PTAB

CBM2019-00029

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. United Services Automobile Association

Log In

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Image Capture and Processing System for Remote Check Deposit
  • Brief Description: The ’605 patent relates to a system for remotely depositing checks. The system involves a user capturing electronic images of a check with an image capture device, which are then processed and transmitted from a portable device to a financial institution's server.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Anticipation by Oakes - Claims 1-3, 5-14, and 16-29 are anticipated under 35 U.S.C. §102 by Oakes.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Oakes (Patent 8,708,227).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner's anticipation argument was predicated on first invalidating the ’605 patent’s claim to a 2006 priority date. Petitioner argued that the challenged claims, which encompass a portable device with an integrated camera (e.g., a smartphone), lack written description support in the priority applications. The original applications allegedly only disclosed a general-purpose computer (like a desktop or laptop) connected to a separate image capture device. As a result, Petitioner contended the challenged claims are only entitled to a July 28, 2017 filing date. This later effective date renders the Oakes patent, which issued in 2014, valid prior art under §102.
    • Petitioner then argued that Oakes discloses every element of the challenged claims. Oakes describes an image capture and processing system for remote deposit using a customer-controlled general-purpose computer (which can be a portable PDA or laptop) and a separate digital camera. Oakes teaches downloading a software component from a financial institution server that instructs a user on capturing front and back check images, presents the images for review, and transmits them for deposit. Oakes further discloses server-side processing, including optical character recognition (OCR) to read the MICR line and check amount, comparing the OCR amount to a user-entered amount, generating a log file with a bi-tonal TIFF image, and updating the customer's account balance, thereby anticipating all limitations of independent claims 1 and 12 and their dependents.
    • Key Aspects: The central thesis of the petition was not a direct anticipation challenge but a two-step argument: first, establishing a later effective filing date by invalidating the patent's priority claim due to a lack of written description for the asserted claim scope, and second, applying the now-valid intervening Oakes reference to anticipate the claims.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "portable device" (Claim 1) / "handheld mobile device" (Claim 12): Petitioner argued these terms must be construed to encompass devices where a digital camera is an integral component.
    • The argument relied on the doctrine of claim differentiation. Dependent claims 4 and 15 explicitly add the limitation that the digital camera is separate from the portable/mobile device.
    • Petitioner asserted this means the broader independent claims must cover the alternative embodiment—a device with an integrated camera. This proposed construction was foundational to the argument that the claims lack written description support in the priority applications, which only described separate devices.

5. Key Technical Contentions (Beyond Claim Construction)

  • Lack of Written Description for Claimed Scope: The petition’s primary technical contention was that the ’605 patent is not entitled to its 2006 priority date under §120.
    • Petitioner argued that the priority applications exclusively describe and illustrate a system where a general-purpose computer (desktop/laptop) is communicatively coupled to a separate, peripheral image capture device (scanner or digital camera).
    • It was contended that there is no disclosure or suggestion in the original applications of a single, integrated portable device, such as a modern smartphone, that contains both the processing components and the camera.
    • Petitioner argued that the claims were impermissibly broadened during the eleven years of prosecution to "morph" and cover modern smartphone-based banking technology that the inventors did not possess or describe in 2006, thereby failing the written description requirement of §112.

6. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested institution of a Covered Business Method (CBM) review and the cancellation of claims 1-3, 5-14, and 16-29 of Patent 10,013,605 as unpatentable.