Advertisement
Not a member of Pastebin yet?
Sign Up,
it unlocks many cool features!
- UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
- BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL
- AND APPEAL BOARD
- PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
- OF U.S. PATENT NO. 5,987,500
- Filed on behalf of SAP America, Inc.
- Lori A. Gordon
- By:
- Michael Q. Lee
- Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox PLLC
- 1100 New York Avenue, NW
- Washington, D.C.
- Tel: (202) 371-2600
- Fax: (202) 371-2540
- OF CONT
- TABLE O
- TENTS
- .... 2
- .... 4
- .... 4
- ..... 4
- ..... 5
- ..... 5
- .... 6
- .. 12
- ... 12
- .. 16
- .. 23
- .. 25
- .. 27
- .. 29
- .. 30
- .. 30
- .. 33
- .. 34
- .. 35
- ... 39
- .. 41
- .. 47
- .. 49
- .. 50
- .. 51
- .. 53
- .. 53
- .. 55
- .. 56
- .. 56
- .. 60
- I.
- II.
- III.
- ) ...............
- .................
- .................
- 7 C.F.R. §
- Notice (37
- Mandatory
- M
- 42.8(a)(1)
- .................
- .................
- R. § 42.104
- g (37 C.F.R
- r Standing
- Grounds for
- G
- 4(a)) ..........
- .................
- .................
- Id
- dentificatio
- on of Chal
- lenge (37 C
- C.F.R. § 42
- 2.104(b)) .
- .................
- .................
- challenge
- nds for the
- utory groun
- Statu
- A.
- ................
- .................
- .................
- .................
- or Art .......
- ion of Prio
- Citat
- B.
- .................
- .................
- .................
- Claim
- C.
- m Construc
- ction ........
- .................
- .................
- .................
- .................
- 1.
- Summary
- y of the ‘50
- 00 Patent .
- .................
- .................
- .................
- ANTICIPAT
- SED ON A
- NGES BAS
- CHALLEN
- IV. C
- TION .......
- A
- A.
- -12, 14-17
- Grou
- und 1: Chel
- lliah antici
- ipates claim
- ms 1-6, 10
- 7, and
- .................
- .................
- .................
- ................
- .................
- 35. ...
- .................
- Chelliah
- anticipates
- dent claim
- 1.
- s independ
- 1 ..............
- .................
- Chelliah
- 2.
- anticipates
- s dependen
- nt claim 2.
- ................
- .................
- Chelliah
- ................
- .................
- s dependen
- anticipates
- 3.
- nt claim 3.
- Chelliah
- ................
- s dependen
- anticipates
- 4.
- nt claim 4.
- .................
- Chelliah
- 5.
- anticipates
- s dependen
- nt claim 5.
- ................
- .................
- Chelliah
- ................
- nt claim 6.
- s dependen
- anticipates
- 6.
- .................
- Chelliah
- and 16. ......
- 0-12, 15, a
- s claims 10
- anticipates
- 7.
- .................
- Chelliah
- 8.
- anticipates
- s claim 14
- . ...............
- .................
- .................
- Chelliah
- . ...............
- .................
- s claim 17
- anticipates
- 9.
- .................
- Chelliah
- 35. ...........
- dent claim
- s independ
- anticipates
- 10.
- .................
- ms 1-6, 10-
- Grou
- und 2: Giff
- ford anticip
- pates claim
- -12, 14-17
- 7, and
- .................
- .................
- .................
- ................
- .................
- 35. ...
- .................
- Gifford a
- 1 ................
- ent claim 1
- independe
- anticipates
- 1.
- .................
- 2.
- Gifford a
- anticipates
- dependent
- t claim 2. .
- .................
- .................
- .................
- dependent
- anticipates
- Gifford a
- 3.
- t claim 3. .
- .................
- .................
- dependent
- anticipates
- Gifford a
- 4.
- t claim 4. .
- .................
- Gifford a
- 5.
- anticipates
- dependent
- t claim 5. .
- .................
- .................
- 6.
- Gifford a
- anticipates
- dependent
- t claim 6. .
- .................
- .................
- -12, 15, an
- nd 16. ........
- claims 10
- anticipates
- Gifford a
- 7.
- .................
- claim 14. .
- Gifford a
- 8.
- anticipates
- .................
- .................
- .................
- 9.
- Gifford a
- anticipates
- claim 17. .
- .................
- .................
- .................
- 35. .............
- ent claim 3
- independe
- anticipates
- Gifford a
- 10.
- .................
- Conclusion
- C
- n ................
- .................
- .................
- .................
- .................
- ................
- ABC
- B
- B.
- V.
- - i -
- Petitioner SAP America, Inc. ("SAP") petitions the United States Patent
- Office to institute an inter partes review of claims 1-6, 10-12, 14-17, and 35
- (collectively, the “challenged claims” or “claims under review”) of United States
- Patent No. 5,987,500 to Arunachalam (“the ’500 patent”). According to Office
- records, the ʼ500 patent is assigned to Pi-Net International, Inc. (“Pi-Net” or
- “Patent Owner”). A copy of the ’500 patent is provided as SAP 1001.
- Although the '500 Patent purports to be the first to introduce real-time
- transactions over a network, electronic commerce over networks such as the World
- Wide Web was known well before the '500 Patent's earliest possible priority date.
- In fact, the ‘500 Patent acknowledges that two-way, interactive, real-time
- transactions over the World Wide Web existed prior to the filing date of the '500
- Patent. ('500 Patent, 1:50-2:7.) For example, robust systems with diverse
- functionality, such as electronic malls (i.e., applications accessible over the World
- Wide Web that allow users to perform real-time transactions with a variety of
- different merchants) and electronic payment systems were well known before the
- '500 Patent. Because the prior art references discussed in this petition teach real-
- time electronic commerce and predate the '500 Patent, this petition presents
- grounds of rejection that are reasonably likely to prevail, and it should be granted
- on all grounds.
- - 1 -
- I. Mandatory Notice (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(a)(1))
- REAL PARTY IN INTEREST: The real party-in-interest of Petitioner is SAP
- America, Inc. (“SAP”).
- RELATED MATTERS: Petitioner notes that U.S. Patent No. 5,987,500 is
- involved in the following current proceedings that may affect or may be affected
- by a decision in this proceeding: Pi-Net International, Inc v. 1st Valley Credit
- Union, No. 5:12-cv-01989 (C.D.Cal.); Pi-Net International, Inc v. Ace Rent A Car
- Inc, No. 2:12-cv-04303 (C.D.Cal.); Pi-Net International, Inc v. Avis Budget Group
- Inc et al, No. 2:12-cv-04036 (C.D.Cal.); Pi-Net International Inc v. Cal Poly
- Federal Credit Union, No. 2:12-cv-09703 (C.D.Cal.); Pi-Net International Inc v.
- Dollar Thrifty Automotive Group Inc et al, No. 2:12-cv-04270 (C.D.Cal.); Pi-Net
- International Inc v. Enterprise Holdings Inc, No. 2:12-cv-03970 (C.D.Cal.); Pi-Net
- International Inc v. In-land Valley Federal Credit Union, No. 5:12-cv-01990
- (C.D.Cal.); Pi-Net International Inc v. Media City Community Credit Union, No.
- 2:12-cv-09699 (C.D.Cal.); Pi-Net International Inc v. Payless Car Rental System
- Inc, No. 2:12-cv-04394 (C.D.Cal.); Pi-Net International Inc v. South Bay Credit
- Union, No. 2:12-cv-09705 (C.D.Cal.); Pi-Net International Inc V. The Hertz
- Corporation et al, No. 2:12-cv-10012 (C.D.Cal.); Pi-Net International Inc v. U-
- Haul International Inc, No. 2:12-cv-04301 (C.D.Cal.); Pi-Net International, Inc. v.
- Bank of America, N.A. et al., No. 1:12-cv-00280 (D. Del.); Pi-Net International
- - 2 -
- Inc. v. Capital One Financial Corporation et al, No. 1:12-cv-00356 (D.Del.); Pi-
- Net International, Inc v. Citizens Financial Group, Inc., No. 1:12cv-00355
- (D.Del.) (the “Concurrent Litigation”); Pi-Net International Inc. v. JP Morgan
- Chase & Co, No. 1:12-cv-00282 (D.Del.); Pi-Net International Inc. v. Sovereign
- Bank N.A, No. 1:12-cv-00354 (D.Del.); Pi-Net International Inc. v. UBS Financial
- Services Inc, No. 1:12-cv-00353 (D.Del.); Pi-Net International Inc. v. Wilmington
- Trust Company et al, No. 1:12-cv-00281 (D.Del.); Pi-Net International Inc. v.
- WSFS Financial Corporation et al, No. 1:12-cv-00352 (D.Del.); Pi-Net
- International, Inc v. Bridge Bank, No. 5:12-cv-04959 (N.D.Cal.); Pi-Net
- International, Inc v. Commonwealth Central Credit Union, No. 5:12-cv-05730
- (N.D.Cal.); Pi-Net International, Inc. v. Mission National Bank, No. 3:12-cv-
- 04960 (N.D.Cal.); Pi-Net International, Inc. v. First National Bank Of Northern
- California, No. 3:12-cv-04957 (N.D.Cal.); Pi-Net International, Inc. v. My Credit
- Union, No. 3:12-cv-05733 (N.D.Cal.); Pi-Net International, Inc. v. San Jose Credit
- Union, No. 4:12-cv-05732 (N.D.Cal.); Pi-Net International, Inc. v. My Credit
- Union, No. 4:12-cv-05733.
- SERVICE INFORMATION: Please address all correspondence to the lead counsel
- as shown below. Petitioner consents to electronic service by email at the email
- address provided below.
- LEAD AND BACKUP COUNSEL:
- - 3 -
- Lead Counsel
- Backup Counsel
- Lori A. Gordon, Reg. No. 50,636
- Michael Q. Lee, Reg. No. 35,239
- STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX
- STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX
- 1100 New York Avenue, N.W.
- 1100 New York Avenue, N.W.
- Washington, D.C. 20005-3932
- Washington, D.C. 20005-3932
- Tel.: 202-772-8862
- Fax: 202-371-2600
- Tel.: 202-772-8674
- Fax: 202-371-2600
- lgordon-PTAB@skgf.com
- mlee-PTAB@skgf.com
- II. Grounds for Standing (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a))
- The undersigned and SAP certify that the ’500 patent is available for review.
- Because the ’500 patent has an effective filing date of November 13, 1995, 35
- U.S.C. § 311(c)'s timing requirements do not apply. See AIA Technical
- Corrections Bill, H.R. 6621, 112th Cong. § 1(d)(1) (2013) (enacted). SAP also
- certifies that it is not estopped from requesting an inter partes review challenging
- claims 1- 6, 10-12, 14-17, and 35 on the grounds identified in the petition.
- III.
- Identification of Challenge (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b))
- A.
- Statutory grounds for the challenge
- SAP request inter partes review of claims 1-6, 10-12, 14-17 and 35
- (collectively referred to herein as the “challenged claims”):
- Ground 1: Claims 1-6, 10-12, 14-17, and 35 are unpatentable under 35
- - 4 -
- U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 5,710,887 to Chelliah, et al.
- Ground 2: Claims 1-6, 10-12, 14-17, and 35 are unpatentable under 35
- U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 5,724,424 to Gifford.
- B. Citation of Prior Art
- The earliest possible priority date is November 13, 1995.1 The following
- prior art references are applied in the above grounds:
- U.S. Patent No. 5,710,887 to Chelliah et. al. (“Chelliah”) qualifies as prior
- art under at least § 102(e) because it was filed on August 29, 1995, prior to the
- filing date of the ‘500 patent. Chelliah is provided as SAP 1003.
- U.S. Patent No. 5,724,424 to Gifford (“Gifford”) qualifies as prior art
- under at least § 102(e) because it has an effective filing date of December 16,
- 1993, prior to the filing date of the ‘500 patent. Gifford is provided as SAP 1004.
- C. Claim Construction
- Except for the claim terms explicitly set forth below in section III.C.2, the
- claim terms of the ‘500 patent are to be given their broadest reasonable
- interpretation, as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art and consistent with
- the disclosure. A brief summary of the ‘500 patent is provided in section III.C.1.
- 1 Solely for purposes of petition, it is assumed that the '500 Patent is entitled
- to priority to Provisional Application No. 60/006,634 filed November 13, 1995.
- - 5 -
- 1.
- Summary of the ‘500 Patent
- (a) Background
- According to the '500 Patent, before its earliest possible filing date "[t]he
- ability to complete robust real-time, two-way transactions" was not "truly available
- on the Web." ('500 Patent, 2:27-28.) One option available to users was "deferred,"
- i.e., non-real-time, transactions (e.g., using email) that were "not processed until
- the email [was] received, read, and the person or system reading the email
- execute[d] the transaction." ('500 Patent, 1:29-32.) This option thus employed a
- "strictly [] one-way browse mode communications link, with the e-mail providing
- limited, deferred transactional capabilities." ('500 Patent, 1:47-49.)
- But the '500 Patent admits that well known technologies existed that allowed
- for "two-way" transactions on the Web using Common Gateway Interface (CGI)
- applications. ('500 Patent, 1:50-52.) These CGI scripts featured real-time
- transactions, e.g., making payments on a loan. ('500 Patent, 1:64-66; DEC.) The
- ‘500 Patent, however, contends that these CGI scripts were not a "viable solution
- for merchants with a large number of services." ('500 patent, 1:60-2:7.)
- (b) The '500 Patent's Disclosure
- The '500 Patent sought to provide "a method and apparatus for providing
- real-time, two-way transactional capabilities on the Web." ('500 Patent, 2:32-34.)
- FIG. 8 of the '500 Patent provides a flow diagram in which the user first connects
- to a Web server and issues a request for a transactional application. ('500 Patent,
- - 6 -
- 9:18-20.) An "exchange" then presents the user with a list of applications and, in
- response to the user's selection, switches the user to the selected application. ('500
- Patent, 9:22-26.) An "object routing component" then executes the user's request.
- ('500 Patent, 9:25-28.)
- FIG. 7 of '500 Patent shows a value added network (VAN) switch 520. ('500
- Patent, 8:34-35.) VAN switch 520 includes a boundary service 701, a switching
- service 702, a management service 703, and an application service 704. Boundary
- service 701 "provides the interface to the on-line service provider." ('500 Patent,
- 8:39-40.) Switching service 702 routes user connections to specific software
- modules, multiplexes and prioritizes requests, and facilitates access to financial
- networks (e.g., banking networks) using the Internet. ('500 Patent, 8:44-52.)
- Management service 803 includes tools that are "used by the end users to manage
- network resources." ('500 Patent, 8:58-60.) Also, application service 804 "includes
- POSvc [point of service] applications." ('500 Patent, 9:2-3.)
- (c) Claim Terms for Construction
- (i)
- “Value-added network”” Terms
- The ‘500 Patent uses the term “value-added network” (or “value added
- network”) only in the context of a value-added network service or a value-added
- network switch. The ‘500 Patent, however, does not provide definition of a value-
- - 7 -
- added network. (Sirbu Decl.,2 ¶ 15.). Under the broadest reasonable construction,
- a "value-added network" is a network that provides additional value or services
- relative to a network (e.g., a connection between two nodes). (Sirbu Decl., ¶ 15)
- Value-added services include, for example, packet switching, encryption, or
- authentication. (Sirbu Decl., ¶ 15.) Because the Internet is a packet-switched
- network, it is a "value-added network." (Sirbu Decl., ¶ 15.) Moreover, because the
- World Wide Web is provided over the Internet, it also is a "value-added network."
- (Sirbu Decl., ¶ 15.)
- VALUE-ADDED NETWORK SWITCH (CLAIMS 1, 10, AND 35)
- The plain and ordinary meaning of a "switch" is a hardware and/or software
- module that facilitates the movement of data between two or more computers.
- (Sirbu Decl., ¶ 16.) The '500 Patent does not provide a definition contradicting this
- plain meaning. (Sirbu Decl., ¶ 16.) Thus, under the broadest reasonable
- interpretation, a "value-added network switch" at least encompasses a hardware
- and/or software module resident on one or more computers accessible over the
- Internet or the World Wide Web that facilitates the movement of data between two
- or more computers. (Sirbu Decl., ¶ 16.)
- VALUE-ADDED NETWORK SERVICE PROVIDER (CLAIMS 1, 10, AND 35)
- Generally, a service provider is a party that provides a service to an end user.
- 2 The Sirbu Declaration is provided as SAP 1002.
- - 8 -
- The '500 Patent describes that a merchant is an example of a "service provider."
- (Sirbu Decl., ¶ 17; see also '500 Patent, 7:20-25 ("three-way transaction can be
- expanded to n-way transactions, where n represents a predetermined number of
- merchants or other service providers who have agreed to cooperate to provide
- services to users" (emphasis added).). Thus, a "value-added network service
- provider" includes at least a party such as a merchant which provides services over
- a value-added network (e.g., the Internet or the WWW). (Sirbu Decl., ¶ 17.)
- (ii) “Transactional application” (claims 1, 10, and 35)
- A transactional application is simply an application that supports one or
- more transactions. (See Sirbu Decl., ¶ 18.) The '500 Patent describes an explicit
- definition of the term "transaction" as "any type of commercial or other type of
- interaction that a user may want to perform." ('500 Patent, 5:19-22.) The '500
- Patent provides examples of applications supporting one or more transactions. For
- example, the ‘500 Patent describes that a POSvc application is a type of
- transactional application. ('500 Patent, 6:11-14.) The '500 Patent further defines a
- POSvc application as "an application that can execute the type of transaction that
- the user may be interested in performing." ('500 Patent, 6:30-32.) Thus, a
- "transactional application" is an application that allows a user to execute any type
- of interaction that the user may want to perform. (Sirbu Decl., ¶ 19.).
- - 9 -
- (iii) “Transactional services” (claims 1, 10, and 35)
- The ‘500 Patent does not provide an explicit definition of the term
- “transactional services.” (Sirbu Decl., ¶ 20.) However, the '500 Patent provides
- examples of "services." A bank can offer, as "services," the ability to complete a
- transfer between a checking and a savings ('500 Patent, 7:4-8), buy a car from a
- dealer ('500 Patent, 7:15-16), or request a car loan ('500 Patent, 7:16.). Thus, in the
- context of the '500 Patent, a "transactional service" is functionality that allows a
- user to perform a specific type of transaction. (Sirbu Decl., ¶ 20.)
- (iv) “Transaction link” (claims 3, 12, and 35)
- In claims 3 and 12, the term “transaction link” appears as "a transaction link
- between said network application and said transactional application" and in claim
- 35 the term appears as "a transaction link between said user application and said
- transactional application." Under the broadest reasonable interpretation and in the
- context of claims 3, 12, and 35, this term is any type of connection between a
- "network application" or a "user application" and a "transactional application."
- (Sirbu Decl., ¶ 21.)
- (v)
- In claims 1, 10, and 35, a network application is an element that provides a
- “Network application” (claims 1, 10, and 35)
- "user specification" (e.g., to a value-added network switch). Thus, in accordance
- with its broadest reasonable interpretation, a "network application" is any
- application that communicates a user specification using a network (e.g., a Web
- - 10 -
- browser). (Sirbu Decl., ¶ 22.)
- (vi)
- “Keeping a transaction flow captive” (claims 1,
- 10, and 35)
- The plain and ordinary meaning of "transaction flow" is the series of steps
- that carry out a transaction. (Sirbu Decl., ¶ 23.) Further, the plain and ordinary
- meaning of captive is maintaining control. (Sirbu Decl., ¶ 23.) Thus, as best
- understood, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, "keeping a transaction
- flow captive” is maintaining control over the steps used to carry out a transaction.
- (Sirbu Decl., ¶ 23.)
- (d) Means-plus-function limitations
- In compliance with 37 C.F.R. § 42.204(b)(3), an identification of the
- structure corresponding to the claimed function of means-plus-function limitations
- recited in the challenged claims is provided below.
- Claims Element/Function
- 1, 2, 35 Means for switching
- 1, 5, 35 Means for transmitting
- 1, 5, 35 Means for processing
- 2, 4 Means for receiving
- 2
- Means for enabling a
- switch
- 2, 3 Means for activating said
- transactional application
- Corresponding Structure
- Switching service 702 ('500 Patent, 8:44-46.)
- Boundary service 701 ('500 Patent, 8:39-43.)
- Bank "Back Office" ('500 Patent, 6:54-65.)
- The portion of switching service 702 that
- receives user
- a
- communications over
- network('500 Patent, 8:46-49.)
- The portion of switching service 702 that
- routes user connections ('500 Patent, 8:44-
- 55.)
- The portion of switching service 702 that
- activates an application ('500 Patent, 8:44-
- - 11 -
- for presenti
- Means f
- ing
- for submitt
- Means f
- ting
- for creating
- Means f
- g a
- transacti
- ion link
- 5
- 5.)
- that
- undary ser
- on of bou
- The portio
- rvice 701
- plication (
- ('500
- nterfaces t
- to the ne
- etwork app
- Patent, 8:39
- 9-43.)
- rvice 702
- that
- tching ser
- on of swit
- The portio
- . 5C,
- outputs data
- a to the use
- er. ('500 Pa
- atent, FIG.
- 6:40-47.)
- rvice 702
- tching ser
- on of swit
- The portio
- that
- 00 Patent, F
- u
- ubmits use
- er specifica
- ations. ('50
- FIG.
- C, 6:40-47
- 7.)
- that
- ank "Back
- of the Ba
- A portion
- k Office"
- des a
- processes re
- eceived re
- quests, and
- d/or includ
- ch as the B
- s data, suc
- that stores
- epository t
- e
- Bank
- "B
- Back Offi
- ice" data
- repository
- y ('500 Pa
- atent,
- 6
- 6:54-65.)
- An interm
- ediary to
- Patent, 6:61
- 1-65.)
- 0 Patent, 9
- erface ('500
- al user inte
- A graphica
- ng an A
- for activatin
- Means f
- 9:22-
- agent to
- create a
- 2
- 23.)
- transacti
- ion link
- t means (
- the host
- ('500
- for couplin
- Means f
- ng
- eans3,4
- Host me
- nP
- Ti
- To6
- 5 Apr
- Ts
- AP
- 3
- 4
- 4
- 5, 6,
- 15, 16,
- 35
- 5
- 35
- -17, and 35
- 10-12, 14-
- 5.
- '500 Paten
- nt — the l
- imited num
- mber
- ANTICIPA
- SED ON A
- ATION
- IV. C
- CHALLEN
- NGES BA
- Grou
- icipates cla
- elliah anti
- und 1: Che
- A.
- aims 1-6,
- ame proble
- olves the sa
- Chelliah so
- em as the
- A C
- bu Decl., ¶
- tions. (Sirb
- ed applicat
- twork-base
- ided by net
- an be provi
- ces that ca
- of servi
- ¶ 24.)
- Specific
- line comm
- e for on-l
- architecture
- omputer a
- vides "a co
- lliah prov
- cally, Che
- merce
- of comme
- ull range o
- enable a fu
- ucture to e
- c infrastru
- n electronic
- defines an
- which d
- ercial
- 3
- 35 U.S.C.
- m invokes 3
- at this term
- concede tha
- does not c
- Petitioner
- § 112(6).
- 4
- sible
- rm to the e
- Petitioner
- r has provi
- ided a con
- nstruction f
- for this ter
- extent pos
- given th
- 6 and claim
- 15, and 16
- aims 5, 6,
- tions in cla
- ting recitat
- gly conflict
- he seeming
- m 35.
- as best und
- "Host m
- means" is c
- onstrued a
- and analyze
- ed herein a
- derstood.
- - 12 -
- transactions analogous to those occurring in physical commerce." (Chelliah, 5:58-
- 61.) FIG. 1 of Chelliah (reproduced below with annotations), illustrates an
- embodiment of Chelliah's electronic mall. (Sirbu Decl., ¶ 24.)
- One or more computers
- providing access to the
- Web via a browser
- 114
- 115
- Applications
- running on a
- computer
- accessible over
- the Web
- External systems
- that fulfill a
- transaction
- Using a web browser running on a PC (user interface 13), a customer can
- "enter" Chelliah's electronic mall. (Chelliah, 6:28-31, 12:1-9; Sirbu Decl., ¶ 25.)
- The electronic mall includes a number of different applications running on a
- server, e.g., a web server. (Sirbu Decl., ¶ 25.) Upon entry, the user is presented
- with various storefront options presented as icons on the browser. (Chelliah, 6:37-
- 40; Sirbu Decl, ¶ 25.) The user then enters a specific store by clicking on its
- - 13 -
- particular icon. (Sirbu Decl., ¶ 25.) The selection is communicated to the
- electronic mall by the user's browser. (Sirbu Decl., ¶ 25; see also Chelliah, 6:37-
- 40.) Upon receiving the user's selection, internal commerce subsystems 116 are
- invoked by the selected electronic storefront 14. (Sirbu Decl., ¶ 25; see also
- Chelliah, 6:40-43.) In particular, interfaces 22 and 24 are used to transmit the user's
- request to internal commerce subsystems 116. (Sirbu Decl., ¶ 25.)
- Internal commerce subsystems 116 can include, for example, an incentives
- system, an observations subsystem, and/or a sales reprsentative system. (Sirbu
- Decl., ¶ 26; see also Chelliah, 9:4-6.) For example, once a user enters a particular
- storefront, the selected electronic storefront 14 calls a sales representative factory
- 115. (Sirbu Decl., ¶ 26; see also Chelliah, 13:27-32.) Sales representative factor
- 115 creates an instance of sales representative program object 114. (Sirbu Decl., ¶
- 26; see also Chelliah, 13:33-35.) Thereafter, a WWW session can be initiated
- between sales representative program object 114 and the customer. (Sirbu Decl., ¶
- 26; see also Chelliah, 14:45-51.) In particular, sales representative program object
- 114 operates like a virtual sales person and figuratively accompanies the customer
- through the virtual store and provides the customer with a number of different
- services, e.g., providing pricing information, authorizing a purchase method,
- applying discounts, shipping items, and arranging for payment. (Sirbu Decl., ¶ 26;
- see also Chelliah, 13:48-53.) When the customer selects an item for purchase, the
- - 14 -
- customer's browser transmits a request to execute the purchase transaction to sales
- representative program object 114 (i.e., using an HTTP request). (Sirbu Decl., ¶
- 26; see also Chelliah, 15:24-28.) Sales representative program object 114 then
- routes this transaction request by calling payment handler interface 124 (included
- in interfaces 22 of FIG. 1 of Chelliah) to validate the method of payment. (Sirbu
- Decl., ¶ 26; see also Chelliah, 16:27-31.) Payment handler interface 124 calls an
- external payment handler 126 (included in one of external commerce subsystems
- 18 in FIG. 1 of Chelliah) to obtain authorization to charge the customer's account.
- (Sirbu Decl., ¶ 26; see also Chelliah, 16:57-59.) Thereafter, sales representative
- program object 114 calls order fulfillment subsystem 128 (included in interfaces 22
- of FIG. 1 of Chelliah) and provides it with the items that the customer ordered.
- (Sirbu Decl., ¶ 26; see also Chelliah, 17:23-26.) Order fulfillment legacy
- subsystem 130 (included in one of external commerce subsystems 18 of FIG. 1 of
- Chelliah) performs the activities needed to ship the selected products to the
- customer. (Sirbu Decl., ¶ 26; see also Chelliah, 17:26-30.) Finally, after the
- selected products are indicated as shipped, order fullfillment subsystem 128 calls
- payment handler 124, which in turn calls external payment handler 126 to charge
- pursuant to a payment order. (Sirbu Decl., ¶ 26; see also Chelliah, 17:46-51.)
- Petitioner has provided a second annotated version of FIG. 1 of Chelliah below to
- illustrate how Chelliah's disclosure maps to the challenged claims.
- - 15 -
- Network
- application
- VAN
- Switch
- Transactional
- application
- Means for
- transmitting
- Means for
- processing
- Host means
- Means for
- switching
- 114
- 115
- dB
- dB
- dB
- VAN
- System
- 1.
- Chelliah anticipates independent claim 1
- (a) Chelliah teaches “A configurable value-added network switch
- for enabling real-time transactions on a network”
- As shown above in FIG. 1 of Chelliah (annotated to show correspondence to
- the challenged claims), Chelliah discloses a set of applications that collectively are
- the recited “VAN switch.” (Sirbu Decl., ¶ 27.) In particular, the storefront
- applications 14 receive data in the form of a request from a browser running on
- user interface 13 via a value-added network, i.e., the Internet. (Sirbu Decl., ¶ 27;
- see also Chelliah, 6:13-19; DEC.) This request is switched or routed by interfaces
- - 16 -
- 24 and 26 to sale representative factory 115 (shown in FIG. 6 of Chelliah). (Sirbu
- Decl., ¶ 27; see also Chelliah 6:53-56, 13:33-40, 17:23-30). Accordingly, these
- elements constitute the recited VAN switch.
- Moreover, Chelliah's VAN switch is "configurable." (Sirbu Decl. ¶¶ 28-29.)
- In particular, store management dashboards 20 allow a store's management to
- configure aspects of Chelliah's VAN switch. (Sirbu Decl., ¶ 28; see also Chelliah,
- 6:47-51.) For example, the store management can configure Chelliah's VAN
- switch to provide an in-store sale as an incentive to a customer. (Sirbu Decl., ¶ 28;
- see also Chelliah, 6:51-52.) Further, as described below, the Chelliah's VAN
- switch enables "real-time" transactions.
- (b) Chelliah teaches "means for switching to a transactional application
- in response to a user specification from a network application."
- As discussed above, the structure for the “means for switching” is the
- switching service 702 of the ‘500 Patent. The function of this limitation is
- “switching to a transactional application in response to a user specification from a
- network application.” Chelliah discloses this limitation.
- The sales program object 114of Chelliah is an application5 that allows a user
- to engage in a variety of transactions such as obtaining pricing information,
- authorizing a payment method, applying discounts, shipping items, or arranging for
- 5 A person of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that a program object
- is an “application.” (Sirbu Decl., ¶ 30; see also Chelliah, 9:30-38.)
- - 17 -
- payment. (Sirbu Decl., ¶ 30; see also Chelliah, 13:48-54.)
- The electronic storefronts 14, interfaces 22 and 24, and sales representative
- factory 115 switch or route the customer to sales representative program object 114
- (the recited “transactional application”) in response to a user specification received
- from a network application. (Sirbu Decl., ¶ 31.) As noted above, when a customer
- “enters” a particular store, electronic storefront 14 receives a request (i.e., an
- HTTP request) from the customer's web browser selecting a specific storefront.
- (Sirbu Decl., ¶ 31; Chelliah, 6:37-40.) Such request from the customer/user
- corresponds to the recited “user specification.” (Sirbu Decl., ¶ 31.) The user's
- browser corresponds to the recited “network application.” (Sirbu Decl., ¶ 31.)
- Responsive to the request from the browser, the particular electronic
- storefront 14 calls sales representative factory 115 (through interfaces 22 and 24).
- (Sirbu Decl., ¶ 32; see also Chelliah, 13:33-40.) Sales representative factory then
- creates sales respresentative program object 114. (Sirbu Decl., ¶ 32; see also
- Chelliah, 13:33-40.) Thereafter, the customer interacts with sales representative
- program object 114 in a WWW session. (Sirbu Decl., ¶ 32; see also Chelliah,
- 13:48-53; 14:45-51.) Thus, electronic storefronts 14, interfaces 22 and 24, and
- sales representative factory 115 switch the customer to sales representative
- program object 114. (See Sibru Decl., ¶ 32.)
- Moreover, Chelliah perfoms switching in the same way as switching service
- - 18 -
- 702 of the '500 Patent. In particular, switching service 702 performs switching by
- routing user connections. ('500 Patent, 8:46-49.) Similarly, Chelliah performs
- switching by activating the sales representative program object 114 and routing
- subsequent communications from the customer to sales representative program
- object 114. (Sirbu Decl., ¶ 33; see also Chelliah, 13:34-40, 13:4853.) Further, the
- result of Chelliah's switching is identical to that of switching service 702—the
- customer interacts with sales representative program object 114. (See Sirbu Decl.,
- ¶ 33; see also Chelliah, 12:34-42.)
- (c) Chelliah teaches "said transactional application providing a user
- with a plurality of transactional services managed by at least one
- value-added network service provider."
- Chelliah's sales representative program object 114 (the recited "transactional
- application") provides the user with a plurality of transactional services:
- After the Sales Representative Object 114 is created, it
- figuratively accompanies the customer through the store, provides
- pricing information, authorizes the purchase method (e.g., VISA),
- applies any applicable discounts (e.g., in-store price discounts or
- coupon-based price discounts), and completes the sale (e.g., ships the
- items and arranges for payment). (Chelliah, 13:48-53.)
- The entity providing a store represented in Chelliah's electronic mall by an
- electronic storefront 14 is a "value-added network service provider." (Sirbu Decl.,
- ¶ 34.) In particular, electronic storefront 14 is accessible over a value-added
- - 19 -
- network (i.e., the Internet). (Sirbu Decl., ¶ 35; see also Chelliah, 12:1-9.) Further,
- the sales representative program object associated with each storefront 14 provides
- a number of transactional services (e.g., a list of items for purchase and prices,
- shipping items, arranging for payment, and applying discounts) through sales
- representative object 114. (See Sirbu Decl., ¶ 35; see also Chelliah, 10:56-11:3.)
- Moreover, the entity providing the store manages its transactional services through
- store management dashboard 20. (Sirbu Decl., ¶ 35; see also Chelliah, 19:59-
- 20:19; DEC.)
- (d) Chelliah teaches "said value-added network service provider
- keeping a transaction flow captive."
- As discussed above, “keeping a transaction flow captive” is maintaining
- control over the steps used to carry out a transaction. (Sirbu Decl., ¶ 23.) Chelliah
- discloses this limitation. A store in Chelliah, through its associated sales
- representative program object 114, maintains control over the transaction flow:
- The Sales Representative Program Object 114 has access to
- information, kept by the store, about the customer and also controls
- the flow of a transaction processing session and forms part of an
- Internal Commerce Subsystem 16 shown in FIG. 1.
- (Chelliah, 10:35-39; emphasis added).
- (e) Chelliah teaches "said plurality of transactional services being
- performed interactively and in real time."
- The transactions offered by the sales representative program object are
- - 20 -
- performed "interactively":
- When the customer 12 selects items for purchase, User
- Interface 13 calls Sales Representative Program Object 114 to inform
- that program object of the selected item. (Chelliah, 14:52-54.)
- …
- In response to output from the function call given directly
- above, and as shown in Step 181, Sales Representative Program
- Object 114 calls User Interface 13 to obtain the customer's selected
- method of payment. As shown in detail in FIG. 8A, in step 181 Sales
- Representative Program Object 114 calls User Interface 13, passing to
- it the list of payment method tokens that correspond to the payment
- methods for which the customer is authorized. (Chelliah, 16:4-11.)
- These transactions are further performed in "real-time":
- As the customer decides what items to purchase, External
- Commerce Subsystems 18 may be
- the
- to complete
- invoked
- transaction. For example, VISA's credit card network may be used for
- payment followed by FedEx's Powership shipping management
- software for shipping. (Chelliah, 6:44-48.)
- (f) Chelliah teaches "means for transmitting a transaction request
- from said transactional application"
- The structure in the '500 Patent corresponding to this limitation is boundary
- service 701, which provides "the interfaces between VAN switch 520, the Internet
- and the Web, and multi-media end user devices such as PCs, televisions or
- telephones." ('500 Patent, 8:39-42.) The function of the limitation is “transmitting
- - 21 -
- a transaction request from said transaction application.” This limitation is
- disclosed by Chelliah.
- As noted above in Section IV(A)(1)(b), sales representative program object
- 114 is the recited "transactional application." When a user initiates a payment
- transaction in Chelliah, the sales representative program object 114 transmits an
- object-oriented function call to payment handler interface 124. (Sirbu Decl., ¶¶ 39-
- 40.) The sales representative program object 114 transmits this object-oriented
- function call to request a transaction (e.g., payment validation). (Sirbu Decl., ¶¶
- 39-40.) The payment handler interface 124 transmits the transaction request to
- external payment handler interface 126 for processing. (Sirbu Decl., ¶¶ 39-40; see
- also Chelliah, 11:40-49).
- (g) Chelliah teaches "means for processing said transaction request."
- The structure of the “means for processing” is the Bank Back Office. The
- function is “processing said transaction request.” Chelliah discloses this limitation.
- The payment handler 126 of Chelliah receives a transaction request from the
- sales representative program object 114 via the payment handler interface 124.
- (Sirbu Decl., ¶ 41.) The payment handler 126 processes the received transaction
- request to validate payment and thereby complete the purchase. (Sirbu Decl., ¶ 41;
- see also Chelliah, 12:56-65, 16:57-59, 17:46-51.) Moreover, payment handler 126
- processes the transaction request in the same way as the Bank "Back Office" in the
- - 22 -
- '500 Patent, i.e., operating on received and stored data:
- For example, other Payment Handler systems might include
- CheckFree's automatic check handling system for non credit-card
- acceptors or in-house "legacy systems" for large department store
- chains. Therefore, the system architecture must accommodate a wide
- variety of existing subsystems. (Chelliah, 8:53-58.)
- Moreover, the result of Chelliah's payment handlers is the same: the transaction is
- processed. (See Sirbu Decl., ¶ 42; see also Chelliah, 12:63-65.)
- Chelliah anticipates dependent claim 2.
- 2.
- Claim 2 depends from claim 1 and additionally recites "wherein said means
- for switching to a transactional application further comprises: means for receiving
- said user specification; means for enabling a switch to said transactional
- application; and means for activating said transactional application."
- (a) Chelliah teaches "means for receiving said user specification."
- The structure in the ‘500 patent corresponding to this limitation is the
- portion of boundary service 701 that receives requests over the Internet. As noted
- in Section IV(A)(1)(b), in Chelliah, the request from the web browser running on
- user interface 13 corresponds to the recited "user specification." Chelliah teaches
- that storefronts 14 receive the request (the “user specification”) from the web
- browser over the Internet. (Sirbu Decl., ¶ 43; see also Chelliah, 6:37-43.) Thus,
- Chelliah's storefront 14 provides the equivalent function and corresponding
- - 23 -
- structure of this limitation.
- (b) Chelliah
- teaches "means
- transactional application."
- for enabling a switch
- to said
- The structure in the '500 Patent corresponding to this limitation is boundary
- service 701. Boundary service 701 provides "the interfaces between VAN switch
- 520, the Internet and the Web, and multi-media end user devices such as PCs,
- televisions, or telephones." ('500 Patent, 8:36-39.) The function of this limitation
- is “enabling a switch to said transactional application.” Chelliah discloses this
- limitation.
- Like the boundary service 701 of the ‘500 Patent, Chelliah discloses
- interfaces 26 and 24 to the transactional application (i.e., sales representative
- program object 114) that route the received user selection to internal commerce
- subsystems. (Sirbu Decl., ¶ 44; see also Chelliah, 6:26-36.) Thus, Chelliah teaches
- the function and structure of this limitation.
- (c) Chelliah teaches "means for activating said transactional
- application."
- The structure in the '500 Patent corresponding to this limitation is a
- graphical user interface that provides a list of transactional applications. The
- function of this limitation is “activating said transactional application." Chelliah
- discloses this limitation because Chelliah discloses a graphical user interface that
- displays icons the customer can select to initiate activation of a particular
- - 24 -
- transactional application:
- A Customer 12 enters the electronic mall via a user interface
- 13, where the customer is presented with a choice of displayed
- Electronic Storefronts 14. The user interface 13 may be a personal
- computer, set-top box, a touch sensitive screen, a touch tone telephone
- or any other device capable of reproducing to audio or video
- information to a human being. It typically includes an input means
- such as a keyboard or computer "mouse" through which the computer
- can input information into the system. (Chelliah, 6:28-36; emphasis
- added; see also Sirbu Decl., ¶ 46.)
- Chelliah discloses that interfaces 26 and 24 routes the user's selection to
- sales representative factory 115 (included in internal commerce subsystems 16.
- (Sirbu Decl., ¶ 25.) Sale representative factory 115 creates sales representative
- program object 114 (the recited “transactional application”) in response to a
- customer selection in a graphical interface. (Sirbu Decl., ¶ 45; see also Chelliah,
- 6:37-40, 13:33-35; DEC.) One of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that
- "creating" an application is one form of "activating" an application. (Sirbu Decl., ¶
- 45.)
- Chelliah anticipates dependent claim 3.
- 3.
- Claim 3 depends from claim 2 and additionally recites, "wherein said means
- for activating said transactional application further includes means for creating a
- transaction
- link between said network application and said
- transactional
- - 25 -
- application." The structure corresponding to the “means for creating a transaction
- link” is the portion of the boundary service 701 that provides "the interfaces
- between VAN switch 520, the Internet and the Web, and multi-media end user
- devices such as PCs, televisions, or telephones." ('500 Patent, 8:36-39.) Chelliah
- discloses this limitation.
- As discussed above, the “means for activating” equates to Chelliah’s
- graphical user interface from which a customer can select a particular electronic
- store, interfaces 26 and 24, and sales representative factory 115. Like the interface
- portion of the boundary service 701, Chelliah's interface 26 interfaces the web
- browser to sales representative program object 114. (Sirbu Decl., ¶ 47; Chelliah,
- 13:35-39) Chelliah's interface 26 creates a connection (transaction link) between
- the user's browser (i.e., the “network application”) and the sales representative
- program object (the “transactional application”). (Sirbu Decl., ¶ 47.) In particular,
- one skilled in the art would appreciate that interface 26 links the web-based model
- (implemented by storefronts 14) and the distributed object-oriented model
- (implemented by internal commerce subsystems 16 including sales representative
- program object 114). (Sirbu Decl., ¶ 47.) In doing so, interface 26 creates a
- "transaction link" between the web browser (i.e., the recited “network application”)
- and sales representative program object 114 (the recited “transactional
- application”). (Sirbu Decl., ¶ 48.)
- - 26 -
- Chelliah anticipates dependent claim 4.
- 4.
- Claim 4 depends from claim 2 and additionally recites, "wherein said means
- for receiving said user specification further comprises: means for presenting said
- user with a list of transactional applications, each of said transactional application
- being associated with a particular value-added network service provider; and
- means for submitting said user specification according to a user's selection of said
- transactional application from said list of transactional applications."
- (a) Chelliah teaches “means for presenting said user with a list of
- transactional applications, each of said transactional application
- being associated with a particular value-added network service
- provider.”
- The structure corresponding to this limitation is the portion of switching
- service 702 that outputs data to the user. The function of this limitation is
- "presenting said user with a list of transactional applications, each of said
- transactional application being associated with a particular value-added network
- service provider." Chelliah teaches this limitation.
- Chelliah teaches providing customer 12 with a menu of icons (the recited
- "list of transactional applications") each of which corresponding to a particular
- electronic storefront 14. (Chelliah, 6:37-40.) Because a selection of a particular
- electronic storefront 14 corresponds to a particular instance of sales representative
- program object 114 (the recited "transactional application"), each item in the menu
- constitutes a representation of a particular transactional application. (See Chelliah,
- - 27 -
- 14:10-14 (each sales representative program object being instantiated with a list of
- distributor program object 118 particular to the electronic store 14.)) Moreover,
- each electronic store 12 and its corresponding instantiation of sales representative
- program object 114 is managed by the associated store (the recited "value-added
- network service provider). Thus, Chelliah teaches this limitation.
- (b) Chelliah teaches “means for submitting said user specification
- according to a user's selection of said transactional application
- from said list of transactional applications.”
- The structure corresponding to this limitation is the portion of switching
- service 702 that submits user specifications. The function of this limitation is
- "submitting said user specification according to a user's selection of said
- transactional application from said list of transactional applications." Chelliah
- discloses this limitation.
- Chelliah's interfaces 26 and 24 receive the user's specification (i.e., the
- request from the web browser running on user interface 13) and submits the user
- specification according to the user's selection from the menu of icons (the recited
- "list of transactional application) by generating a corresponding object-oriented
- function call that can be used by the object-oriented programs that constitute
- internal commerce subsystems 116. (Sirbu Decl., ¶ 25.) Thus, Chelliah discloses
- this limitation.
- - 28 -
- Chelliah anticipates dependent claim 5.
- 5.
- Claim 5 depends from claim 1 and additionally recites, "wherein said means
- for processing said transaction request further comprises means for coupling said
- means for transmitting to a host means." The "host means"6 equates, for example,
- to the portion of the Bank "Back Office" that processes received requests and/or a
- repository that stores data. The structure corresponding to the "means for coupling"
- is an intermediary to the "host means."
- As noted above in section IV(A)(1)(g), Chelliah's payment handler 126 is
- equivalent to the recited “means for processing" the transaction request. As would
- have been appreciated by one of ordinary skill in the art, external payment handlers
- such as Chelliah's payment handler 126 inherently include a data repository (such
- as a card-issuing bank server) that stores information corresponding to the
- customer involved in the transaction (e.g., the customer’s account number and
- account balance) and a network for accessing that data repository. (Sirbu Decl., ¶
- 49.) Accordingly, the card-issuing bank server discloses the recited "host means"
- because it includes a data repository that stores information relevant to a payment
- request. (Sirbu Decl., ¶ 49.) The card-issuing bank server also processes such data
- when processing transaction requests. Moreover, the payment handler's network is
- equivalent to the "means for coupling" because it is an intermediary that couples
- 6 Petitioner does not concede that this term invokes 35 U.S.C. § 112(f).
- - 29 -
- Chelliah's means for transmitting (i.e., payment handler interface 124) to the card-
- issuing bank server or other data repository (the recited “host means”). (Sirbu
- Decl., ¶ 49.)
- Chelliah anticipates dependent claim 6.
- 6.
- Claim 6 depends from claim 5 and additionally recites, "wherein said host
- means contains data corresponding to said transaction request." As described above
- with respect to claim 5, the structure in the ‘500 patent corresponding to the "host
- means" is the Bank "Back Office" data repository. As also noted above in Section
- IV(A)(5), the external payment handlers 126 of Chelliah inherently store user
- information such as account numbers, account balances, etc. (Sirbu Decl., ¶ 50).
- Because account numbers and account balances “correspond to a transaction
- request,” Chelliah teaches this limitation.
- Chelliah anticipates claims 10-12, 15, and 16.
- 7.
- Independent claim 10 and its dependent claims 11, 12, 15, and 16 recite
- similar features as independent claim 1 and its dependent claims 2, 3, 5, and 6.
- The following claim chart indicates the correspondence between the limitations of
- claims 10-12, 15, and 16 and the limitations of claims 1-3, 5, and 6. Accordingly,
- claims 10-12, 15 and 16 are anticipated by Chelliah for the same reasons as
- provided above for claims 1-3, 5 and 6.
- Limitation of Claim 10
- Corresponding
- Limitation of Claim 1
- Section
- - 30 -
- A method for configuring a value-added
- network switch for enabling real-time
- transactions on a network, said method
- for configuring said value-added
- network switch compromising the steps
- of:
- switching to a transactional application
- in response to a user specification from
- a network application,
- said transactional application providing
- a user with a plurality of transactional
- services managed by at least one value-
- added network service provider,
- said value-added network service
- provider keeping a transaction flow
- captive,
- said plurality of transactional services
- being performed interactively and in
- real time;
- transmitting a transaction request from
- said transactional application; and
- processing said transaction request.
- A configurable value-
- added network switch
- for enabling real-time
- transactions on a
- network, said
- configurable value-
- added network switch,
- comprising
- means for switching to
- a transactional
- application in response
- to a user specification
- from a network
- application,
- said transactional
- application providing a
- user with a plurality of
- transactional services
- managed by at least
- one value-added
- network service
- provider,
- said value-added
- network service
- provider keeping a
- transaction flow
- captive,
- said plurality of
- transactional services
- being performed
- interactively and in real
- time;
- means for transmitting
- a transaction request
- from said transactional
- application;
- means for processing
- said transaction
- request.
- IV(A)(1)(a)
- IV(A)(1)(b)
- IV(A)(1)(c)
- IV(A)(1)(d)
- IV(A)(1)(e)
- IV(A)(1)(f)
- IV(A)(1)(g)
- - 31 -
- Limitation of Claim 11
- Limitation of Claim 12
- receiving said user specification;
- enabling a switch to said transactional
- application; and
- The method for configuring said value-
- added network switch as claimed in
- claim 10 wherein said step of switching
- to a transactional application further
- comprises the steps of:
- Corresponding
- Limitation of Claim 2
- The configurable
- value-added network
- switch as claimed in
- claim 1 wherein said
- means for switching to
- a transactional
- application further
- comprises:
- means for receiving
- said user specification;
- means for enabling a
- switch to said
- transactional
- application; and
- activating said transactional application. means for activating
- said transactional
- application.
- Corresponding
- Limitation of Claim 3
- The configurable
- value-added network
- switch as claimed in
- claim 2 wherein said
- means for activating
- said transactional
- application further
- includes
- means for creating a
- transaction link
- between said network
- application and said
- transactional
- application
- Similar Limitation of
- Claim 5
- The configurable
- value-added network
- The method for configuring said value-
- added network switch as claimed in
- claim 11 wherein said step of activating
- said transactional application further
- includes
- a step of creating a transaction link
- between said network application and
- said transactional application.
- Limitation of Claim 15
- The method for configuring said value-
- added network switch as claimed in
- - 32 -
- Section
- IV(A)(2)
- IV(A)(2)(a)
- IV(A)(2)(b)
- IV(A)(2)(c)
- Section
- IV(A)(3)
- IV(A)(3)
- Section
- IV(A)(5)
- claim 10
- wherein said step of processing said
- transaction request further comprises the
- step of transmitting said transaction
- request to a host means.
- Limitation of Claim 16
- The method for configuring said value-
- added network switch as claimed in
- claim 15
- wherein said host means contains data
- corresponding to said transaction
- request.
- switch as claimed in
- claim 1
- wherein said means for
- processing said
- transaction request
- further comprises
- means for coupling
- said means for
- transmitting to a host
- means
- Corresponding
- Limitation of Claim 6
- The configurable
- value-added network
- switch as claimed in
- claim 5
- wherein said host
- means contains data
- corresponding to said
- transaction request
- IV(A)(5)
- Section
- IV(A)(6)
- IV(A)(6)
- Chelliah anticipates claim 14.
- 8.
- Claim 14 corresponds to claim 4, except instead of "value-added network
- service provider" recited in claim 4, claim 14 recites an "Internet service provider."
- As noted in Section IV(A)(4), Chelliah teaches the limitations of claim 4. To the
- extent that an "Internet service provider" differs from a "value-added network
- service provider", Petitioner notes that the store relied upon in Section IV(A)(4) to
- disclose "value-added network service provider" also discloses an "Internet service
- provider" because the stores are accessible over the Internet. (See Section
- IV(A)(1)(c).) Thus, Chelliah discloses the limitations of claim 14.
- - 33 -
- Chelliah anticipates claim 17.
- 9.
- Claim 17 depends from claim 10 and further recites "wherein said value-
- added network service providers cooperate
- to provide said plurality of
- transactional services to said user." Chelliah discloses this limitation.
- The external commerce subsystems 18 (e.g., VISA, Fedex, and AVP) of
- Chelliah provide a variety of transactional services (e.g., payment authorization,
- shipping and tax calculating, etc.) to a user.
- They could include: Customer Accounts Subsystem, Participant
- Subsystem; Order Fulfillment; Payment Handler; Product Database;
- Shipping; and Tax.
- Examples of well-known existing implementations of these
- subsystems are: VISA's computerized credit card network (Payment
- Handler), various catalog sales' central warehouse operations (Order
- Fulfillment), FedEx's on-site, personal computer-based shipping
- calculator (Shipping), and AVP's tax calculator (Taxing).
- (Chelliah, 8:41-50; see also Sirbu Decl., ¶ 51.)
- These services are provided by multiple service providers (e.g., VISA, Fedex, and
- AVP).
- The different external commerce subsystems 18 of Chelliah "cooperate" to
- provide the transactional services by working together to complete a purchase.
- (Sirbu Decl., ¶ 52) For example, the payment service provider and the shipping
- service provider cooperate to provide the payment service. (Sirbu Decl., ¶ 52)
- - 34 -
- Specifically, payment handler 126 (provided by the payment service provider) is
- invoked to convert an “authorization to charge” to a “payment order” only after the
- product is indicated as shipped by order fulfillment legacy system 130 (provided
- by the shipping service provider). (Sirbu Decl., ¶ 52; see also Chelliah, 17:23-30,
- 17:46-52.)
- 10. Chelliah anticipates independent claim 35.
- Independent claim 35 recites similar features as claim 1. The following
- claim chart indicates the correspondence between the limitations of claim 35 and
- the limitations of claim 1.
- Limitation
- A configurable value-added network
- system for enabling real-time
- transactions on a network, said
- configurable value-added network
- system comprising:
- means for switching to a transactional
- application in response to a user
- specification from a network application,
- said transactional application providing a
- user with a plurality of transactional
- services managed by at least one value-
- added network service provider,
- Section
- IV(A)(1)(a)
- IV(A)(1)(b)
- IV(A)(1)(c)
- Corresponding
- limitation in Claim 1
- A configurable value-
- added network switch
- for enabling real-time
- transactions on a
- network, said
- configurable value-
- added network switch,
- comprising
- means for switching to a
- transactional application
- in response to a user
- specification from a
- network application,
- said transactional
- application providing a
- user with a plurality of
- transactional services
- managed by at least one
- value-added network
- service provider,
- - 35 -
- said value-added network service
- provider keeping a transaction flow
- captive,
- said plurality of transactional services
- being performed interactively and in real
- time;
- means for activating an agent to create a
- transaction link between said user
- application and said transactional
- application
- means for transmitting a transaction
- request from said transactional
- application; and
- a host means for processing said
- transaction request and retrieving data
- corresponding to said transaction
- request.
- IV(A)(1)(d)
- said value-added
- network service provider
- keeping a transaction
- flow captive,
- said plurality of
- transactional services
- being performed
- interactively and in real
- time,
- See subsection (a) below See
- subsection
- (a) below
- IV(A)(1)(e)
- IV(A)(1)(f)
- means for transmitting a
- transaction request from
- said transactional
- application;
- See subsection (b) below See
- subsection
- (b) below
- a) Chelliah teaches "means for activating an agent to create a
- transaction
- link between said user application and said
- transactional application."
- The structure in the ‘500 patent corresponding to "means for activating an
- agent to create a transaction link between said user application and said
- transactional application" is a graphical user interface. Chelliah discloses this
- limitation.
- As described above, the system of Chelliah provides a graphical user
- interface including icons that the customer can select to choose a particular
- - 36 -
- (
- electronic storefront7:
- The customer enters a particular electronic store by selecting its
- Electronic Storefront 14, e.g., by clicking on an icon with a
- conventional selection or input device such as a mouse/curser device
- touchpad. (Chelliah, 6:37-40.)
- Chelliah's graphical user interface performs the function of "activating an agent to
- create a transaction link between said user application and said transactional
- application." When the customer "enters" a storefront 14 (i.e., by clicking on the
- icon in the graphical user interface), a participant program object 112 (an agent) is
- activated:
- When the Customer 12 "enters" a Storefront 14, Participant
- Program Object 112 is retrieved from the Participant Subsystem and
- activated. Storefront 14 determines what Distributor Objects 118 exist
- to distribute coupons that can be used by this storefront. (Chelliah,
- 13:23-25.)
- The participant program object 112 is the recited “agent.” Participant program
- object 112 creates a transaction link between the customer's web browser (the
- recited "user application") and sales representative program object 114 (the recited
- "transactional application") by providing a
- token
- that allows for secure
- communications between the web browser and sales representative program object
- 7 Sales representative program object 114 is initiated and receives requests
- from the customer as a result of the customer's interaction with electronic
- storefronts 14. (Sirbu Decl., ¶¶ 25-26.)
- - 37 -
- b) Chelliah teaches "a host means for processing said transaction
- request and retrieving data corresponding to said transaction
- request."
- (
- The structure in the ‘500 patent corresponding to "a host means for
- processing said transaction request and retrieving data corresponding to said
- transaction request," is a portion of the Bank "Back Office." As noted above in
- Section IV(A)(1)(g) with respect to claim 1, Chelliah's payment handler discloses
- the relevant portions of the Bank "Back Office" and thus teaches the recited “host
- 114. (Sirbu Decl., ¶ 54; Chelliah, 10:14-17, 10:28-30.)
- means.”
- Chelliah's payment handler 126 performs the function of "processing said
- transaction request and retrieving data corresponding to said transaction request."
- In particular, the Payment Handler processes a transaction request by converting an
- “authorization to charge” to a “payment order”:
- Payment Handler Interface 124 again calls External Payment
- Handler 126 to convert the authorization to charge to a payment order.
- (Chelliah, 17:49-51.)
- Further, the Payment Handler retrieves "data corresponding to said
- transaction request" in the form of, e.g., charge acknowledgements:
- For example, if the customer selects a Visa credit card as a payment
- method, then Payment Handler Interface 124 will call the VISAnet
- - 38 -
- account.8 E
- sy
- ystem for a
- authorizati
- ion to char
- ge the sele
- ected Visa
- External
- that the
- erface 124
- andler Inte
- Payment Ha
- 6 notifies P
- andler 126
- Payment Ha
- pted. (Chel
- harge to th
- he selected
- payment m
- method wi
- ill be accep
- lliah,
- 6:61-67.)
- P c 1 B G
- B.
- Grou
- 17, and 35.
- 10-12, 14-1
- aims 1-6, 1
- cipates cla
- fford antic
- und 2: Gif
- .
- e '500 Pate
- m that the
- me problem
- ves the sam
- Gifford solv
- ent sought
- to solve—
- — the
- limited
- number o
- of services
- that can
- d applicati
- work-based
- ed by netw
- be provide
- ions.
- Gifford
- ior to No
- d that pr
- described
- ovember
- nt indepen
- o merchan
- 1995 “no
- ndent
- mechan
- sers to ut
- permits us
- rks that p
- ter networ
- or comput
- vailable fo
- nism is av
- tilize
- s, and dem
- debit cards
- dit cards, d
- uch as cred
- ruments su
- ncial instr
- tional finan
- convent
- mand
- (Gifford, 1
- alances.” (
- account ba
- deposit
- 1:25-31.)
- imitations,
- erceived li
- s these pe
- To address
- T
- , Gifford
- provides
- "[a] comp
- plete
- system
- for the pu
- urchasing
- of goods
- uter netwo
- er a compu
- mation ove
- or inform
- ork."
- (Gifford
- ow, illustra
- duced belo
- ford, reprod
- . 1 of Giffo
- mple, FIG
- t.) For exam
- d, Abstract
- ates a
- tem 200 th
- k sales syst
- network
- hat:
- 1:46-49.)
- 7 to interc
- f buyer co
- plurality o
- connect a p
- network 6
- mploys a n
- omputers
- merchant
- omputer
- 64, each m
- 61 and 62,
- computers
- s 63 and 6
- merchant c
- 65 and 66
- atabases 6
- isement da
- tal adverti
- ctive digit
- with respec
- 6, and a
- a buyer
- payment c
- omputer 6
- 68. A use
- er of the
- system
- employs
- omputer t
- erchant com
- m the me
- ments from
- advertisem
- o retrieve
- mputers,
- used to
- nd to purc
- chase goo
- ds of inte
- rest. A pa
- ayment com
- mputer is
- 8
- Handler. (C
- Payment H
- mple of the P
- VISAnet i
- is an exam
- Chelliah, 1
- e 6 w p c a
- - 39 -
- authorize a purchase transaction. (Gifford, 4:44-52.)
- Gifford further notes "[t]he software architecture underlying the particular
- preferred embodiment is based upon the hypertext conventions of the World Wide
- Web." (Gifford, 4:61-64.)
- As shown in FIG. 6 of Gifford, the user activates a link that results in "the
- HTTP request 20 for a specific document with a specified URL." (Sirbu Decl., ¶
- 59; see also Gifford, 5:51-53.) The merchant then returns the document
- (advertisements or lists of goods/services that can be purchased) specified by the
- URL. The user can select a link in this document to send another HTTP request
- (e.g., to request a purchase) to the merchant computer. (Sirbu Decl., ¶ 59; see also
- Gifford, 5:57-59.) The merchant computer can then send a payment order to a
- payment system/computer. (Sirbu Decl., ¶ 59; see also Gifford, 6:9-11.)
- "If the payment system authorizes the request, an authorization message at
- 29 is returned to the buyer computer, and the merchant computer checks at 30 that
- the authorization message came from
- the payment computer using
- the
- authenticator mechanism described below." (Gifford, 6:52-56.) The merchant
- computer can then complete the transaction: "the merchant computer performs
- fulfillment at 30, returning the purchased product in response at 31." (Gifford,
- 6:57-59.) Annotated FIG. 1 of Gifford illustrates how the elements of Gifford’s
- system map to the limitations of the challenged claims.
- - 40 -
- Transactional
- application
- Network
- Application
- Financial
- Network
- VAN
- System
- VAN
- Switch
- Host
- Means
- Means for
- processing
- 1. Gifford anticipates independent claim 1
- (a) Gifford teaches “A configurable value-added network switch
- for enabling real-time transactions on a network”
- Gifford's merchant computers 63 and 64 and payment computer 68
- collectively function as a VAN switch. (Sirbu Decl., ¶ 61.) In particular, a buyer
- accesses merchant computer 63 over network 67. (Sirbu Decl., ¶ 61; see also 4:44-
- 48.) Gifford makes clear that network 67 can be the World Wide Web and thus is a
- value-added network. (Sirbu Decl., ¶ 59; see also Gifford, 4:61-64.) Moreover,
- merchant computers 63 and 64 and payment computer 68 route a purchase
- transaction request received from buyer computers 61 and 62 to a financial
- network and therefore are collectively a “VAN switch.” (Sirbu Decl., ¶ 61; see also
- - 41 -
- Gifford, 6:39-49 (describing routing from buyer computers 61 and 62 to the
- merchant computers 63 and 64 and to the payment computer 68), 9:14-18 (routing
- from the payment computer 68 to the external financial network).) Moreover, a
- person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that computers 63, 64, and 68
- are "configurable." (Sirbu Decl., ¶ 61.)
- (b) Gifford
- for switching to a transactional
- teaches "means
- application in response to a user specification from a network
- application"
- The structure in the ‘500 Patent corresponding to this limitation is switching
- service 702. Gifford discloses this limitation.
- As illustrated in the annotated figures from Gifford reproduced below,
- Gifford discloses switching from an application that provides an overview screen
- (FIG. 2) to an application that provides digital advertisements of items (i.e.,
- different articles) available for purchase (FIG. 3) in response to a request received
- from buyer computer 61 when user selects link 1 in the overview screen. (Sirbu
- Decl., ¶ 59; see also Gifford, 5:7-13.) The application that provides the digital
- advertisement of items is the recited “transactional application” and the reqeust
- received from buyer computer 61 is the "user specification."
- - 42 -
- Clicking link 1 results in buyer
- computer 61 transmitting a request to
- merchant computer 63
- Responsive to the request, merchant
- computer 63 calls an application that delivers
- this webpage to buyer computer 61
- For example, Gifford discloses:
- An initial user inquiry 19 from activating link 1 results in the HTTP
- request 20 for a specific document with a specified URL. The URL
- specifies the name of the merchant computer. The merchant computer
- retrieves the document given the URL at 21, and returns it to the
- buyer computer at 22. (Gifford, 5:51-56)
- Further, the result of Gifford's switching is identical to the result of switching
- service 702—the user is switched to the transactional application (running on
- merchant computer 63). (Sirbu Decl., ¶ 64; see also Gifford, 5:54-57.)
- (c) Gifford teaches "said transactional application providing a user
- with a plurality of transactional services managed by at least one
- value-added network service provider"
- As shown in FIG. 3 of Gifford (reproduced below with annotations), the
- digital advertisement screen provides a plurality of items available for purchase.
- - 43 -
- (Sirbu Decl., ¶ 64; see also Gifford, 5:19-20.) In the example of FIG. 3, Gifford
- lists 3 items for sale. Selecting any of these items results in the purchase of the
- selected items. (Sirbu Decl., ¶ 64.)
- Service 1
- Service 2
- Service 3
- One of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that the functionality
- corresponding to each of these items is a "transactional service," because each
- operates to perform a user-specified transaction (e.g., the purchase of a user-
- selected news item, and the download of the news item to the buyer computer 61
- for viewing by the user). (Sirbu Decl., ¶ 66.) Moreover, a person of ordinary skill
- in the art would appreciate that a merchant manages the items available for
- purchase (e.g., selecting news items that can be purchased, setting their respective
- prices, etc.) through interaction with the merchant computer. (Sirbu Decl., ¶ 66; see
- also Gifford, 5:22-24.)
- (d) Gifford teaches "said value-added network service provider
- keeping a transaction flow captive."
- As discussed above, “keeping a transaction flow captive” is maintaining
- - 44 -
- control over the steps used to carry out a transaction. (Sirbu Decl., ¶ 23.) Gifford
- teaches that the merchant retains control over the transaction flow. For example,
- interactions with the buyer computer 61 and payment computer 68 in the
- information flow of FIG. 6 of Gifford are responsive to actions of and directed by
- the merchant computers 63 and 64. (Sirbu Decl., ¶ 67.)
- (e) Gifford teaches "said plurality of transactional services being
- performed interactively and in real time."
- The services provided to a user by Gifford are performed "interactively":
- Accordingly, therefore, it is a primary objective of this
- invention to provide a user interactive network sales system in which
- the user can freely use any merchant of choice and utilize existing
- financial instruments for payment. (Gifford, 1:50-53; emphasis
- added.)
- Further, these services are performed in "real-time":
- A payment system authenticates a payment order, checks for
- sufficient funds or credit, and
- transfer
- then originates funds
- transactions to carry out the payment order. (Gifford, 3:1-3; emphasis
- added.)
- (f) Gifford teaches "means for transmitting a transaction request
- from said transactional application"
- The structure in the '500 Patent corresponding to this limitation is boundary
- service 701, which provides "the interfaces between VAN switch 520, the Internet
- and the Web, and multi-media end user devices such as PCs, televisions or
- telephones." ('500 Patent, 8:39-42.) Merchant computers 63, 64 of Gifford, which
- - 45 -
- control the transaction between the end user (i.e., buyer computer 61) and the
- payment computer 68 via the Internet 87 are equivalent to this limitation. (Sirbu
- Decl., ¶ 70.)
- In particular, as discussed above with reference to annotated FIG. 3 of
- Gifford (provided above), the user interacts with the recited “transactional
- application” (i.e., the application in Gifford that provides digital advertisements of
- items) to select an item for purchase. Such selection by the user causes this
- “transaction application” to transmit a transaction request to download the selected
- news item to the buyer computer 61.
- Other transaction requests are also transmitted. For example, responsive to
- the user’s interaction with the “transactional application” and resulting requests
- transmitted by the “transactional application,” the merchant computer 63, 64
- queues and sends a payment order corresponding to the purchase to the payment
- computer 68. (Sirbu Decl., ¶ 70.) The payment computer 68 uses the payment
- order to process the transaction:
- If the merchant computer is able to construct a complete
- payment order at 26 the payment order is sent to a payment computer
- for authorization at 27. If a payment order can be constructed,
- processing continues at 28. (Gifford, 6:9-13.)
- (g) Gifford teaches "means for processing said transaction request."
- The structure of the “means for processing” is the Bank Back Office. The
- - 46 -
- function is “processing said transaction request.” Gifford discloses this limitation.
- The payment computer 68 of Gifford processes transaction requests and
- therefore is equivalent to the “means for processing.” (Sirbu Decl., ¶ 71; see also
- Gifford, 2:66-3:1.) In particular, the payment computer 68 (shown as payment
- computer 72 in FIG. 13) receives a payment transaction request in the form of a
- payment order from merchant computer 63, 64 and processes the request by, for
- example, verifying the authenticator and requesting authorization from a real-time
- financial authorization network. (Sirbu Decl., ¶ 71; see also Gifford, FIG. 14 (steps
- 82-90), 6:48-49 (merchant computer sending the payment order to the payment
- computer), 8:27-30 (verifying authenticator), 9:14-18 (requesting authorization
- from a real-time financial authorization network).)
- Moreover, the merchant computers 63, 64 and the databases 65, 66, as well
- as the payment computer 68, process requests in the same way as the Bank "Back
- Office" of the '500 Patent, using databases or data repositories. For example, one
- skilled in the art would appreciate that verifying an authenticator requires access to
- stored data. (Sirbu Decl., ¶ 72.)
- 2. Gifford anticipates dependent claim 2.
- Claim 2 depends from claim 1 and additionally recites, "wherein said means
- for switching to a transactional application further comprises: means for receiving
- said user specification; means for enabling a switch to said transactional
- - 47 -
- application; and means for activating said transactional application."
- (a) Gifford teaches "means for receiving said user specification."
- The structure in the ‘500 patent corresponding to this limitation is the
- portion of boundary service 701 that receives requests over the Internet. Gifford
- teaches receiving user specifications at merchant computer 63, 64 in the form of
- HTTP requests:
- The buyer computer displays the resulting HTML document at
- 23. When the user activates link 5, an HTTP request 25 is sent to the
- merchant computer requesting the document. (Gifford, 4:56-59;
- emphasis added; see also Sirbu Decl., ¶¶ 73-74.)
- (b) Gifford teaches "means for enabling a switch to said transactional
- application."
- The structure in the ‘500 Patent corresponding to this limitation is the
- portion of boundary service 701 that passes information from the network
- application to the transactional application. In a like manner, Gifford's merchant
- computer provides an interface, in the form of links to the digital advertisements
- screen (shown in FIG. 3), which allow information to be passed to the transactional
- application. (Sirbu Decl., ¶ 75; see also Gifford, 5:8-13.) Thus, Gifford discloses
- this limitation. In particular, with reference to annotated FIG. 3 of Gifford (above),
- the merchant computer provides an interface, in the form of links to the digital
- advertisements screen (shown in FIG. 3), which allow information to be passed to
- the transactional application. (Sirbu Decl., ¶¶ 75-76; see also Gifford, 5:8-13.)
- - 48 -
- (c) Gifford
- teaches "means
- application."
- for activating said
- transactional
- The structure in the ‘500 Patent corresponding to this limitation is a
- graphical user interface that displays a list of applications. Gifford discloses this
- limitation. In particular, the "overview screen" of Gifford (shown in FIG. 2)
- provides links that, when activated, cause the merchant computer to activate the
- digital advertisement application:
- FIG. 2 shows an overview screen that has been retrieved from a
- merchant computer by a buyer computer and displayed by the buyer
- computer. It includes links 1, 2, and 3 that when activated by a user
- cause the buyer's computer to take specified actions. (Gifford, 5:8-11.)
- For example, FIG. 2 of Gifford illustrates an "overview screen" that is a graphical
- user interface that provides a list of applications. (Sirbu Decl., ¶ 78.)
- 3. Gifford anticipates dependent claim 3.
- Claim 3 depends from claim 2 and additionally recites, "wherein said means
- for activating said transactional application further includes means for creating a
- transaction
- link between said network application and said
- transactional
- application." The structure in the ‘500 patent corresponding to the “means for
- creating” is boundary service 701. Boundary service 701 provides "the interfaces
- between VAN switch 520, the Internet and the Web, and multi-media end user
- devices such as PCs, televisions, or telephones." ('500 Patent, 8:36-39.) Similarly,
- Gifford teaches the "overview screen" of FIG. 2 (identified above as teaching the
- - 49 -
- means for activating) as including links 1, 2, and 3. (Sirbu Decl., ¶ 79; see also
- Gifford, 5:9-10.) These links, when activated by a user, create a connection (a
- transaction link) between the network application running on the buyer computer
- 61 and the digital advertisements application (i.e., the transactional application).
- (Sirbu Decl., ¶ 79; see also Gifford, 5:12-14.) The overview screen and links 1, 2,
- and 3 teach the function and structure of the “means for creating.” Thus, Gifford
- discloses this limitation.
- 4. Gifford anticipates dependent claim 4.
- Claim 4 depends from claim 2 and additionally recites, "wherein said means
- for receiving said user specification further comprises: means for presenting said
- user with a list of transactional applications, each of said transactional application
- being associated with a particular value-added network service provider; and
- means for submitting said user specification according to a user's selection of said
- transactional application from said list of transactional applications."
- (a) Gifford teaches “means for presenting said user with a list of
- transactional applications, each of said transactional application
- being associated with a particular value-added network service
- provider.”
- The structure corresponding to this limitation is the portion of switching
- service 702 that outputs data to the user. The function of this limitation is
- "presenting said user with a list of transactional applications, each of said
- transactional application being associated with a particular value-added network
- - 50 -
- service provider." Gifford teaches this limitation. Specifically, FIG. 2 of Gifford is
- an overview screen that provides a list of transactional applications in the form of
- links to, for example, digital advertisements and audio content. (Gifford, 5:7-17.)
- Each of these applications is associated with a particular value-added network
- service provider (e.g., the digital advertisements are associated with the New York
- Times). (See Sirbu Decl., ¶ 83.) Thus, Gifford teaches this limitation.
- (b) Chelliah teaches “means for submitting said user specification
- according to a user's selection of said transactional application
- from said list of transactional applications.”
- The structure corresponding to this limitation is the portion of switching
- service 702 that submits user specifications. The function of this limitation is
- "submitting said user specification according to a user's selection of said
- transactional application from said list of transactional applications." Gifford
- discloses this limitation. Specifically, Gifford discloses merchant computer 63, 64
- as submitting the user's specification (i.e., the HTTP request from buyer computer
- 61) to an application that retrieves digital advertisements to be sent to the user in
- response to the user's request. (See Gifford, 5:49-59.) Thus, Gifford discloses this
- limitation.
- 5. Gifford anticipates dependent claim 5.
- Claim 5 depends from claim 1 and additionally recites, "wherein said means
- for processing said transaction request further comprises means for coupling said
- - 51 -
- means for transmitting to a host means." The "host means"9 equates, for example,
- to the portion of the Bank "Back Office" that processes received requests and/or a
- repository that stores data. The structure corresponding to the "means for coupling"
- is a network of the Bank "Back Office."
- As noted above in section IV(B)(1)(g), Gifford's payment computer 68 is
- equivalent to the recited “means for processing “the transaction request. A person
- of ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated that Gifford's external financial
- system necessarily included data repositories included in card-issuing bank servers.
- (Sirbu Decl., ¶ 80.) These bank servers are the “host means.” In particular, the
- bank servers process and store data used to determine whether to approve a
- transaction request (e.g., account numbers and balances). (Sirbu Decl., ¶ 80).
- Moreover, the payment computer 68 acts as an intermediary between, and
- thereby couples, the merchant computers 63, 64 (corresponding to the recited
- “means for transmitting”) and the external financial system (including the recited
- “host means”). (Sirbu Decl., ¶ 81). In particular, the payment computer 68 receives
- a transaction request from merchant computers 63, 64 (Gifford, 6:39-49) and
- transmits an appropriate request for authorization to the external financial network
- (Gifford 9:14-18). (Sirbu Decl., ¶ 81.)
- 9 Petitioner does not concede that this term invokes 35 U.S.C. § 112(f).
- - 52 -
- 6. Gifford anticipates dependent claim 6.
- Claim 6 depends from claim 5 and additionally recites, "wherein said host
- means contains data corresponding to said transaction request." As explained
- above in section IV(B)(5), the card-issuing bank server of Gifford's external
- financial system (corresponding to the recited “host means”) necessarily includes
- one or more data repositories that store information needed to determine whether
- to approve an authorization request. (Sirbu Decl., ¶ 82) This information can
- include, for example, account numbers and balances. (Sirbu Decl., ¶ 82.) Because
- account numbers and balances correspond to a transaction request (the transaction
- request being the authorization request from merchant computer 63 pertaining to a
- specific account), Gifford teaches this limitation. (Sirbu Decl., ¶ 82.)
- 7. Gifford anticipates claims 10-12, 15, and 16.
- Independent claim 10 and its dependent claims 11, 12, 15, and 16 recite
- similar features as independent claim 1 and its dependent claims 2, 3, 5 and 6,
- respectively. Thus, claims 10, 11, 12, 15 and 16 are anticipated by Gifford for the
- same reasons as discussed above for claims 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6. Petitioner has
- provided the following claim chart indicating the correspondence between claims
- 10-12, 15, and 16 and claims 1-3, 5, and 6, respectively.
- Limitation of Claim 10
- A method for configuring a
- value-added network switch for
- Corresponding limitation in
- Claim 1
- A configurable value-added
- network switch for enabling
- Section
- IV(B)(1)(a)
- - 53 -
- enabling real-time transactions
- on a network, said method for
- configuring said value-added
- network switch compromising
- the steps of:
- switching to a transactional
- application in response to a user
- specification from a network
- application,
- said transactional application
- providing a user with a plurality
- of transactional services
- managed by at least one value-
- added network service provider,
- said value-added network
- service provider keeping a
- transaction flow captive,
- said plurality of transactional
- services being performed
- interactively and in real time;
- transmitting a transaction
- request from said transactional
- application; and
- processing said transaction
- request.
- Limitation of Claim 11
- The method for configuring said
- value-added network switch as
- claimed in claim 10 wherein
- said step of switching to a
- transactional application further
- comprises the steps of:
- receiving said user
- specification;
- enabling a switch to said
- transactional application; and
- real-time transactions on a
- network, said configurable
- value-added network switch
- means for switching to a
- transactional application in
- response to a user
- specification from a network
- application
- said transactional application
- providing a user with a
- plurality of transactional
- services managed by at least
- one value-added network
- service provider
- said value-added network
- service provider keeping a
- transaction flow captive
- said plurality of transactional
- services being performed
- interactively and in real time
- means for transmitting a
- transaction request from said
- transactional application
- means for processing said
- transaction request
- Corresponding limitation in
- Claim 2
- The configurable value-added
- network switch as claimed in
- claim 1 wherein said means
- for switching to a
- transactional application
- further comprises:
- means for receiving said user
- specification;
- means for enabling a switch
- to said transactional
- IV(B)(1)(b)
- IV(B)(1)(c)
- IV(B)(1)(d)
- IV(B)(1)(e)
- IV(B)(1)(f)
- IV(B)(1)(g)
- Section
- IV(B)(2)
- IV(B)(2)(a)
- IV(B)(2)(b)
- - 54 -
- IV(B)(2)(c)
- Section
- IV(B)(3)
- activating said transactional
- application.
- Limitation of Claim 12
- The method for configuring said
- value-added network switch as
- claimed in claim 11 wherein
- said step of activating said
- transactional application further
- includes
- a step of creating a transaction
- link between said network
- application and said
- transactional application.
- Limitation of Claim 15
- application; and
- means for activating said
- transactional application.
- Corresponding limitation in
- Claim 3
- The configurable value-added
- network switch as claimed in
- claim 2 wherein said means
- for activating said
- transactional application
- further includes
- means for creating a
- transaction link between said
- network application and said
- transactional application
- Corresponding limitation in
- 5
- The configurable value-added
- network switch as claimed in
- claim 1
- wherein said means for
- processing said transaction
- request further comprises
- means for coupling said
- means for transmitting to a
- host means
- Corresponding limitation in
- 6
- The method for configuring said
- The configurable value-added
- value-added network switch as
- network switch as claimed in
- claimed in claim 15
- claim 5
- wherein said host means
- wherein said host means
- contains data corresponding to
- contains data corresponding
- said transaction request.
- to said transaction request
- 8. Gifford anticipates claim 14.
- Claim 14 corresponds to claim 4, except instead of "value-added network
- The method for configuring said
- value-added network switch as
- claimed in claim 10
- wherein said step of processing
- said transaction request further
- comprises the step of
- transmitting said transaction
- request to a host means.
- Section
- IV(B)(6)
- Limitation of Claim 16
- IV(B)(3)
- Section
- IV(B)(5)
- IV(B)(5)
- IV(B)(6)
- service provider" recited in claim 4, claim 14 recites an "Internet service provider."
- - 55 -
- As noted in Section IV(B)(4), Chelliah teaches the limitations of claim 4. To the
- extent that an "Internet service provider" differs from a "value-added network
- service provider," Petitioner notes that the store relied upon in Section IV(B)(4) to
- disclose "value-added network service provider" also discloses an "Internet service
- provider" because the stores are accessible over the Internet. (See Section
- IV(B)(1)(c).) Thus, Chelliah discloses the limitations of claim 14.
- 9. Gifford anticipates claim 17.
- Claim 17 depends from claim 10 and further recites "wherein said value-
- added network service providers cooperate to provide said plurality of
- transactional services to said user." Gifford teaches that at least two different
- entities cooperate to provide transactional services to the user. The first is the
- content provider that controls the merchant (e.g., in the example of FIG. 2, the
- content provider is the New York Times). (Sirbu Decl., ¶ 83.) The second is the
- entity that facilitates payment via the payment computer (e.g., Mastercard, Visa,
- American Express, or Discover in the embodiment of FIG. 5). (Sirbu Decl., ¶ 83.)
- The merchant computer 63, 64 and the payment computer 68 (and their associated
- entities) "cooperate" to perform the purchase. (Sirbu Decl., ¶ 83; see also Gifford,
- 3:15-25.)
- 10. Gifford anticipates independent claim 35.
- Independent claim 35 recites similar features as claim 1. Thus, Petitioner has
- - 56 -
- provided the following claim chart indicating the correspondence between
- limitations of claim 35 and claim 1.
- Limitation
- A configurable value-added network
- system for enabling real-time
- transactions on a network, said
- configurable value-added network
- system comprising:
- means for switching to a transactional
- application in response to a user
- specification from a network
- application,
- said transactional application providing
- a user with a plurality of transactional
- services managed by at least one value-
- added network service provider,
- said value-added network service
- provider keeping a transaction flow
- captive,
- said plurality of transactional services
- being performed interactively and in
- real time;
- means for activating an agent to create a
- transaction link between said user
- application and said transactional
- application
- Corresponding
- limitation in Claim 1
- A configurable value-
- added network switch
- for enabling real-time
- transactions on a
- network, said
- configurable value-
- added network switch,
- comprising:
- means for switching to a
- transactional application
- in response to a user
- specification from a
- network application,
- said transactional
- application providing a
- user with a plurality of
- transactional services
- managed by at least one
- value-added network
- service provider,
- said value-added
- network service provider
- keeping a transaction
- flow captive,
- said plurality of
- transactional services
- being performed
- interactively and in real
- time,
- See section (a) below.
- Section
- IV(B)(1)(a)
- IV(B)(1)(b)
- IV(B)(1)(c)
- IV(B)(1)(d)
- IV(B)(1)(e)
- See
- subsection
- (a) below
- - 57 -
- means for transmitting a transaction
- request from said transactional
- application; and
- IV(B)(1)(f)
- means for transmitting a
- transaction request from
- said transactional
- application;
- See section (b) below.
- a host means for processing said
- transaction request and retrieving data
- corresponding to said transaction
- request.
- (a) Gifford teaches "means for activating an agent to create a
- transaction
- link between said user application and said
- transactional application."
- See
- subsection
- (b) below
- The structure in the ‘500 Patent corresponding to "means for activating an
- agent to create a transaction link between said user application and said
- transactional application" is a graphical user interface. Gifford discloses this
- limitation.
- FIG. 3 of Gifford shows a purchase screen that includes links 5, 6, 7, and 8,
- which activate the agent. (Sirbu Decl., ¶ 84; see also Gifford, 5:19-29.)
- Specifically, when the user selects link 5, by, for example, clicking with a mouse,
- an HTTP request is generated by the buyer computer and transmitted to the
- merchant computer. (Sirbu Decl., ¶ 84) A person of ordinary skill in the art would
- appreciate that this HTTP request causes the web server to activate an application
- on the merchant computer that keeps the response to the HTTP request pending
- while the merchant computer is waiting for a communications from the payment
- computer indicating the purchase has been approved. (Sirbu Decl., ¶ 84) Thus, this
- application functions as an agent to create (and maintain) a transaction link
- - 58 -
- between the user’s web browser and the transactional application. (Sirbu Decl., ¶
- 84.) Further, the "overview screen" of FIG. 2 of Gifford (which includes links 1, 2,
- and 3) is a graphical user interface. (Sirbu Decl., ¶ 85; see also Gifford, 5:50-56.)
- Thus, Gifford discloses this limitation.
- (b) Gifford teaches "a host means for processing said transaction
- request and retrieving data corresponding to said transaction
- request."
- Gifford teaches the function and the structure corresponding to this
- limitation. In particular, Gifford teaches an external financial system that
- corresponds to the recited “host means.” In response to an authorization request,
- the external financial system determines whether to approve the request. (Sirbu
- Decl., ¶ 86; see also Gifford, 9:14-18.) One of ordinary skill in the art would
- appreciate that in determining whether to approve the request, the external
- financial system necessarily accesses data corresponding to the request (e.g., an
- account number corresponding to the buyer). (Sirbu Decl., ¶ 86.) Accordingly, the
- external financial system discloses this limitation.
- - 59 -
- APPENDIX A
- EXHIBIT LIST: INTER PARTES REVIEW OF '500 PATENT
- SAP
- Exhibit #
- 1001
- 1002
- 1003
- Description
- U.S. Patent No. 5,987,500 to Arunachalam (filed Jun. 20, 1997; issued Nov. 16,
- 1999) ("the '500 patent").
- Declaration of Dr. Marvin Sirbu (including Curriculum Vita of Dr. Sirbu,
- attached as Appendix A)
- U.S. Patent No. 5,710,887 to Chelliah et al. (filed Aug. 29, 1995; issued Jan. 20,
- 1998).
- 1004
- U.S. Patent No. 5,724,424 to Gifford (filed Nov. 29, 1995; issued Mar. 3, 1998).
Advertisement
Add Comment
Please, Sign In to add comment
Advertisement