PTAB

PGR2020-00084

Interactive Communications Intl Inc v. Blackhawk Network

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Methods for Selling Pre-Printed Online Lottery Tickets
  • Brief Description: The ’894 patent discloses systems and methods for selling pre-printed, random-draw lottery tickets using a retailer's existing Point of Sale (POS) infrastructure. The system utilizes a transaction processor to facilitate communication between the retailer's POS terminal and a central lottery system to activate tickets at the time of purchase, thereby avoiding the need for specialized lottery hardware.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Szrek - Claims 1-19 and 21-53 are obvious over Szrek.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Szrek (7,627,497).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Szrek discloses a nearly identical system and method for selling pre-printed lottery tickets at a retailer’s POS terminal. Szrek teaches a "store back office" (a transaction processor) that communicates between a POS terminal (cash register) and a "game provider system" (a lottery administration system). In Szrek, a pre-printed ticket with a unique barcode is scanned at the POS, an activation request is sent to the game provider, and the game provider returns draw information that is printed on the cash register receipt. This architecture, Petitioner contended, maps directly onto the core limitations of independent system claim 1 and independent method claim 7 of the ’894 patent.
    • Motivation to Combine (for obviousness of dependent claims): While this ground is primarily based on a single reference, Petitioner asserted that any minor differences between Szrek and certain dependent claims would have been obvious to a Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSA). For example, using a website or mobile application to check ticket status (claims 4, 5, 9, 10) was a well-known convenience feature for lottery systems at the time of the invention. A POSA would add such features to provide customers with additional, convenient avenues for accessing ticket information.
    • Expectation of Success: The expectation of success was argued to be high, as Szrek describes a complete, functional system that performs the same essential functions as the claimed invention using the same type of components.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Llach in view of Szrek - Claims 1-19, 21-29, and 31-53 are obvious over Llach in view of Szrek.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Llach (Application # 2013/0041768) and Szrek (7,627,497).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that Llach discloses a general-purpose transaction processing system for activating stored-value cards (e.g., gift cards, phone cards) at a POS terminal. Llach’s system includes a transaction computer that communicates between a POS terminal and a card issuer’s authorization system. It teaches receiving an activation request, providing a unique card identifier to the remote system, receiving a response, and processing payment confirmation. Petitioner argued this provides the generic framework for the system and method of the challenged claims.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSA would combine the teachings of the references because Szrek explicitly states its lottery activation process is "similar to a model following selling phone cards," the very technology described in Llach. The motivation was to apply the specific product context of Szrek (pre-printed lottery tickets) to the analogous, well-understood POS activation architecture of Llach. This combination would allow for the seamless integration of lottery ticket sales into existing retail checkout flows, an advantage highlighted in both references, and would have yielded predictable results.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSA would have had a high expectation of success in making this combination. The modification merely involved applying a known activation process to a similar type of product (lottery tickets instead of gift cards) using conventional and ubiquitous POS technology like processors, scanners, and communication networks.

Ground 3: Obviousness over Szrek in view of Gilmore - Claims 20 and 43 are obvious over Szrek in view of Gilmore.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Szrek (7,627,497) and Gilmore (Application # 2005/0233797).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground specifically addresses claims 20 and 43, which require the generation of random lottery numbers ("quick picks") at the time the ticket is purchased at the POS. Petitioner argued that while Szrek teaches activating pre-printed tickets that may already contain quick pick numbers, it does not explicitly disclose generating those numbers at the moment of sale. Gilmore was asserted to supply this missing element, as it describes a system where a POS terminal communicates with a lottery computer to generate a quick-pick transaction at the time of purchase.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSA would combine Gilmore’s on-demand number generation with Szrek’s POS activation system to achieve several advantages. These included distributing the processing load of number generation away from a central lottery office, reducing the need for dedicated kiosks to print quick-pick tickets, minimizing customer wait times at checkout, and providing every customer with access to all possible number combinations for a draw, a feature not available if numbers are pre-assigned to physical tickets.
    • Expectation of Success: Success was argued to be highly probable, as on-demand random number generation was a routine function for processors in POS systems and relied on well-established, reliable technology.

4. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of post-grant review and cancellation of claims 1-53 of the ’894 patent as unpatentable.