Rfcyber Corp. v. Coke Morgan Stewart, Acting Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
RFCYBER CORP.,
Appellant
v.
COKE MORGAN STEWART, ACTING UNDER
SECRETARY OF COMMERCE FOR
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND ACTING
DIRECTOR OF THE UNITED STATES PATENT
AND TRADEMARK OFFICE,
Intervenor
______________________
2023-2418
______________________
Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark
Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2022-
00413.
______________________
Decided: August 14, 2025
______________________
RICHARD MATTHEW COWELL, Fabricant LLP, Rye, NY,
argued for appellant. Also represented by ALFRED ROSS
FABRICANT, PETER LAMBRIANAKOS, VINCENT J. RUBINO, III.
MICHAEL S. FORMAN, Office of the Solicitor, United
States Patent and Trademark Office, Alexandria, VA,
Case: 23-2418 Document: 43 Page: 1 Filed: 08/14/2025

-- 1 of 4 --

RFCYBER CORP. v. STEWART 2
argued for intervenor. Also represented by PETER J. AYERS,
AMY J. NELSON, FARHEENA YASMEEN RASHEED, SHEHLA
WYNNE.
______________________
Before PROST, REYNA, and CHEN, Circuit Judges.
CHEN, Circuit Judge.
RFCyber Corp. (RFCyber) appeals the final written de-
cision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Board) finding
all claims of U.S. Patent No. 9,240,009 (’009 patent) un-
patentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on grounds as-
serted in an inter partes review petition filed by Apple Inc.
(Apple). Apple Inc. v. RFCyber Corp., No. IPR2022-00413,
2023 WL 5167264 (P.T.A.B. July 18, 2023) (Decision). We
have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(4)(A). We af-
firm.
Claim 1 is representative. It recites, in relevant part,
a server “configured to prepare data necessary for the ap-
plication to function as designed on the mobile device.” ’009
patent at claim 1. The Board found that Dua1 teaches this
limitation. RFCyber argues that the Board implicitly con-
strued “prepare data” too broadly, and that substantial ev-
idence does not support the Board’s findings.
RFCyber contends that the Board implicitly adopted an
overbroad interpretation by treating a server’s transmis-
sion of data as satisfying “prepare data.” RFCyber also as-
serts that, in light of the specification, “prepare data”
requires an active role in generating or computing the nec-
essary data, which Dua does not disclose. We disagree in
both respects.
Nothing in the specification limits “prepare data” to ac-
tive generation. The specification states that “there are at
1 U.S. Patent Publ’n No. 2006/0165060 A1 (Dua).
Case: 23-2418 Document: 43 Page: 2 Filed: 08/14/2025

-- 2 of 4 --

RFCYBER CORP. v. STEWART 3
least two different ways to prepare the data,” ’009 patent
col. 13 ll. 19–21 (emphasis added), and describes two exem-
plary modes: requesting or generating application keys.
Id. col. 13 ll. 22–34. To the extent that these embodiments
both involve “active” steps, these examples do not limit the
claims. See Hill-Rom Servs., Inc. v. Stryker Corp., 755 F.
3d 1367, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“While we read claims in
view of the specification, of which they are a part, we do not
read limitations from the embodiments in the specification
into the claims.”).
Even under RFCyber’s narrower construction, sub-
stantial evidence supports the Board’s findings. The Board
found that Dua discloses a server that “prepare[s] data” be-
cause Dua describes a server that has “the ability to make
edits in order to ensure proper formatting” of a user’s mo-
bile phone number before transmission. J.A. 997, ¶¶ 62–
63; see Decision, 2023 WL 5167264, at *12. It was reason-
able for the Board to conclude that such formatting consti-
tutes preparation of “data necessary for the application to
function as designed on the mobile device,” as Dua de-
scribes that proper formatting is required before confiden-
tial information can be transmitted to the mobile device.
See J.A. 997, ¶ 62.
The Board also reasonably found that Dua’s descrip-
tion of transmitting data taught the “prepare data” limita-
tion. The Board relied, in part, on Dua’s disclosures that
describe transmitting personalization data—including en-
cryption keys and authentication information—from the
server to the wallet application in payloads. Decision, 2023
WL 5167264, at *12; J.A. 996 ¶ 57; J.A. 1006, ¶ 215. The
Board further relied on expert testimony explaining that
the server prepares this data by packaging it into payloads
for transmission. Decision, 2023 WL 5167264, at *12; J.A.
914–15, ¶ 147. Accordingly, the Board reasonably found
that Dua discloses the “prepare data” limitation.
Case: 23-2418 Document: 43 Page: 3 Filed: 08/14/2025

-- 3 of 4 --

RFCYBER CORP. v. STEWART 4
We have considered RFCyber’s remaining arguments
and find them unpersuasive. For the foregoing reasons, we
affirm.
AFFIRMED
Case: 23-2418 Document: 43 Page: 4 Filed: 08/14/2025

-- 4 of 4 --