderance of the
evidence, that Campbell anticipates the subject matter of claims 42 and 62,
but that Petitioner has not shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that
Campbell anticipates the subject matter of claim 60.
16. Claims 43, 63, and 66
These claims are similar to claims 1, 51 (electronic transaction data),
and 48 (reports), respectively. Petitioner asserts that claims 43, 63, and 66
are anticipated for much the same reasons as we have discussed above with
respect to claims 1, 51, and 48. Pet. 24–28 (setting forth Petitioner’s
assertions for claim 43); id. 37 (setting forth Petitioner’s assertions for
claims 48, 54, 60, and 66); id. at 38 (setting forth Petitioner’s assertions for
CBM2014-00088
Patent 6,032,137 C1

35

claims 51 and 63). Patent Owner’s arguments for claims 43 and 63 are the
same unpersuasive arguments we have addressed already in our discussions
of claims 1 (encryption, subsystem), claims 29, 36, and 38–41 (within and
between), and claim 51 (electronic transaction data). PO Resp. 58–60.
Patent Owner’s arguments for claim 66, regarding the generation of reports,
are persuasive for the reasons expressed above with respect to claim 48. See
id. at 60.
For the reasons we discussed above with respect to claims 1, 29, 36,
38–41, and 51, we determine that Petitioner has shown, by a preponderance
of the evidence, that Campbell anticipates the subject matter of claims 43
and 63, but that Petitioner has not shown, by a preponderance of the
evidence, that Campbell anticipates the subject matter of claim 66.
17. Conclusion for the Campbell Anticipation Ground
Reviewing the arguments and evidence before us, we determine that
Petitioner has shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Campbell
anticipates the subject matter of claims 1, 2, 16, 18, 22, 25, 26, 29, 36, 38–
43, 50, 51, 55, 62, and 63, but has not made a sufficient showing for claims
9, 19, 48, 54, 60, and 66.
III. ORDER
In view of the foregoing, it is hereby:
ORDERED that claims 1, 2, 16, 18, 22, 25, 26, 29, 36, 38–43, 50, 51,
55, 62, and 63 are unpatentable;
FURTHER ORDERED that Exhibits 1062–1065 are to be expunged;
FURTHER ORDERED that Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude is
dismissed as moot; and
CBM2014-00088
Patent 6,032,137 C1

36

FURTHER ORDERED that, because this is a Final Written Decision,
the parties to the proceeding seeking judicial review of the decision must
comply with the notice and service requirements of 37 C.F.R. § 90.2.

For PETITIONER:
David Roodman
Emma Harty
Robert Lancaster
Bryan Cave LLP
daroodman@bryancave.com
emma.harty@bryancave.com
rglancaster@BryanCave.com

For PATENT OWNER:
Abraham Hershkovitz
Eugene Rzucidlo
HERSHKOVITZ & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
ahershkovitz@hershkovitz.net
grzucidlo@hershkovitz.net