PTAB

PGR2020-00031

Election Systems & Software LLC v. Hart Intercivic Inc

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Optical Character Recognition of Voter Selections for Case Vote Records
  • Brief Description: The ’966 patent describes methods and systems for electronic voting where a voter's selections are printed on a physical document as human-readable text. This printed vote record (PVR) is then scanned, and optical character recognition (OCR) is used on the text to generate an electronic cast vote record (CVR), with additional verification steps using barcodes or hash functions.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Patent Ineligibility under 35 U.S.C. §101 - Claims 1-30 are directed to an abstract idea.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Not applicable (challenge under §101).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that all challenged claims are directed to the abstract idea of "voting and verifying the accuracy and authenticity of a printed record of the vote," a fundamental human activity. The claims recite steps such as recording votes, generating a printed record, scanning the record, using OCR to create a data set, and generating a final cast vote record. Petitioner asserted these are merely methods of organizing human activity performed by generic computer components.
    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): Not applicable.
    • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): Not applicable.
    • Key Aspects: Petitioner contended the claims fail both steps of the Alice framework. It argued the claims are not integrated into a practical application because they merely use conventional computer technology (e.g., scanners, printers, computing devices) to automate a well-known manual process. Furthermore, Petitioner asserted the claims lack an inventive concept, as the use of OCR, dictionaries for error correction, barcodes, and hash functions are all routine, well-understood activities that provide no improvement to computer functionality itself. Petitioner drew a direct comparison to the claims found ineligible in Voter Verified, Inc. v. Election Systems & Software LLC.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Brockhouse in view of Heilper - Claims 1-5 and 15-19 are obvious over Brockhouse in view of Heilper.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Brockhouse (Application # 2014/0231513) and Heilper (Patent 7,406,201).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Brockhouse disclosed a voting system that met nearly every limitation of the independent claims, including recording voter selections on a ballot marking device, generating a PVR with voter-readable text indicating the selections, scanning the PVR, and using OCR to create a data set and generate a CVR. The key missing element, which was the basis for allowance during prosecution, was the use of an "election dictionary" to confirm the accuracy of the OCR process.
    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): Heilper explicitly taught that OCR processes are inherently "error-prone" and that a common, well-known solution is to use a dictionary to perform error-correction by looking up each OCR-generated word and substituting the nearest match for any words not found. A POSITA would combine Heilper’s standard error-correction technique with Brockhouse’s voting system to improve the accuracy of vote tabulation, a critical goal in any election system.
    • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would have had a high expectation of success because applying a known dictionary-based error-correction method to a known OCR-based system was a predictable application of established technologies to achieve a known benefit.

Ground 3: Anticipation and/or Obviousness over Nadaf - Claims 6-10, 23-24, and 29-30 are anticipated by or obvious over Nadaf.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Nadaf (Brazilian Application # BR102013018558A2).

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that Nadaf disclosed a complete voting method that anticipated the claims. Nadaf’s system recorded voter selections, generated a PVR containing both human-readable text and a 2D barcode encoding the vote, and used an "optical OCR and QR code reader" to scan the PVR. The system then performed a "comparative audit" by comparing the OCR-read text information to the decoded barcode information to confirm the vote's accuracy before storing the electronic CVR.
    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): Not applicable for anticipation. For obviousness, Nadaf’s teachings render the minor variations in the claims obvious.
    • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): Not applicable.
    • Key Aspects: Nadaf's explicit teaching of comparing OCR data against barcode data on the same PVR was argued to directly meet the core limitations of this claim group, which rely on using a barcode to confirm the accuracy of the OCR results.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges, including invalidity of claim 25 over Nadaf in view of Heilper (adding dictionary-based error correction); claims 11-14 and 28 over Nadaf in view of Backert or Herskowitz (adding hash-based integrity checks); and claims 20-22 over Nadaf in view of Heilper and Backert/Herskowitz. Petitioner also asserted that claims 4-5 and 26-27 are invalid as indefinite under 35 U.S.C. §112.

4. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of Post Grant Review and cancellation of claims 1-30 of the ’966 patent as unpatentable.