PTAB

IPR2017-01449

Masabi Ltd v. Bytemark Inc

Log In
Key Events
Petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Method and System for Distributing Electronic Tickets with Visual Display
  • Brief Description: The ’967 patent discloses a server-based system and method for validating a previously purchased electronic ticket. The system receives a request from a user's computer device, validates the ticket's authenticity using a token, and transmits a "visual validation display object" to the device for inspection by a ticket taker, thereby avoiding machine-based scanning.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Petitioner asserted three distinct grounds of unpatentability, each arguing that all challenged claims are anticipated under 35 U.S.C. §102 by a single prior art reference.

Ground 1: Claims 1-6, 17-23, and 34 are anticipated by Terrell

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Terrell (WO 2009/141614)
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Terrell discloses every element of the challenged claims in its description of an electronic ticketing system. In Terrell, a user's mobile device displays a non-validated ticket with a "validation button." Pressing this button sends a request from the mobile device to a server to validate the ticket, which has a "specified unique ticket number" that Petitioner equated to the claimed "token." The server then responds by assembling and transmitting the validated ticket data back to the device for display. Petitioner contended this display, which is described as "eye-readable for inspection purposes," constitutes the claimed "visual validation display object." Terrell’s discussion of using public key encryption for securing ticket data was argued to anticipate dependent claims 4-6, 21, and 22. Further, Terrell's teaching that the visual display may include "graphics to be animated" in response to user interaction (pressing the validation button) was asserted to anticipate claim 34.

Ground 2: Claims 1-6, 17-23, and 34 are anticipated by Cruz

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Cruz (Application # 2004/0030658)
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that Cruz, which discloses an electronic ticketing system, anticipates all challenged claims. Cruz describes a "pull-type" model where a user's mobile device sends a request (REQ1) to a ticket issuing system to generate a ticket. Petitioner mapped this request to the claimed receiving of a request and associated token. Cruz's server processes the request, validates it, and returns a modular ticket to the mobile device. This process was argued to be the claimed validation and transmission steps. Critically, Cruz teaches that to increase security, the ticket data can be an "optically or visually recognizable pattern, such as a... picture," which Petitioner contended is the "visual validation display object." Cruz further discloses delaying the delivery of ticket data objects until closer to the time of use for security, which was mapped to dependent claims concerning a "predetermined lock time." Cruz's disclosure of using Public Key Infrastructure (PKI) for copy protection was argued to anticipate the encryption-related dependent claims.

Ground 3: Claims 1-6, 17-23, and 34 are anticipated by Dutta

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Dutta (Patent 7,315,944)
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Dutta discloses an electronic ticket redemption system that anticipates the challenged claims. Dutta’s system uses a human-verifiable "rapid verification token" (RVT) for visual inspection. A user's personal trusted device (PTD) issues a redemption request to a ticket redeeming system (TRS). This request-response protocol was mapped to the claimed steps of receiving a request with a token and validating it. In response, the TRS can issue an RVT, which Dutta explicitly describes as a visual, human-verifiable object that can include patterns, colors, and animations (e.g., a rotating wineglass). Petitioner contended this RVT is the claimed "visual validation display object." Dutta's disclosure that the RVT may remain valid only for a "defined period of time" was argued to anticipate the "predetermined lock time" limitations of dependent claims 3 and 20. Dutta’s teaching that the ticket is encrypted using a public key associated with the user's device was mapped to the dependent claims reciting encryption. Finally, Dutta’s disclosure that the device may be a PDA with input/output functions, in a context where touchscreens were well-known, was argued to anticipate the animated, touch-responsive display of claim 34.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • Petitioner argued for a broad construction of the term "visual validation display object." The petition noted that the term is not explicitly defined in the specification. Citing the specification's description of a "validating visual object" as one that is "readily recognizable from human observation," Petitioner contended the proper construction is any display element meeting that functional criterion. This broad interpretation was central to all three anticipation grounds, allowing Petitioner to argue that the varied visual elements in the prior art—including Terrell's eye-readable text, Cruz's static pictures, and Dutta's animated graphics—all met this claim limitation.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested the institution of an inter partes review and the cancellation of claims 1-6, 17-23, and 34 of the ’967 patent as unpatentable.