- PTAB · Nov 20, 2019 · CBM2018-00006 · APJ Frances L Ippolito · CBM · Rehearing
The Board denied Patent Owner’s rehearing request, leaving intact its final written decision that claims 1–12 are unpatentable under § 101.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d), “[t]he burden of showing a decision should be modified lies with the party challenging the decision. The request must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed in a motion, opposition, or a reply.”” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“on this particular issue is timely. Patent Owner has argued that “the institution should never have occurred” and that institution should have been denied outright. Id. However, our Decision on Institution (Paper 19, “Dec.”) was entered on June 22, 2018. Any request for rehearing of our determinations regarding the forum selection clause in that Decision should have been filed 14 days from the entry of that decision. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d)(1). As we noted in the FWD, after institution of the covered business method patent review (“CBM review”), the parties did not present any additional evidence or arguments regarding the forum selection clause issue. FWD 8 (“In the post-institution briefing, neither party has added arguments or evidence to the record regarding this issue.”). Indeed, the Patent Owner’s Response (Paper 28, “PO Resp.”) and Sur-Reply (Paper 39, “Sur.”) and Petitioner’s Reply (Paper 31, “Reply”) did not discuss forum selection. For completeness and clarity of the record, we reiterated our” slip op. at 3
- BurdenDecided for petitioner
“be instructive, contrary to Patent Owner’s assertion, that decision has not been designated precedential. Moreover, taking into consideration the discussion by the panel in Global Tel*Link, we are not persuaded that our determination misapprehended or overlooked any arguments or evidence in” slip op. at 9
- Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step one — 'directed to'Step1 directed to exceptionDecided for petitioner
“the abstract idea. Nonetheless, we are not persuaded that this is clear error or deprived Patent Owner of the opportunity to defend its position. Indeed, Patent Owner does not explain why the “rules for playing a bonus wagering game” is substantively different from “allowing bonus wagers in a wagering game,” or, more importantly, the basis for Patent Owner’s contention that this is a “fundamental change.” See Reh’g Req. 11.” slip op. at 11
§ 101 eligibilityPatents in suitUS 7,451,987 - Google, Inc. / Apple Inc. v. Smartflash LLCRehearing deniedPTAB · Jan 27, 2017 · CBM2015-00130 · APJ Jennifer S Bisk · CBM · Rehearing
The Board denied Smartflash’s rehearing request, leaving in place its determination that claims 3–10, 15–31, and 33 are patent-ineligible under § 101.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“The burden of showing a decision should be modified lies with the party challenging the decision. The request must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, or a reply.” slip op. at 3
- Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step one — 'directed to'Decided for petitioner
“Id. at 13–14 (citing Ex. 1001, 25:59–61 (claim 1), 26:42–67 (claim 15), 27:36–55). But McRO does not stand for the general proposition that use of rules or conditions to achieve an improved technological result, alone, removes claims from the realm of abstract ideas. In McRO, the Court explained that “the claimed improvement [was] allowing computers to produce ‘accurate and realistic lip synchronization and facial expressions in animated characters’ that previously could only be produced by human animators.” Id. at 1313 (citation omitted). The Court explained that the claimed rules in McRO transformed a traditionally subjective process performed by human artists into a mathematically automated process executed on computers (i.e., the processes were fundamentally different). Id. at 1314. The Court explained that “it [was] the incorporation of the claimed rules, not the use of the computer, that ‘improved [the] existing technological process’ by allowing the automation of further tasks.” Id. at 1314 (alteration in original) (quoting Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l., 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2358 (2014)). The Court distinguished this from situations “where the claimed computer-automated process and the prior method were carried out in the same way.” Id. (citing Parker v. Flook, 437” slip op. at 6
- Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step two — inventive conceptDecided for petitioner
“In Amdocs, the Court held that “[claim 1] is eligible under step two because it contains a sufficient ‘inventive concept.’” Amdocs, 841 F.3d at 1300. The claim at issue recited “computer code for using the accounting information with which the first network accounting record is correlated to enhance the first network accounting record.” Id. The Court explained that the “claim entails an unconventional technological solution (enhancing data in a distributed fashion) to a technological problem (massive record flows which previously required massive databases).” Id. The Court noted that, although the solution requires generic computer components, “the claim’s enhancing limitation necessarily requires that these generic components operate in an unconventional manner to achieve an improvement in computer functionality.” Id. at 1300–1301. When determining that the claim was patent-eligible, the Court explained that the “enhancing limitation necessarily involves the arguably generic gatherers, network devices, and other components working in an unconventional distributed fashion to solve a particular technological problem.” Id. at 1301. The Court distinguished the claim from the claim held unpatentable in Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n, 776 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2014) on the grounds that the “enhancing limitation . . . necessarily incorporates the invention’s distributed architecture—an architecture providing a technological solution to a technological problem,” which “provides the requisite ‘something more’ than the performance of ‘well-” slip op. at 8
§ 101 eligibilitycites Alice · Bilski · EnfishPatents in suitUS 8,118,221 - Apple Inc. v. Smartflash LLCRehearing deniedPTAB · Jan 27, 2017 · CBM2015-00127 · APJ Rama G Elluru · CBM · Rehearing
The Board denied Patent Owner’s rehearing request, leaving intact its determination that claims 4–12 and 16–18 are patent-ineligible under § 101.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“identify any specific matter that we misapprehended or overlooked. Although Patent Owner repeatedly states that the Board “misapprehends” Smartflash’s argument (see, e.g., Req. Reh’g 5, 10), it does not offer sufficient explanation as to how we misapprehended or overlooked any particular “matter [that] was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, or a reply.” Rather than providing a proper request for rehearing, addressing particular matters that we previously allegedly misapprehended or overlooked, Patent Owner’s Request provides new briefing by expounding on argument already made.” slip op. at 4
- Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step one — 'directed to'Step1 directed to exceptionDecided for patent owner
“Id. at 13 (citing Ex. 1001, 26:59–67 (claims 4–12), 28:12–19 (claims 16– 18)). But McRO does not stand for the general proposition that use of rules or conditions, such as payment, to achieve an improved technological result, alone, removes claims from the realm of abstract ideas. In McRO, the Court explained that “the claimed improvement [was] allowing computers to produce ‘accurate and realistic lip synchronization and facial expressions in animated characters’ that previously could only be produced by human animators.” Id. at 1313 (citation omitted). The Court explained that the claimed rules in McRO transformed a traditionally subjective process performed by human artists into a mathematically automated process executed on computers (i.e., the processes were fundamentally different). Id. at 1314. The Court explained that “it [was] the incorporation of the claimed rules, not the use of the computer, that ‘improved [the] existing technological process’ by allowing the automation of further tasks.” Id. at 1314 (alteration in original) (quoting Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l., 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2358 (2014)). The Court distinguished this from situations “where the claimed computer-automated process and the prior method were carried out in the same way.” Id. (citing Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 585–86 (1978); Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 611 (2010); Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2356)). As explained in our Final Decision, the challenged claims “merely implement an old practice in a new environment.” Final Dec. 12 (quoting FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Systems, Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1094 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). The challenged claims are similar to the claims found ineligible in FairWarning, which the Court distinguished from those at issue McRO. FairWarning, 839 F.3d at 1094–95. In FairWarning, the Court explained that “[t]he claimed rules ask . . . the same questions . . . that humans in analogous situations . . . have asked for decades, if not centuries” and that it is the “incorporation of a computer, not the claimed rule, that purportedly ‘improve[s] [the] existing technological process.’” Id. at 1095 (citing Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358). This is similar to the challenged claims, where the “payment validation data” and “access rule” in claim 4, via its dependency from claim 3, for example, is merely a condition for “determin[ing] what access is permitted to data stored on the data carrier,” that the ’720 patent explains “will normally be dependent upon payments made for data stored on the data carrier” (i.e., allowing access when the data has been purchased). Ex. 1001, 9:21–25.” slip op. at 5
- Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step two — inventive conceptStep2 no inventive conceptDecided for patent owner
“understood, routine, [and] conventional activities previously known to the industry.’” Id. (citations omitted). We are not persuaded that we misapprehended Amdocs. As noted in our Final Decision, “[t]he ’720 patent treats as well-known all potentially technical aspects of the challenged claims, which simply require generic computer components.” Final Dec. 15. Unlike the generic components at issue in Amdocs, the generic components recited in claims 4–12 and 16–18 of the ’720 patent do not operate in an unconventional manner to achieve an improvement in computer functionality. See id. at 17–21. The challenged claims of the ’720 patent simply recite generic memories, data types, processors, and “code to” perform well-known functions with no description of the underlying implementation or programming. See id. at 14–17.” slip op. at 8
§ 101 eligibilitycites Alice · Bilski · EnfishPatents in suitUS 7,334,720 - Apple Inc. v. Smartflash LLCRehearing deniedPTAB · Jan 27, 2017 · CBM2015-00124 · APJ Rama G Elluru · CBM · Rehearing
The Board denied Patent Owner’s rehearing request and left intact its determination that claims 2–5, 9–11, 14, 15, 17, and 19 are patent-ineligible under § 101.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“showing unpatentability by a preponderance of the evidence. 35 U.S.C. § 326(e). The standard of review for rehearing requests is set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d), which states: The burden of showing a decision should be modified lies with the party challenging the decision. The request must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, or a reply.” slip op. at 3
- Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step one — 'directed to'Decided for patent owner
“[b]ecause the challenged claims are a technological improvement over the then-existing systems, and limit transfer and retrieval of content based on payment and/or access rules in a process specifically designed to achieve an improved technological result in conventional industry practice, the challenged claims are not directed to an abstract idea. Id. at 13 (citing Ex. 1001, 22:36–57 (claim 11), 26:4–7 (claim 2–5), 26:58– 27:17 (claims 14, 15), 28:16–23 (claim 17)). But McRO does not stand for the general proposition that use of rules or conditions, such as payment, to achieve an improved technological result, alone, removes claims from the realm of abstract ideas. In McRO, the Court explained that “the claimed improvement [was] allowing computers to produce ‘accurate and realistic lip synchronization and facial expressions in animated characters’ that previously could only be produced by human animators.” Id. at 1313 (citation omitted). The Court explained that the claimed rules in McRO transformed a traditionally subjective process performed by human artists into a mathematically automated process executed on computers (i.e., the” slip op. at 5
- Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step two — inventive conceptDecided for patent owner
“In Amdocs, the Court held that “[claim 1] is eligible under step two because it contains a sufficient ‘inventive concept.’” Amdocs, 841 F.3d at 1300. The claim at issue recited “computer code for using the accounting information with which the first network accounting record is correlated to enhance the first network accounting record.” Id. The Court explained that the “claim entails an unconventional technological solution (enhancing data in a distributed fashion) to a technological problem (massive record flows which previously required massive databases).” Id. The Court noted that, although the solution requires generic computer components, “the claim’s enhancing limitation necessarily requires that these generic components operate in an unconventional manner to achieve an improvement in computer functionality.” Id. at 1300–1301. When determining that the claim was patent-eligible, the Court explained that the “enhancing limitation necessarily involves the arguably generic gatherers, network devices, and other components working in an unconventional distributed fashion to solve a particular technological problem.” Id. at 1301. The Court distinguished the claim from the claim held unpatentable in Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n, 776 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2014) on the grounds that the “enhancing limitation . . . necessarily” slip op. at 7
§ 101 eligibilitycites Alice · Bilski · EnfishPatents in suitUS 7,942,317 - Apple Inc. v. Smartflash LLCRehearing deniedPTAB · Jan 27, 2017 · CBM2015-00123 · APJ Jeremy M Plenzler · CBM · Rehearing
The Board denied Patent Owner’s rehearing request and left intact its determination that claims 2–5, 7, 9, and 12 are patent-ineligible under § 101.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“showing unpatentability by a preponderance of the evidence. 35 U.S.C. § 326(e). The standard of review for rehearing requests is set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d), which states: The burden of showing a decision should be modified lies with the party challenging the decision. The request must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, or a reply.” slip op. at 3
- Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step one — 'directed to'Step1 directed to exceptionDecided for petitioner
“Id. at 13 (citing Ex. 1001, 26:27–35 (claim 3)). But McRO does not stand for the general proposition that use of rules to achieve an improved technological result, alone, removes claims from the realm of abstract ideas. In McRO, the Court explained that “the claimed improvement [was] allowing computers to produce ‘accurate and realistic lip synchronization and facial expressions in animated characters’ that previously could only be produced by human animators.” Id. at 1313 (citation omitted). The Court” slip op. at 5
- Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step two — inventive conceptStep2 no inventive conceptDecided for petitioner
“In Amdocs, the Court held that “[claim 1] is eligible under step two because it contains a sufficient ‘inventive concept.’” Amdocs, 841 F.3d at 1300. The claim at issue recited “computer code for using the accounting information with which the first network accounting record is correlated to enhance the first network accounting record.” Id. The Court explained that the “claim entails an unconventional technological solution (enhancing data in a distributed fashion) to a technological problem (massive record flows which previously required massive databases).” Id. The Court noted that, although the solution requires generic computer components, “the claim’s enhancing limitation necessarily requires that these generic components operate in an unconventional manner to achieve an improvement in computer functionality.” Id. at 1300–1301. When determining that the claim was patent-eligible, the Court explained that the “enhancing limitation necessarily involves the arguably generic gatherers, network devices, and other components working in an unconventional distributed fashion to solve a particular technological problem.” Id. at 1301. The Court distinguished the claim from the claim held unpatentable in Content Extraction &” slip op. at 7
§ 101 eligibilitycites Alice · EnfishPatents in suitUS 8,033,458 - Apple Inc. v. Smartflash LLCRehearing deniedPTAB · Jan 27, 2017 · CBM2015-00121 · APJ Gregg I Anderson · CBM · Rehearing
The Board denied Smartflash’s rehearing request, leaving in place its determination that claims 1–28 are patent-ineligible under § 101.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“showing unpatentability by a preponderance of the evidence. 35 U.S.C. § 326(e). The standard of review for rehearing requests is set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d), which states: The burden of showing a decision should be modified lies with the party challenging the decision. The request must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, or a reply.” slip op. at 3
- Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step one — 'directed to'Step1 directed to exceptionDecided for petitioner
“Id. at 13 (citing Ex. 1001, 26:35–37 (claim 1), 28:3–9 (claim 14)). But McRO does not stand for the general proposition that payment validation to achieve an improved technological result, alone, removes claims from the realm of abstract ideas. In McRO, the Court explained that “the claimed improvement [was] allowing computers to produce ‘accurate and realistic lip synchronization and facial expressions in animated characters’ that previously could only be produced by human animators.” McRO, 837 F.3d at 1313 (citation omitted). The Court explained that the claimed rules in McRO transformed a traditionally subjective process performed by human artists into a mathematically automated process executed on computers (i.e., the processes were fundamentally different). Id. at 1314. The Court” slip op. at 5
- Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step two — inventive conceptStep2 no inventive conceptDecided for petitioner
“because it contains a sufficient ‘inventive concept.’” Amdocs, 841 F.3d at 1300. The claim at issue recited “computer code for using the accounting information with which the first network accounting record is correlated to enhance the first network accounting record.” Id. The Court explained that the “claim entails an unconventional technological solution (enhancing data in a distributed fashion) to a technological problem (massive record flows which previously required massive databases).” Id. The Court noted that, although the solution requires generic computer components, “the claim’s enhancing limitation necessarily requires that these generic components operate in an unconventional manner to achieve an improvement in computer functionality.” Id. at 1300–1301. When determining that the claim was patent-eligible, the Court explained that the “enhancing limitation necessarily involves the arguably generic gatherers, network devices, and other components working in an unconventional distributed fashion to solve a particular technological problem.” Id. at 1301. The Court distinguished the claim from the claim held unpatentable in Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n, 776 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2014) on the grounds that the “enhancing limitation . . . necessarily 7 This is the only instance where one of Patent Owner’s papers is cited in the Request. incorporates the invention’s distributed architecture—an architecture providing a technological solution to a technological problem,” which “provides the requisite ‘something more’ than the performance of ‘well-understood, routine, [and] conventional activities previously known to the industry.’” Id. (citations omitted). We are not persuaded that we misapprehended Amdocs. As noted in our Final Decision, “[t]he ’516 patent treats as well-known all potentially technical aspects of the challenged claims, which simply require generic computer components.” Final Dec. 15. Unlike the generic components at issue in Amdocs, the generic components recited in claims 1–28 of the ’516 patent do not operate in an unconventional manner to achieve an improvement in computer functionality. See Final Dec. 20–22. Claims 1– 28 of the ’516 patent simply recite generic memories, processors, and “code to” perform well-known functions with no description of the underlying implementation or programming.” slip op. at 7
§ 101 eligibilitycites Alice · Bilski · EnfishPatents in suitUS 8,794,516 - Apple Inc. v. Smartflash LLCRehearing deniedPTAB · Jan 27, 2017 · CBM2015-00131 · APJ Jeremy M Plenzler · CBM · Rehearing
The Board denied Smartflash’s rehearing request, leaving in place its determination that challenged claims 3–6, 8–14, 16–25, 27–30, and 32–41 are ineligible under § 101.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“The burden of showing a decision should be modified lies with the party challenging the decision. The request must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, or a reply.” slip op. at 3
- Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step one — 'directed to'Not reached
“Id. at 13 (citing Ex. 1001, 26:5–11 (claim 3)). But McRO does not stand for the general proposition that use of rules or conditions to achieve an improved technological result, alone, removes claims from the realm of abstract ideas. In McRO, the Court explained that “the claimed improvement [was] allowing computers to produce ‘accurate and realistic lip synchronization and facial expressions in animated characters’ that previously could only be produced by human animators.” Id. at 1313 (citation omitted). The Court explained that the claimed rules in McRO transformed a traditionally subjective process performed by human artists into a mathematically automated process executed on computers (i.e., the processes were fundamentally different). Id. at 1314. The Court explained” slip op. at 5
- Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step two — inventive conceptNot reached
“In Amdocs, the Court held that “[claim 1] is eligible under step two because it contains a sufficient ‘inventive concept.’” Amdocs, 841 F.3d at 1300. The claim at issue recited “computer code for using the accounting information with which the first network accounting record is correlated to enhance the first network accounting record.” Id. The Court explained that the “claim entails an unconventional technological solution (enhancing data in a distributed fashion) to a technological problem (massive record flows which previously required massive databases).” Id. The Court noted that, although the solution requires generic computer components, “the claim’s enhancing limitation necessarily requires that these generic components operate in an unconventional manner to achieve an improvement in computer functionality.” Id. at 1300–1301. When determining that the claim was patent-eligible, the Court explained that the “enhancing limitation necessarily involves the arguably generic gatherers, network devices, and other components working in an unconventional distributed fashion to solve a particular technological problem.” Id. at 1301. The Court distinguished the claim from the claim held unpatentable in Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n, 776 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2014) on the grounds that the “enhancing limitation . . . necessarily incorporates the invention’s distributed architecture—an architecture providing a technological solution to a technological problem,” which “provides the requisite ‘something more’ than the performance of ‘well-” slip op. at 7
§ 101 eligibilitycites Alice · Bilski · EnfishPatents in suitUS 8,061,598 - Apple Inc. / Google, Inc. v. Smartflash LLCRehearing deniedPTAB · Jan 27, 2017 · CBM2015-00133 · APJ Jeremy M Plenzler · CBM · Rehearing
The Board denied Patent Owner’s rehearing request and left intact its determination that challenged claims 2–4, 6, 7, 9, 11–13, 15–18, 20, 21, 23, 24, 27–29, 31, and 33–36 are patent-ineligible under § 101.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“showing unpatentability by a preponderance of the evidence. 35 U.S.C. § 326(e). The standard of review for rehearing requests is set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d), which states: The burden of showing a decision should be modified lies with the party challenging the decision. The request must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, or a reply.” slip op. at 4
- Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step one — 'directed to'Step1 directed to exceptionDecided for petitioner
“Id. at 13 (citing Ex. 1001, 26:35–37 (claim 1)). But McRO does not stand for the general proposition that use of rules or conditions to achieve an improved technological result, alone, removes claims from the realm of abstract ideas. In McRO, the Court explained that “the claimed improvement [was] allowing computers to produce ‘accurate and realistic lip synchronization and facial expressions in animated characters’ that previously could only be produced by human animators.” Id. at 1313 (citation omitted). The Court explained that the claimed rules in McRO transformed a traditionally subjective process performed by human artists into a mathematically automated process executed on computers (i.e., the processes were fundamentally different). Id. at 1314. The Court explained 7 Amdocs (Israel) Ltd. v. Openet Telecom, Inc., 841 F.3d 1288 (Fed. Cir. 2016). that “it [was] the incorporation of the claimed rules, not the use of the computer, that ‘improved [the] existing technological process’ by allowing the automation of further tasks.” Id. at 1314 (alteration in original) (quoting Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l., 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2358 (2014)). The Court distinguished this from situations “where the claimed computer-automated process and the prior method were carried out in the same way.” Id. (citing Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 585–86 (1978); Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 611 (2010); Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2356)). As explained in our Final Decision, the challenged claims “merely implement an old practice in a new environment.” Final Dec. 12–13 (quoting FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Systems, Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1094 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). The challenged claims are similar to the claims found ineligible in FairWarning, which the Court distinguished from those at issue McRO. FairWarning, 839 F.3d at 1094–95. In FairWarning, the Court explained that “[t]he claimed rules ask . . . the same questions . . . that humans in analogous situations . . . have asked for decades, if not centuries” and that it is the “incorporation of a computer, not the claimed rule, that purportedly ‘improve[s] [the] existing technological process.’” Id. at 1095 (citing Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358). This is similar to the challenged claims, where the “payment validation data” in claim 2, for example, is merely a condition for “enabl[ing] access to . . . multimedia content” that the ’772 patent explains “will normally be dependent upon payments made for data stored on the data carrier” (i.e., allowing access when the data has been purchased). Ex. 1001, 9:28–30.” slip op. at 6
- Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step two — inventive conceptStep2 no inventive conceptDecided for petitioner
“In Amdocs, the Court held that “[claim 1] is eligible under step two because it contains a sufficient ‘inventive concept.’” Amdocs, 841 F.3d at 1300. The claim at issue recited “computer code for using the accounting information with which the first network accounting record is correlated to enhance the first network accounting record.” Id. The Court explained that the “claim entails an unconventional technological solution (enhancing data in a distributed fashion) to a technological problem (massive record flows which previously required massive databases).” Id. The Court noted that, although the solution requires generic computer components, “the claim’s enhancing limitation necessarily requires that these generic components operate in an unconventional manner to achieve an improvement in computer functionality.” Id. at 1300–1301. When determining that the claim was patent-eligible, the Court explained that the “enhancing limitation necessarily involves the arguably generic gatherers, network devices, and other components working in an unconventional distributed fashion to solve a particular technological problem.” Id. at 1301. The Court distinguished the claim from the claim held unpatentable in Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n, 776 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2014) on the grounds that the “enhancing limitation . . . necessarily incorporates the invention’s distributed architecture—an architecture providing a technological solution to a technological problem,” which 8 This is the only instance where one of Patent Owner’s papers is cited in the Request. “provides the requisite ‘something more’ than the performance of ‘well-understood, routine, [and] conventional activities previously known to the industry.’” Id. (citations omitted). We are not persuaded that we misapprehended Amdocs. As noted in our Final Decision, “[t]he ’772 patent treats as well-known all potentially technical aspects of the challenged claims, which simply require generic computer components.” Final Dec. 15. Unlike the generic components at issue in Amdocs, the generic components recited in claims 2–4, 6, 7, 9, 11– 13, 15–18, 20, 21, 23, 24, 27–29, 31, and 33–36 of the ’772 patent do not operate in an unconventional manner to achieve an improvement in computer functionality. See Final Dec. 20–24. Claims 2–5, 7, 9, and 12 of the ’772 patent simply recite generic memories and data types with no description of the underlying implementation or programming.” slip op. at 8
§ 101 eligibilitycites Alice · Bilski · EnfishPatents in suitUS 8,336,772 - United Services Automobile Association v. Nader Asghari-Kamrani And Kamran Asghari-KamraniRehearing deniedPTAB · Oct 13, 2016 · CBM2016-00064 · APJ Joni Y Chang · CBM · Rehearing
The Board denied rehearing, leaving in place institution on claims 1–3, 5–28, and 30–55 based on the showing that those claims were more likely than not obvious over Nicholson and Brown.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“decision should be modified. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). The party must identify specifically all matters we misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, or a reply. Id. When reconsidering a decision on institution, we review the decision for an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). An abuse of discretion may be determined if a decision is based on an erroneous interpretation of law, if a factual finding is not supported by substantial evidence, or if the decision represents an unreasonable judgment in weighing relevant factors. Star Fruits S.N.C. v. U.S., 393 F.3d 1277, 1281 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Arnold P’ship v. Dudas, 362 F.3d 1338, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2004); In re Gartside, 203 F.3d 1305, 1315-16 (Fed. Cir. 2000).” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“2003/0046591 A1 (Ex. 1017), published on March 6, 2003, and WIPO International Publication No. WO 03/021837 A1 (Ex. 1028), published on March 13, 2003, more than one year before the actual filing date of the ’432 patent (September 15, 2008)—are also prior art under § 102(b), showing what was known in the art and the knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.4 See In re Van Langenhoven, 458 F.2d 132, 136–37 (CCPA 1972) (citing In re Hafner, 410 F.2d 1403 (CCPA 1969); In re Ruscetta, 255 F.2d 687, 690–91 (CCPA 1958)) (noting that, because the patentee could not claim the benefit of the filing date of any prior-filed application, the patentee’s own prior patent or publication that was published more than one year from the actual filing date of the application at issue was available as prior art under § 102(b)). Therefore, we disagree with Patent Owner that we committed a clear error in determining that claim 1 does not recite a technological feature that is novel and unobvious over the prior art, and that we committed a clear error in concluding that Petitioner had demonstrated that the claims at issue are more likely than not unpatentable as obvious over Nicholson and Brown. For the reasons stated above, Patent Owner has not established that we abused our discretion in determining that the ’432 patent is not excluded as a technological invention, and that it is more likely than not that claims 1–3, 4 Petitioner’s asserted ground of unpatentability, on which we instituted a trial, is based on the combination of Nicholson and Brown under § 103(a). See Paper 2, 27–63; Dec. 35. 13 5–28, and 30–55 of the ’432 patent are unpatentable under § 103(a) as obvious over Nicholson and Brown.” slip op. at 13
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableDecided for petitioner
“was made. Req. Reh’g 13–14 (citing 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)). In the Decision (Dec. 18–19), we noted that in determining the level of ordinary skill in the art, various factors may be considered, including the “type of problems encountered in the art; prior art solutions to those problems; rapidity with which innovations are made; sophistication of the technology; and educational level of active workers in the field.” In re GPAC, Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (citation omitted). We further noted in the Decision (Dec. 19) that the prior art of record in the instant proceeding reflects the appropriate level of ordinary skill in the art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1354–55 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level” of ordinary skill in the art). On this record, Nicholson, which was filed on July 14, 2006, and published on January 25, 2007, predates the actual filing date of the ’432 patent (September 15, 2008) by more than one year.2 Ex. 1034 at [22], [43]. And, Brown, which was filed on June 3, 1996, and issued on April 14, 1998, predates the actual filing date of the ’432 patent (September 15, 2008) by more than one year.3 Ex. 1035 at [22], [45]. Therefore, based on the current record, both Nicholson and Brown are prior art under § 102(b) as to the challenged claims. In addition, on this record, the publications of the first prior-filed application—U.S. Patent Application Publication No.” slip op. at 12
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Not entitled to earlier dateDecided for petitioner
“demonstrated based on the current record that the benefit claim to the third prior-filed application complies with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 120, among which is the requirement that the original disclosure of the third prior-filed application provides written description support for the challenged claims as required by 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph. See Dec. 26–27. In re NTP, Inc., 654 F.3d 1268, 1276–77 (Fed. Cir. 2011); In re Chu, 66 F.3d 292, 297 (Fed. Cir. 1995). Once again, Patent Owner’s arguments ignore the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 120. As we determined in our Decision, Patent Owner has not shown, at this juncture, that the original disclosure of the second prior-filed application or the original disclosure of the third prior-filed application provides sufficient written description support for each limitation of the challenged claims. Dec. 23–29. Without this showing, the challenged claims are not entitled to the benefit of the filing date of any prior-filed application. Id. Therefore, on this record, “at the time of the invention” is not August 29, 2001, the filing date of the first prior-filed application, as alleged by Patent Owner, but rather, September 15, 2008, the actual filing date of the application that issued as the ’432 patent.” slip op. at 11
Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 8,266,432 - United Services Automobile Association v. Nader Asghari-Kamrani And Kamran Asghari-KamraniRehearing deniedPTAB · Oct 13, 2016 · CBM2016-00063 · APJ Joni Y Chang · CBM · Rehearing
The Board denied rehearing, finding no abuse of discretion in instituting CBM review of claims 1–3, 5–28, and 30–55; it maintained the anticipation and obviousness determinations.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“decision should be modified. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). The party must identify specifically all matters we misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, or a reply. Id. When reconsidering a decision on institution, we review the decision for an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). An abuse of discretion may be determined if a decision is based on an erroneous interpretation of law, if a factual finding is not supported by substantial evidence, or if the decision represents an unreasonable judgment in weighing relevant factors. Star Fruits S.N.C. v. U.S., 393 F.3d 1277, 1281 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Arnold P’ship v. Dudas, 362 F.3d 1338, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2004); In re Gartside, 203 F.3d 1305, 1315-16 (Fed. Cir. 2000).” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denialDecided for petitioner
“misapply SightSound or Blue Calypso, as alleged by Patent Owner, in determining that the ’432 patent is a covered business method patent, and, therefore, is eligible for a review. Req. Reh’g 1–10 (citing SightSound Techs., LLC v. Apple Inc., 809 F.3d 1307, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Blue Calypso LLC v. Groupon, Inc., 815 F.3d 1331, 1338–40 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). As we stated in the Decision, a covered business method patent is a patent that “claims a method or corresponding apparatus for performing data processing or other operations used in the practice, administration, or management of a financial product or service, except that the term does not include patents for technological inventions.” Dec. 5 (quoting AIA § 18(d)(1)). The legislative history of the AIA “explains that the definition of covered business method patent was drafted to encompass patents ‘claiming activities that are financial in nature, incidental to a financial activity or complementary to a financial activity.’” Transitional Program for Covered Business Method Patents—Definitions of Covered Business Method Patent and Technological Invention, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,734, 48,735 (Aug. 14, 2012) (Final Rule) (quoting 157 CONG. REC. S5432 (daily ed.” slip op. at 4
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportDecided for petitioner
“requirements that an applicant must satisfy in order for a later filed application to be accorded the same effect as if it were filed on the same date as an earlier application by the same inventor disclosing the same invention. Those conditions are (1) copendency of the applications, and (2) reference in the later filed to the earlier filed application.” In re Costello, 717 F.2d 1346, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (emphasis added). Our reviewing court also explained that a prior-filed application that was not copending with the later-filed application cannot be used to antedate a reference. Id. at 1350.” slip op. at 11
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Decision, the allegedly technological features appear to have been known in the art, in light of the prior art in the record, and Petitioner has explained sufficiently why claim 1, as a whole, does not recite a technological feature that is novel and non-obvious over the prior art of record. Dec. 12–13. We also explained that “following Petitioner’s showing that Norefors and Rajasekaran constitute prior art relative to the actual filing date of the ’432 patent, the burden of production shifted to Patent Owner to show that the” slip op. at 9
§ 102 anticipationDiscretionary denialcites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 8,266,432
Holdings, summaries, rulings, issues, outcomes, winners and claim constructions shown for a decision were generated by a large language model reading the opinion. They are a guide to the decision, not the decision. Confirm every one against the court's own text before relying on it. Outcomes read from the patent owner’s side. Party names are extracted from the decision and are missing on about 900 short Director denials and scans, which carry the trial number instead.