Opinion ID: 2808721
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: A multifunction card system, comprising:

Text: a. at least one electronic gift certificate card having a unique identification number encoded on it, said identification number comprising a bank identification number approved by the American Banking Association for use in a banking network, said identification number corresponding to said multifunction card system; ALEXSAM, INC. v. THE GAP, INC. 5 b. a bank processing hub computer under bank hub software control and in communication over a banking network with a pre-existing standard re- tail point-of-sale device, said bank processing hub computer receiving electronic gift certificate card activation data when said electronic gift certificate card is swiped through said point-of-sale device, said electronic gift certificate card activation data comprising said unique identification num- ber of said electronic gift certificate card and an electronic gift certificate activation amount; and c. a gift certificate card computer under gift certificate card software control and in communication with said bank processing hub for activating a gift certificate card account in a gift certificate card database corresponding to said electronic gift certificate card, said gift certificate card account comprising balance data representative of an electronic gift certificate activation amount. ’787 patent col. 11 l. 47–col. 12 l. 4 (emphasis added). Though similar, the patents-in-suit differ from each other in important ways. The ’787 patent provides for a “pre-existing standard retail point-of-sale device,” id. col. 11 ll. 57–58, which is a “terminal for making purchases at a retail location of the type in use as of July 10, 1997.” J.A. 2367. The ’608 patent discloses that this device is “unmodified,” ’608 patent col. 11 l. 49, which the district court construed to mean a terminal that “has not been reprogrammed, customized, or otherwise altered with respect to its software or hardware for use in the card system.” J.A. 2322. The claims of the ’608 patent refer to a “processing hub,” which the court construed as a “computer which provides front-end point-of-sale device management and message processing for card authorizations or activations.” J.A. 2366. By contrast, the ’787 patent claims recite a “bank processing hub computer,” which is 6 ALEXSAM, INC. v. THE GAP, INC. a “computer, other than a processing hub, that is maintained by a bank, that facilitates the card transaction and that is remote from the pre-existing standard retail pointof-sale device.” J.A. 2367.