• Petitioner v. Ameranth, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Aug 26, 2016 · CBM2015-00080 · APJ Meredith C Petravick · CBM · Final written decision

  Claims 12–16 are unpatentable under § 103 over DeLorme because its TRIPS system teaches or renders obvious the claimed elements; secondary considerations do not outweigh that showing.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • BurdenFwd all claims unpatentableUnpatentable

    “Petitioner contends that claims 12–16 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over DeLorme. Pet. 50–62. To support its contention, Petitioner provides explanations as to how the prior art meets each claim element. Id. Petitioner also cites the Declaration of Dr. Don Turnbull for support. See Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 180–237. Taking into account Patent Owner’s argument and evidence (PO Resp. 1–4, 12–80; PO Sur-Reply 1–5), for the reasons discussed below, we determine that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 12–16 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over DeLorme.” slip op. at 16

  • ExcludeOther

    “Patent Owner moves to exclude certain paragraphs of Exhibit 1070 and the entirety of Exhibits 1071, 1072, 1073, 1078, 1079, 1080, 1081, and 1082. Paper 33. We do not rely on these exhibits in reaching our Decision and, thus, dismiss Patent Owner’s motion to exclude these exhibits as moot. Petitioner moves to exclude the entirety of Exhibits 2021, 2023, 2025, 2027, 2030–2051, and 2053–2056 and with the annotated portions of Exhibit 2024. Paper 31. We also dismiss Petitioner’s motion to exclude these exhibits. Petitioner’s motion to exclude theses exhibits are moot because we have found this evidence insufficient regardless of their admissibility.” slip op. at 51

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther

    “To resolve the issues of patentability of the claims over DeLorme, it is not necessary for us to determine whether the broadest reasonable construction of “wireless handheld computing device” requires that the device be held in a single hand or allows for the device to be held in two hands. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (stating that “only those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy”). Regardless, DeLorme explicitly discloses that its wireless communication unit (“WCU”) 907 is handheld. Ex. 1024, col. 72, l. 1 (“WCU 907, typically hand-held 906”), col. 72, l. 31 (“handheld devices equipped with GPS 908”); see also id. at col. 7, l. 34, col. 16, ll. 40–49 (further describing wireless “handheld” device). Further, DeLorme discloses that WCU 907 could be a personal digital assistant (“PDA”) and describes PDAs as “handheld” wireless devices. Id. at col. 71, l. 61–col. 72, l. 2, col. 75, ll. 33–45; see Ex. 1076, 53:12–25 (testimony of Dr. Weaver indicating that a PDA or smartphone is a wireless hand-held computing device). The ’850 patent describes PDAs as an example of a wireless handheld device. Ex. 1001, col. 1, ll. 62–63, col. 13, l. 50. Given this, we determine that it is not necessary for us to determine whether the broadest reasonable construction of “wireless handheld computing device” requires that the device be held in a single hand or allows for the device to be held in two hands.” slip op. at 8

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner proposes that “applications” be construed to mean “sequences of instructions that can be executed on a computer that are designed to help people perform a specific task.” Pet. 22. To support its proposed construction, Petitioner cites to the Microsoft Computer Dictionary, 4th ed., which defines “application” as “a program designed to assist in the performance of a specific task” and “program” as “[a] sequence of instructions that can be executed by a computer.” Ex. 1034, 4, 10. Patent Owner does not propose an explicit construction of “applications” but does state that “[i]t is clear from the specification, consistent with the ordinary meaning as would be understood by a POSA, that an application is a software program, not data.” PO Resp. 32 n.15. This is consistent with Petitioner’s proposed construction, which is based in-part on the definition of application, as a program. Given the above, we determine that the broadest reasonable interpretation, in light of the specification of the ’850 patent, of “hospitality applications” is a sequences of instructions that can be executed on a computer (i.e., a program) that are designed to assist in the performance of a specific task in the hospitality industry.” slip op. at 10

  Patent outcomesUS 6,384,850 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR
  Patents in suitUS 6,384,850
• Apple, Inc. / Eventbrite Inc. et al. v. Ameranth, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Aug 26, 2016 · CBM2015-00097 · APJ Meredith C Petravick · CBM · Final written decision

  Claims 11, 13, and 15 are unpatentable as obvious over DeLorme because the reference teaches or renders obvious their limitations.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • BurdenUnpatentable

    “Petitioner contends that claims 11, 13, and 15 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over DeLorme. Pet. 51–63. To support its contention, Petitioner provides explanations as to how the prior art meets each claim element. Id. Petitioner also cites the Declaration of Dr. Don Turnbull for support. See Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 419–473. Taking into account Patent Owner’s argument and evidence (PO Resp. 1–3, 14–80, PO Sur-Reply 1–5), for the reasons discussed below, we determine that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 11, 13, and 15 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over DeLorme.” slip op. at 18

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther

    “To resolve the issues of patentability of the claims over DeLorme, it is not necessary for us to determine whether the broadest reasonable construction of “wireless handheld computing device” requires that the device be held in a single hand or allows for the device to be held in two hands. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci.& Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (stating that “only those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy”). Regardless, DeLorme explicitly discloses that its wireless communication unit (“WCU”) 907 is handheld. Ex. 1024, col. 72, l. 1 (“WCU 907, typically hand-held 906”), col. 72, l. 31 (“handheld devices equipped with GPS 908”); see also id. at col. 7, l. 34, col. 16, ll. 40–49 (further describing a wireless “handheld” device). Further, DeLorme discloses that WCU 907 could be a personal digital assistant (“PDA”) and describes PDAs as “handheld” wireless devices. Id. at col. 71, l. 61–col. 72, l. 2, col. 75, ll. 33–45; see Ex. 1076, 53:12–25 (testimony of Dr. Weaver indicating that a PDA or smartphone is a wireless hand-held computing device). The ’325 patent describes PDAs as an example of a wireless handheld device. Ex. 1003, col. 13, l. 63. Given this, we determine that it is not necessary for us to determine whether the broadest reasonable construction of “wireless handheld computing device” requires that the device be held in a single hand or allows for the device to be held in two hands.” slip op. at 9

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner

    “We determine that the broadest reasonable construction, in light of the specification of the ’325 patent, of “a communications control module . . . wherein the communications control module is an interface between the hospitality applications and any other communications protocol” is a device used as an intermediary in transferring communications to and from the host computer to which it is connected, wherein the device is an interface between the hospitality applications and any other communications protocol. This construction is consistent with the plain language of claims 11 and 13, which requires the communication control module to be an interface between the hospitality applications and any other communications protocol. This construction is also consistent with the description of the communication control module in the specification of the ’325 patent as “a communications control program [that] monitors and routes all communications to the appropriate devices” and as “a single point of entry for all hospitality applications to communicate with one another wirelessly or over the [w]eb.” Ex. 1003, col. 9, ll. 35–36, col. 11, ll. 38–40. This construction, unlike Patent Owner’s proposed construction, does not import extraneous features from the specification of the ’325 patent into the claims. The specification of the ’325 patent describes additional features of the communication control module, such as it is “a layer that sits on top of any communication protocol.” Ex. 1003, col. 11, ll. 40–43. The plain language of claims 11 and 13, however, do not require the claimed communication control module to have such features. If a feature is not necessary to give meaning to what the inventor means by a claim term, it would be “extraneous,” and should not be read into the claim. Renishaw PLC v. Marposs Societa' per Azioni, 158 F.3d 1243, 1249 (Fed. Cir. 1998); E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 849 F.2d 1430, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 1988). We, thus, determine that the broadest reasonable construction, in light of the specification of the ’325 patent, of “a communications control module . . . wherein the communications control module is an interface between the hospitality applications and any other communications protocol” is a device used as an intermediary in transferring communications to and from the host computer to which it is connected, wherein the device is an interface between the hospitality applications and any other communications protocol.” slip op. at 15

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable

    “We are persuaded by Petitioner’s evidence and analysis that the claimed communication control module, when it is given the broadest reasonable construction, would have been obvious in view of DeLorme’s Interface and Interaction Bus 209. As discussed above, the broadest reasonable construction of “a communications control module . . . wherein the communications control module is an interface between the hospitality applications and any other communications protocol” is a device used as an intermediary in transferring communications to and from the host computer to which it is connected, wherein the device is an interface between the hospitality applications and any other communications protocol. DeLorme describes the Interface and Interaction Bus 209 as a device that gives retail users access to TRIPS Subsystem (Ex. 1024, col. 13, ll. 15–41) and depicts it as an interface between retail users 205 and third-party providers at 231 and TRIPS Subsystems 213, 217, 221, and 223 (id. at Fig. 9). DeLorme also describes Main Menu 413 and Interaction Bus 414, which corresponds to the Interface and Interaction Bus 209, as coordinating the responses to alternate input means embedded in specialized TRIPS field or in-vehicle embodiments. Id. at col. 37, ll. 54–65. DeLorme, thus, discloses an intermediary in transferring communications to and from the host computer to which it is connected. DeLorme does not explicitly disclose that the Interface and Interaction Bus 209 is an interface between different communication protocols. DeLorme, however, does describe the Interface and Interaction Bus 209 interfacing with different devices. E.g., see id. at col. 14, l. 66–col. 15, l. 14 (describing different alternative end-user hardware platforms). The different devices would use different communication protocols. See id. at col. 37, ll. 54–56, (describing simplified input or remote queries), col. 14, l. 66–col. 15, l. 13 (describing internet based access); PO Resp. 9 (“third party systems such as POS system devices (clearly which operate with different protocols”), Ex. 1076, 176:17–177:12 (testimony of Dr. Weaver indicating that different devices operate with different protocols). In order for Interface and Interaction Bus 209 to interface with devices using different communication protocols, Interface and Interaction Bus 209 would be configured to interface with different communication protocols or it would be obvious for it to be configured as such, because it is advantageous for TRIPS to interface with different devices. See Ex. 1002 ¶ 447. Patent Owner’s argument that DeLorme’s Interface and Interaction Bus 209 fails to meet this claim element is based upon its proposed construction (see PO Resp. 45–49), which we did not adopt. For example, Patent Owner’ argues that Interface and Interaction Bus 209 is not a software layer that sits on top of a communication protocol. Id. at 45–49. This argument is not persuasive because it is not commensurate with the scope of claim 12, when given its broadest reasonable construction. See Pet. Reply 15–19. We are persuaded by Petitioner’s evidence and analysis that the claimed communication control module, when it is given the broadest reasonable construction, would have been obvious in view of DeLorme’s Interface and Interaction Bus 209. We, thus, determine that DeLorme’s TRIPS system teaches the claimed communications control module that is an interface between the hospitality applications and any other communications protocol.” slip op. at 30

  Patent outcomesUS 6,871,325 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR
  Patents in suitUS 6,871,325
• Apple, Inc. / Eventbrite Inc. et al. v. Ameranth, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Aug 26, 2016 · CBM2015-00082 · APJ Meredith C Petravick · CBM · Final written decision

  Claims 11, 13, and 15 are unpatentable under § 103 over DeLorme because the evidence establishes the claimed system features, and secondary considerations do not outweigh the showing.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for petitioner

    “To resolve the issues of patentability of the claims over DeLorme, it is not necessary for us to determine whether the broadest reasonable construction of “wireless handheld computing device” requires that the device be held in a single hand or allows for the device to be held in two hands. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci.& Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (stating that “only those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy”). Regardless, DeLorme explicitly discloses that its wireless communication unit (“WCU”) 907 is handheld. Ex. 1024, col. 72, l. 1 (“WCU 907, typically hand-held 906”), col. 72, l. 31 (“handheld devices equipped with GPS 908”); see also id. at col. 7, l. 34, col. 16, ll. 40–49 (further describing a wireless “handheld” device). Further, DeLorme discloses that WCU 907 could be a personal digital assistant (“PDA”) and describes PDAs as “handheld” wireless devices. Id. at col. 71, l. 61–col. 72, l. 2, col. 75, ll. 33–45; see Ex. 1076, 53:12–25 (testimony of Dr. Weaver indicating that a PDA or smartphone is a wireless hand-held computing device). The ’325 patent describes PDAs as an example of a wireless handheld device. Ex. 1003, col. 13, l. 63. Given this, we determine that it is not necessary for us to determine whether the broadest reasonable construction of “wireless handheld computing device” requires that the device be held in a single hand or allows for the device to be held in two hands.” slip op. at 9

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner

    “Given the above, we determine that the broadest reasonable interpretation, in light of the specification of the ’325 patent, of “hospitality applications” is a sequence of instructions that can be executed on a computer (i.e., a program) and that is designed to assist in the performance of a specific task in the hospitality industry. We are not persuaded by Patent Owner that the hospitality industry excludes travel, tourism, and transportation. However, to resolve the issues of patentability of the claims over DeLorme, it is not necessary for us to construe hospitality industry. See Vivid Techs, 200 F.3d at 803 (stating that “only those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy”). Regardless, DeLorme discloses that TRIPS can be used for buying event tickets and making restaurant or hotel reservations. E.g., see Ex. 1024, col. 21, ll. 8–17, col. 31, ll. 42–51, col. 77, ll. 60–67, Fig. 1B-3. The ’325 patent describes frequent customer ticketing and restaurant reservations as tasks in the hospitality application. Ex. 1003, col. 5, ll. 17–20, claim 5. Patent Owner’s also argues reservations, with regards to claim 13, include hotel reservations. See PO Resp. 14 (“within the hospitality industry e.g. restaurants/hotels and event ticketing”). Given this, we determine that it is not necessary for us to determine whether the broadest reasonable construction of “hospitality applications” excludes tasks performed in the travel, tourism, and transportation industries.” slip op. at 11

  • Prior constructionPrior construction not adoptedTerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner

    “As an initial matter, we are not persuaded by Patent Owner that we should wholesale adopt the construction of “communications control module” from a previous district court infringement action. The standard for claim construction in a district court infringement action is different than the standard applied by the Board. See In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1053–54 (Fed. Cir. 1997). In covered business method patent review proceedings, the Board applies the broadest reasonable construction consistent with the specification. 37 C.F.R. § 42.300(b). We determine that the broadest reasonable construction, in light of the specification of the ’325 patent, of “a communications control module . . . wherein the communications control module is an interface between the hospitality applications and any other communications protocol” is a device used as an intermediary in transferring communications to and from the host computer to which it is connected, wherein the device is an interface between the hospitality applications and any other communications protocol. This construction is consistent with the plain language of claims 11 and 13, which requires the communication control module to be an interface between the hospitality applications and any other communications protocol. This construction is also consistent with the description of the communication control module in the specification of the ’325 patent as “a communications control program [that] monitors and routes all communications to the appropriate devices” and as “a single point of entry for all hospitality applications to communicate with one another wirelessly or over the [w]eb.” Ex. 1003, col. 9, ll. 35–36, col. 11, ll. 38–40. This construction, unlike Patent Owner’s proposed construction, does not import extraneous features from the specification of the ’325 patent into the claims. The specification of the ’325 patent describes additional features of the communication control module, such as it is “a layer that sits on top of any communication protocol.” Ex. 1003, col. 11, ll. 40–43. The plain language of claims 11 and 13, however, do not require the claimed communication control module to have such features. If a feature is not necessary to give meaning to what the inventor means by a claim term, it would be “extraneous,” and should not be read into the claim. Renishaw PLC v. Marposs Societa' per Azioni, 158 F.3d 1243, 1249 (Fed. Cir. 1998); E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 849 F.2d 1430, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 1988). We, thus, determine that the broadest reasonable construction, in light of the specification of the ’325 patent, of “a communications control module . . . wherein the communications control module is an interface between the hospitality applications and any other communications protocol” is a device used as an intermediary in transferring communications to and from the host computer to which it is connected, wherein the device is an interface between the hospitality applications and any other communications protocol.” slip op. at 14

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner

    “We are persuaded by Petitioner’s evidence and analysis that the claimed communication control module, when it is given the broadest reasonable construction, would have been obvious in view of DeLorme’s Interface and Interaction Bus 209. As discussed above, the broadest reasonable construction of “a communications control module . . . wherein the communications control module is an interface between the hospitality applications and any other communications protocol” is a device used as an intermediary in transferring communications to and from the host computer to which it is connected, wherein the device is an interface between the hospitality applications and any other communications protocol. DeLorme describes the Interface and Interaction Bus 209 as a device that gives retail users access to TRIPS Subsystem (Ex. 1024, col. 13, ll. 15–41) and depicts it as an interface between retail users 205 and third-party providers at 231 and TRIPS Subsystems 213, 217, 221, and 223 (id. at Fig. 9). DeLorme also describes Main Menu 413 and Interaction Bus 414, which corresponds to the Interface and Interaction Bus 209, as coordinating the responses to alternate input means embedded in specialized TRIPS field or in-vehicle embodiments. Id. at col. 37, ll. 54–65. DeLorme, thus, discloses an intermediary in transferring communications to and from the host computer to which it is connected. DeLorme does not explicitly disclose that the Interface and Interaction Bus 209 is an interface between different communication protocols. DeLorme, however, does describe the Interface and Interaction Bus 209 interfacing with different devices. E.g., see id. at col. 14, l. 66–col. 15, l. 14 (describing different alternative end-user hardware platforms). The different devices would use different communication protocols. See id. at col. 37, ll. 54–56, (describing simplified input or remote queries), col. 14, l. 66–col. 15, l. 13 (describing internet based access); PO Resp. 9 (“third party systems such as POS system devices (clearly which operate with different protocols”), Ex. 1076, 176:17–177:12 (testimony of Dr. Weaver indicating that different devices operate with different protocols). In order for Interface and Interaction Bus 209 to interface with devices using different communication protocols, Interface and Interaction Bus 209 would be configured to interface with different communication protocols or it would be obvious for it to be configured as such, because it is advantageous for TRIPS to interface with different devices. See Ex. 1002 ¶ 447. Patent Owner’s argument that DeLorme’s Interface and Interaction Bus 209 fails to meet this claim element is based upon its proposed construction (see PO Resp. 45–49), which we did not adopt. For example, Patent Owner’ argues that Interface and Interaction Bus 209 is not a software layer that sits on top of a communication protocol. Id. at 45–49. This argument is not persuasive because it is not commensurate with the scope of claim 12, when given its broadest reasonable construction. See Pet. Reply 15–19. We are persuaded by Petitioner’s evidence and analysis that the claimed communication control module, when it is given the broadest reasonable construction, would have been obvious in view of DeLorme’s Interface and Interaction Bus 209. We, thus, determine that DeLorme’s TRIPS system teaches the claimed communications control module that is an interface between the hospitality applications and any other communications protocol.” slip op. at 30

  Patent outcomesUS 6,871,325 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR
  Patents in suitUS 6,871,325
• Google Inc. v. Better Food Choices LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Aug 18, 2016 · CBM2015-00071 · APJ Minn Chung · CBM · Final written decision

  Claims 1–20 are unpatentable under § 101; claims 1–10 are also indefinite under § 112, ¶ 2 because the specification lacks an algorithm for the claimed correlating function.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • BurdenOther

    “As an initial matter, Patent Owner asserts that Petitioner has not met its burden of proof because Petitioner relies only on the ’115 patent and its prosecution history to argue unpatentability and does not present any other evidence, such as a witness. PO Resp. 6–7, 13–20. Patent Owner argues that Petitioner has presented no evidence of unpatentability because the ’115 patent and its file history “shows the Patent Owner has a valid, issued patent and nothing more.” Id. at 7. We are not persuaded because, as discussed below, in this case we need to look only to the ’115 patent and its prosecution history to support a finding of unpatentability under §§ 101 and 112. See In re TLI Comm. LLC Patent Litig., 823 F.3d 607, 613–14 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (the patent alone is sufficient to sustain a finding of unpatentability under § 101).” slip op. at 12

  • Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)§112(f) appliesDecided for petitioner

    “rebuttable presumption that the limitation is written in a means-plus-function format under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6. TriMed, Inc. v. Stryker Corp., 514 F.3d 1256, 1259 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (citation omitted). If, in addition to the word “means” and the functional language, the claim recites sufficient structure for performing the described functions in their entirety, the presumption is overcome, and § 112, ¶ 6 does not apply. Id. “Sufficient structure exists when the claim language specifies the exact structure that performs the functions in question without need to resort to other portions of the specification or extrinsic evidence for an adequate understanding of the structure.” Id. at 1259–60.” slip op. at 28

  • Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step one — 'directed to'Step1 directed to exceptionUnpatentable

    “with the Supreme Court and Federal Circuit precedents on step one analysis under the Alice framework. In step one of the Alice analysis, to determine whether the challenged claims are directed to an abstract idea, the inquiry is to ask, considered in light of the Specification, whether “their character as a whole” is directed to an abstract idea, not, as Patent Owner contends, identifying the “core invention” of the patent. See Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2015)). Relying on the distinction made in Alice between, on one hand, computer-functionality improvements and, on the other, uses of existing computers as tools in aid of processes focused on “abstract ideas,” the court in Enfish clarified that a relevant inquiry in step one of the Alice framework is to ask whether the “focus” of the claims is on the specific asserted improvement in computer capabilities or, instead, on a process that qualifies as an “abstract idea” for which computers are invoked merely as a tool. Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1335–36 (citing Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358–59). In this inquiry, claims “directed to an improvement in the functioning of a computer” are contrasted with claims “simply adding conventional computer components to well-known business practices” or “generalized steps to be performed on a computer using conventional computer activity.” See TLI, 823 F.3d at 612 (quoting Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1338). The Federal Circuit further clarified recently and described the first-stage inquiry as “looking at the ‘focus’ of the claims, their ‘character as a whole.’” Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., No. 2015-” slip op. at 17

  • Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step two — inventive conceptStep2 no inventive conceptUnpatentable

    “claims fail to recite any elements that individually or as an ordered combination transform the abstract idea of collecting and correlating information to provide personalized nutritional information of food products to shoppers into a patent-eligible application of that idea. It is well-settled that mere recitation of concrete, tangible components is insufficient to confer patent eligibility to an otherwise abstract idea. TLI, 823 F.3d at 613. Rather, the recited components must involve more than performance of “‘well- understood, routine, conventional activit[ies]’ previously known to the industry.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2359 (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294).” slip op. at 22

  Patent outcomesUS 5,841,115 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 101 eligibility§ 112 disclosurecites Alice · Mayo · Bilski · Enfish · Nautilus
  Patents in suitUS 5,841,115
• Care N’ Care Insurance Co., Inc. / Trizetto Corp. v. Integrated Claims Systems, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jul 28, 2016 · CBM2015-00063 · APJ Hyun J Jung · CBM · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 6, 8, 9, 12, 13, 15, 20, 21, 24, and 25 are unpatentable under § 101; claims 1, 6, 9, 15, and 20 are anticipated by Lech; and claims 6, 8, 12, 13, …

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • BurdenDecided for petitioner

    “Decision is issued pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 328(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73. For the reasons that follow, we determine that Petitioners have shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1, 6, 8, 9, 12, 13, 15, 20, 21, 24, and 25 are unpatentable.” slip op. at 2

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for patent owner

    “Patent Owner proposes construing “field” as “computer software field.” Prelim. Resp. 24–33. We see no reason to interpret “fields” as “computer software fields.” We agree with Petitioners that Patent Owner’s proposed construction is circular insofar as the construction includes the entire term being construed. See Pet. Reply 6. Further, as discussed below, even if “fields” were interpreted as “computer software fields,” the complete record persuades us that Petitioners have shown unpatentability of the challenged claims by a preponderance of the evidence. Petitioners propose that the broadest reasonable interpretation of “digital attachment” recited by claim 9 is “information that can be digitized.” Pet. 5 (citing Ex. 1001 ¶¶ 32, 33, 36; Ex. 1003, 11:18–19, 20– 35). For the purposes of this Decision, we need not construe this or any other term expressly. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (holding that only those terms that are in controversy need to be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy).” slip op. at 8

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPrior construction adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “In the Decision on Institution, we interpreted “unitary data stream” as “transmitted set of information.” Dec. on Inst. 12. Patent Owner states that it “agrees that such definition is the broadest reasonable construction.” PO Resp. 24; see also Pet. Reply 4 (stating “Patent Owner does not dispute that the correct construction of ‘unitary data stream’ for this proceeding is ‘transmitted set of information.’”). Based on our review of the complete record, we do not perceive any reason or evidence that now compels any deviation from this interpretation.” slip op. at 7

  • Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step one — 'directed to'Step1 directed to exceptionUnpatentable

    “device operatively coupled to a computer network receiving and transferring or transmitting contents of fields of a unitary data stream. Based on the full record before us, we determine that the subject matter of the challenged claims, when considered as a whole, is directed to the abstract idea of transmitting or copying information from a source to a destination. In particular, the complete record persuades us that the idea of transmitting or copying information from a source to a destination represents a disembodied, well-known concept, i.e., a basic building block of human ingenuity and that does not rise beyond the level of an abstract idea. See Content Extraction, 776 F.3d at 1347 (“Applying Mayo/Alice step one, we agree with the district court that the claims of the asserted patent are drawn to the abstract idea of 1) collecting data, 2) recognizing certain data within the collected data set and 3) storing that recognized data in a memory. The concept of data collection, recognition, and storage is undisputedly well-known. Indeed, humans have always performed these functions.”); see also Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2354 (“[I]n applying the § 101 exception, we must distinguish between patents that claim the ‘“buildin[g] block[s]”’ of human ingenuity and those that integrate the building blocks into something more”) (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1303). We also agree with Petitioners that the” slip op. at 28

  Patent outcomesUS 7,178,020 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 101 eligibility§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Alice · Bilski
  Patents in suitUS 7,178,020
• Care N’ Care Insurance Co. / Trizetto Corp. v. Integrated Claims Systems, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jul 28, 2016 · CBM2015-00062 · APJ Hyun J Jung · CBM · Final written decision

  Claims 27, 30, 36, 42–45, and 49–52 are unpatentable under § 101; claims 27, 42–45, and 49–52 under § 102; and claims 30, 36, and 42 under § 103.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionNo construction neededDecided for petitioner

    “In the Decision on Institution, we interpreted “unitary data stream” as “transmitted set of information.” Dec. on Inst. 12. Patent Owner states that it “agree[s] that such definition is the broadest reasonable construction.” PO Resp. 24; see also Pet. Reply 5 (stating “Patent Owner does not dispute that the correct construction of ‘unitary data stream’ for this proceeding is ‘transmitted set of information’”). Based on our review of the complete record, we do not perceive any reason or evidence that now compels any deviation from this interpretation. Patent Owner further proposes interpreting “fields” as “computer software fields.” PO Resp. 24–33. Petitioners dispute the proposed interpretation of “fields.” Reply 4–7. We see no reason to interpret “fields” as “computer software fields.” We agree with Petitioners that Patent Owner’s proposed construction is circular insofar as the construction includes the entire term being construed. See Pet. Reply 5. Further, as discussed below, even if “fields” were interpreted as “computer software fields,” the complete record persuades us that Petitioners have shown unpatentability of the challenged claims by a preponderance of the evidence. Petitioners also propose interpreting “identities” recited by claims 42– 45 and 50–52 as “labels” (Pet. 4), and Patent Owner states that it “does not dispute that such definition is the broadest reasonable construction” (PO Resp. 24). For the purposes of this Decision, we need not expressly construe this or other claim terms further. See Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chem. Co., 642 F.3d 1355, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[C]laim terms need only be construed ‘to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”). III.” slip op. at 8

  • Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step one — 'directed to'Step1 directed to exceptionUnpatentable

    “simply ask whether the claims involve a patent-ineligible concept” and that “some improvements in computer-related technology when appropriately claimed are undoubtedly not abstract, such as a chip architecture, an LED display, and the like.” Enfish, 882 F.3d at 1335. Therefore, the Federal Circuit “f[ou]nd it relevant to ask whether the claims are directed to an improvement to computer functionality versus being directed to an abstract idea” and that the “first step in the Alice inquiry . . . asks whether the focus of the claims is on the specific asserted improvement in computer capabilities . . . or, instead, on a process that qualifies as an ‘abstract idea’ for which computers are invoked merely as a tool.” Id. at 1335–1336. Here, claim 27 recites “a digital device,” “first and second networked components,” and a method that includes receiving and parsing a data stream with N fields and routing portions of the N fields to networked components. Claim 42 recites a “server” that receives a file with identifiable fields and copies a subset of the fields to correlated fields of a second file. Claim 50 does not expressly require any computers and recites a method that includes receiving a file with identifiable fields and copying a subset of the fields to correlated fields of a second file. The claims do not recite an improvement in computer-related technology, “such as a chip architecture, an LED display, and the like.” See Enfish, 882 F.3d at 1335. Patent Owner’s asserted improvement is “an improvement to data processing performed by a mainframe computer system or similar systems, allowing processing text data with associated digital attachments” (PO Resp. 48), but the focus of the challenged claims is not on “processing text data with associated digital attachments.” The claims instead require receiving data with fields and routing or copying a portion or subset of the fields. The asserted improvement is not an improvement in “computer functionality” or capabilities, but instead, as Patent Owner concedes, “an improvement to data processing performed by a mainframe computer system or similar system.” See PO Resp. 48. As discussed further below, the challenged claims invoke computers merely as a tool. See Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1338 (stating “patent-ineligible claims at issue in other cases . . . recited generalized steps to be performed on a computer using conventional computer activity”); see also Bascom Global Internet Servs., Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, No. 2015-1763, 2016 WL 3514158, at *5 (Fed. Cir. June 27, 2016) (stating that the “Enfish claims, understood in light of their specific limitations, were unambiguously directed to an improvement in computer capabilities”).” slip op. at 30

  • Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step two — inventive conceptStep2 no inventive conceptUnpatentable

    “Based on our factual findings from the specification of the ’020 patent described above and the full record before us, we determine that the recited “digital device operatively coupled to first and second networked components” can be at least one of a personal computer, legacy computer, network server, or buffer computer. The complete record does not persuade us that the “digital device operatively coupled to first and second networked components” requires more than generic computer components. See Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2357–58 (explaining computer implementation not enough when “the process could be ‘carried out in existing computers long in use’” or when “the computer implementation was purely conventional”). Considering the full record before us, for the reasons explained above, we determine that claim 27 recites well-known, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry and generic computer components. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2359 (“Taking the claim elements separately, the function performed by the computer at each step of the process is ‘[p]urely conventional.’”). When considered as an ordered combination, we determine that claim 27 adds nothing that is not already present when its elements are considered individually. See Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2359 (“Considered ‘as an ordered combination,’ the computer components of petitioner’s method ‘ad[d] nothing . . . that is not already present when the steps are considered separately.”); OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“[R]elying on a computer to perform routine tasks more quickly or more accurately is insufficient to render a claim patent eligible.”); Bancorp, 687 F.3d at 1278 (explaining that a computer “employed only for its most basic function ... does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of those claims”); cf. DDR Holdings, 773 F.3d at 1258–59 (finding a computerimplemented method patent eligible where the claims recite a specific manipulation of a general-purpose computer such that the claims do not rely on a “computer network operating in its normal, expected manner”). Claim 27 “merely recite[s] the abstract idea . . . with the requirement . . . to perform it on a set of generic computer components”; does not “recite a specific, discrete implementation of the abstract idea”; and cannot “be read to ‘improve[] an existing technological process.’” See Bascom, 2016 WL 3514158, at *7. As discussed above, claim 27 recites well-known, routine, conventional activities that are arranged conventionally and generically. See id. at *6 (stating that “an inventive concept can be found in the non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of known, conventional pieces”).” slip op. at 40

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable

    “receiving a unitary data stream including N fields of data,” Petitioners cite column 5, line 59 to column 6, line 16 and Figure 2 of Lech, not just column 6, lines 11–16. Pet. 59–60. In the cited portion, we find that Lech discloses that “scanner 210 stores all of the information extracted off of hard copy document 100 in the scanner memory 220” and that the “extracted information is stored in two forms . . . as image information [and] textual information recognized on the hard copy document 100 by, for example, employing standard character recognition software.” Ex. 1009, 5:66–6:7. We find that the portion of Lech cited by Petitioners supports their contention that the “exemplary hard copy document 100 of Fig. 2 is preferably scanned in and fields of information on it are recognized using standard optical character recognition software.” Pet. 59–60 (citing Ex. 1001 ¶ 64; Ex. 1009, 5:66–6:8). We also agree with Petitioners that the stored information is sent to computer 230. The portion of Lech cited by Petitioners discusses first and second operational modes and explicitly states that, in the second mode of operation, the information is displayed on computer 230. Ex. 1009, 6:13–16. The first and second operational modes appear to differ by how much of the document is scanned, not where the scanned information is sent. See id. at 6:63–67 (describing that “[t]hese second modes of operation are efficient for small businesses . . . since the user does not necessarily have to store all of the information that appears on the hard copy document”). Moreover, we find that Lech expressly discloses that the “information from scanner memory 220 or main memory 250 is transmitted to computer 230.” Ex. 1009, 5:1–2. Petitioners provide an asserted understanding of Lech by one of ordinary skill in the art in an “Overview of Lech,” and Petitioners cite this same portion of Lech to assert that the “document image, the extracted textual information, or both are then sent to a computer.” Pet. 56–57 (citing Ex. 1001 ¶ 52). We, thus, find that Lech discloses that the output from the scanner is sent to the computer 230 and that the output includes information in fields, as shown in Figure 2 of Lech, and therefore, discloses “receiving a unitary data stream including N fields of data,” as required by claim 27. slip op. at 55

  Patent outcomesUS 7,178,020 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 101 eligibility§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Alice · Bilski
  Patents in suitUS 7,178,020
• Mastercard International Inc. v. Leon StamblerAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jul 6, 2016 · CBM2015-00044 · APJ Peter P Chen · CBM · Final written decision

  Claims 51 and 53 are unpatentable as anticipated by Davies; claims 51, 53, 55, and 56 are unpatentable as obvious over Davies and Meyer; claim 55 over Davies and Nechvatal; and claim 56 over Davies, …

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownOther

    “F. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner’s proposal for the level of ordinary skill in the art is “at least a bachelors degree in computer programming and two years’ experience as a programmer or developer in the field of computer science, with a working understanding of cryptographic operations for transforming original input into a coded output using a known algorithm.” Pet. 14–15. Patent Owner has proposed similarly, that one of ordinary skill in the art would possess “(1) undergraduate education in mathematics, physics, computer science, electrical engineering or similar technical subject; and (2) either postgraduate education in networking, cryptography, or other discipline encompassing information theory, or equivalent experience with applications involving communication of financial, military, medical or similarly sensitive data over secure and non-secure networks.” Prelim. Resp. 30–31. We determine that an express definition of the level of ordinary skill is not required. The level of ordinary skill in the art can be reflected in the cited prior art references. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“[T]he absence of specific findings on the level of skill in the art does not give rise to reversible error ‘where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level and a need for testimony is not shown.’”) (internal quotations omitted); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995). Therefore, we find the level of ordinary skill in the art to be reflected in the cited references.” slip op. at 16

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownDecided for petitioner

    “1. “variable authentication number (VAN)” In the Decision to Institute, we construed the term “variable authentication number” or “VAN” as “a variable number resulting from a coding operation that can be used in verifying the identity of a party or the integrity of information or both.” Dec. to Inst. 8. See also Case IPR2014-00694, slip op. at 8–9 (PTAB Oct. 31, 2014) (Paper 10). Patent Owner “does not challenge this construction.” PO Resp. 16–17. Patent Owner asserts additional construction of the term is necessary for CBM standing issues, but does not elaborate further. PO Resp. 1. Patent Owner also argues we incorrectly applied the broadest reasonable interpretation to the term in the Decision to Institute. PO Resp. 9. The Decision to Institute noted that our review of the claims of the expired ’302 patent is similar to that of a district court’s review, In re Rambus, Inc., 694 F.3d 42, 46 (Fed. Cir. 2012); Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2005), but inadvertently mentioned the broadest reasonable interpretation standard in construing this term. Dec. to Inst. 7–8. We reaffirm our agreement with Patent Owner that the Phillips framework is applied to the expired ’302 patent. Our construction of “VAN” is the same under either claim construction standard. We reject Patent Owner’s undeveloped argument regarding standing, and maintain the construction of VAN from the Decision to Institute, as the ordinary and customary meaning of the term: “a variable number resulting from a coding operation that can be used in verifying the identity of a party or the integrity of information or both.”” slip op. at 10

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner

    “2. Sequence of method steps: receiving, generating In the Decision to Institute, we agreed with Patent Owner and construed the sequence of method steps in independent claim 51 to mean that at least a portion of the receiving step must precede the generating step. Dec. to Inst. 8. See also Case IPR2014-00694, slip op. at 11–14 (PTAB Oct. 31, 2014) (Paper 10). We maintain that construction as the ordinary and customary meaning of the sequence of the receiving and generating method steps.” slip op. at 11

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notPreamble limitingDecided for patent owner

    “intended use of an invention is generally not treated as limiting the scope of the claim. Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica, Inc. v. Schering-Plough Corp., 320 F.3d 1339, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2003). However, “a preamble limits the invention if it recites essential structure or steps, or if it is ‘necessary to give life, meaning, and vitality’ to the claim.” Catalina Mktg. Int'l, Inc. v. Coolsavings.com, Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 808 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (citing Pitney Bowes Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305 (Fed. Cir. 1999). “The effect preamble language should be given can be resolved only on review of the entirety of the patent to gain an understanding of what the inventors actually invented and intended to encompass by the claim.” Corning Glass Works v. Sumitomo Elec. U.S.A., Inc., 868 F.2d 1251, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 1989). When the limitations in the body of the claim rely upon or derive essential structure from the preamble elements, e.g., the preamble serves as an antecedent basis for limitations in the claim, then the preamble acts as a necessary component of the claimed invention and is limiting. See Eaton Corp. v. Rockwell Int’l Corp., 323 F.3d 1332, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2003). In this case, the preamble of independent claim 51 recites “a credential being previously issued,” and the limitations of the claim include “determining whether the at least a portion of the received funds transfer information is authentic by using the VAN and the credential information.” Ex. 1001, 33:18–19, 33:29–31. Thus, the preamble’s recitation of “a credential” is an antecedent basis for the recited “the credential information” in the “determining” step, and we determine that the preamble limits the scope of the challenged independent claim 51 and dependent claims 53, 55, and 56.” slip op. at 11

  Patent outcomesUS 5,793,302 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 5,793,302
• Sony Computer Entertainment America LLC / Microsoft Corporation Inc. v. Adc Technology Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jul 1, 2016 · CBM2015-00026 · APJ Michael P Tierney · CBM · Final written decision

  Claims 8–14 are unpatentable under §103 as obvious over the instituted prior-art combinations.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “D. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner’s declarant, Mr. Garry E. Kitchen, testifies that, based on his experience in the commercial software art, a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have had a Bachelor of Science degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science or a related engineering discipline or equivalent experience or education. Declaration of Garry Kitchen, Ex. 1011 ¶ 33. Patent Owner does not dispute this recitation of the level of ordinary skill in the art. We adopt the level of ordinary skill in the art identified by Mr. Kitchen as it is consistent with the prior art of record. See also Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the prior art itself can reflect the appropriate level of ordinary skill in the art).” slip op. at 8

  • Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)Not reached

    “Petitioner provides specific constructions for each of the interference means appearing in the dependent claims. Pet. 22–24. Patent Owner disagrees that the dependent claims recitation of interference means requires “additional functional limitations piled on top of the disclosed structure.” PO Resp. 7. Specifically, Patent Owner contends that there is only one construction of interference means, namely that which Petitioner provided with respect to the interference means of claim 8. Petitioner disagrees with Patent Owner and contends that the four dependent claims themselves recite specific functions and must further limit the claim from which they depend. Reply 7. We determine that it is unnecessary to determine whether Patent Owner or Petitioner is correct as to the specific construction of the interference means recited in claims 11, 12, 13, and 14 as the claims are unpatentable under either construction. See Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chem. Co., 642 F.3d 1355, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[C]laim terms need only be construed ‘to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).” slip op. at 10

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner

    “Program, Data and Combination of Program and Data Claim 8 contains the recitation “the program, the data, and a combination of the program and data together.” Petitioner contends that the term should mean “the program and/or the data.” Pet. 28; Reply 9. Petitioner, however, contends that Patent Owner was silent as to the meaning of the term during ex parte reexamination. Pet. 29. Patent Owner generally contends that the claim recitation is definite and requires operations to be performed either on “a program, or on data, or on a combination of the program and data.” PO Resp. 8. We adopt Patent Owner’s construction (operations are performed either on “a program, or on data, or on a combination of the program and data”) as it is consistent with the plain and ordinary meaning of the term and appears to be substantially the same as Petitioner’s construction. Reply, 9–10, Ex. 1011, ¶ 54.” slip op. at 11

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Not entitled to earlier dateDecided for petitioner

    “The obviousness-type double patenting rejection does not demonstrate that the earlier filed ’995 patent described the invention, with all its claimed limitations. First, the rejection was based on obviousness, not anticipation. See Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1997). (“One shows that one is ‘in possession’ of the invention by describing the invention, with all its claimed limitations, not that which makes it obvious.”). Second, the Examiner’s identification of “common subject matter” consists merely of that which appears in the preamble of challenged claim 8. Although the Examiner stated that there was no apparent reason why the present claims were not presented in the earlier application, Mr. Kitchen presents credible testimony that the clock means limitation “for keeping a predetermined time period after said executing means starts execution of the program or data processing,” did not appear in the earlier filed applications and written description support for it was added in the continuation-in-part ’784 application via new Figure 12. Ex. 1011 ¶¶ 46–47 and 49; compare Ex. 1001, Figures 1–14, with Ex. 1014, Figures 1–11. Based on the evidence of record, we credit Mr. Kitchen’s testimony as it is consistent with the evidence of record and hold that Petitioner has established that claims 8–14 are limited to the July 2, 1998, filing date of the ’784 application, which resulted in the issuance of the ’520 patent.” slip op. at 15

  Patent outcomesUS 6,193,520 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,193,520
• HP Inc. / SAP America, Inc. v. Big Baboon, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Jun 28, 2016 · CBM2016-00020 · APJ Trenton A Ward · CBM · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show that claims 15 and 20–34 were more likely than not unpatentable under § 101 or any of the three § 103 grounds.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied

    “For the reasons that follow, Petitioner failed to establish that it is more likely than not that at least one of the challenged claims is unpatentable. Therefore, we deny the Petition.” slip op. at 2

  • BurdenDenied

    “We believe the same is true in this matter. Petitioner fails to identify specific documentary evidence indicating that the claim element “via Web administration, producing a software configuration in which selected ones of the modules are enabled or disabled” would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the ’275 patent. At best, Petitioner provides a string cite to nine different documents, without pointing to any particular page or disclosure in any of those documents, as allegedly illustrating an “industry-wide push to Web-enable,” and provides a string cite to eight different paragraphs of testimony from Dr. Greenspun, as allegedly indicating why a skilled artisan “would have seen a strong need to provide Web-enabled system administration capabilities for the R/3 system described in R/3 Online and R/3 Book.” See Pet. 63–64 (citing Exs. 1017– 1021, 1023, 1026, 1027, 1030; Ex. 1032 ¶¶ 58–60, 85–86, 110–112). Petitioner, however, fails to identify with specificity which documentary evidence indicates that it would have been common knowledge to provide a Web interface for system administration of the system described by R/3 Online and the R/3 Book and, thus, that claim 15 would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan based on combining this alleged common knowledge with the system described by R/3 Online and R/3 Book. The Board, and Patent Owner, are left to speculate as to which particular evidence Petitioner is relying on. See Pet. 12, 42; 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.304(b)(4)–(5) (a petition must “specify where each element of the claim is found in the prior art” and identify “specific portions of the evidence that support the challenge”), 42.22(a)(2) (a petition must include a “full statement of the reasons for the relief requested, including a detailed explanation of the significance of the evidence”). In view of this deficiency, we determine that Petitioner fails to articulate sufficient reasoning to support its assertion of obviousness. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 418 (citing In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)). Accordingly, based on the record before us, we determine that Petitioner fails to demonstrate that it is more likely than not that independent claim 15, and claims 20–34 dependent therefrom, would have been obvious over R/3 Online and R/3 Book.” slip op. at 29

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached

    “Petitioner urges the Board to construe two claim phrases. First, Petitioner urges us to construe the claimed “end-to-end, business-to-business, e-commerce business automation software for automation business functions across multiple business domains” to mean “[s]oftware that, using a computer network, at least partially automates business functions relating to two or more businesses and from two or more business domains (such as products, payments, and financial performance).” Pet. 19. Second, Petitioner urges us to construe the claimed “via Web administration, producing a software configuration in which selected ones of the modules are enabled or disabled” to mean “producing a software configuration in which modules can be enabled or disabled by (1) changing the configuration parameters of a web server program or (2) using a Web browser to change configuration parameters of software running on a server.” Pet. 21. Patent Owner does not offer any proposed constructions of claim terms in its Preliminary Response. For the reasons explained below, in this case determining the scope of the terms proffered by Petitioner is not necessary to determine whether Petitioner has met the standard for institution of a covered business method patent review, and we decline to adopt the constructions sought by Petitioner. See, e.g., Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chem. Co., 642 F.3d 1355, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[C]laim terms need only be construed ‘to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).” slip op. at 9

  • Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step one — 'directed to'Step1 not directed to exceptionNot shown unpatentable

    “Claim 15 (the only claim substantively addressed by Petitioner), however, does not recite any “gathering” steps, and Petitioner does not explain sufficiently how the limitations of claim 15 are directed to the concept of “gathering” information. For example, claim 15 merely recites “providing . . . business automation software, “identifying multiple modules of the software,” and producing a “software configuration.” Additionally, claim 15 requires producing a “workscope/workflow structured display of complex database records,” which constitutes “an integrated decision-making environment for a particular business function.” Thus, the method of claim 15 does not expressly require that information be gathered across “multiple business domains.” Rather, claim 15 requires providing “business automation software” to produce a “structured display” of “records” pertaining to a “business transaction,” such that the display constitutes an “integrated decision-making environment for a particular business function.” Thus, even if Petitioner is correct that “gathering information from across a business and using the information to make decisions” by itself is an abstract idea, Petitioner’s analysis does not address sufficiently the specific language of claim 15 and explain why claim 15 is directed to that idea. See Pet. 27. Similarly, dependent claims 20–34 are not directed to “gathering information,” and Petitioner provides no analysis of the language of the dependent claims. In light of the above, we determine that Petitioner has failed to establish the first step of the Mayo framework; i.e., Petitioner fails to identify sufficiently an abstract idea to which claim 15 is directed.8 Petitioner combines its arguments under § 101 against dependent claims 20– 34 with its arguments against claim 15 and fails to provide any additional arguments for these dependent claims. See Pet. 25 (arguing that the “sixteen challenged claims of the ’275 patent are likewise unpatentable under §101”). Therefore, we similarly determine that Petitioner fails to establish the first step of the Mayo framework with respect to dependent claims 20–34. Based on the foregoing, we determine Petitioner has failed to establish, based on the record presented, that claims 15 and 20–34 are more likely than not directed to patent ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. 8 We need not decide whether claim 15 is directed to a different abstract idea, and only determine that Petitioner has not shown sufficiently that claim 15 is directed to the alleged abstract idea that Petitioner proposes in the Petition.” slip op. at 19

  Claim construction§ 101 eligibility§ 103 obviousnesscites Alice · Mayo
  Patents in suitUS 6,343,275
• Life Technologies Corporation v. Unisone Strategic IP, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 28, 2016 · CBM2015-00037 · APJ Jacqueline Wright Bonilla · CBM · Final written decision

  Claims 52, 62, 67, 70–76, 81, 83–85, and 96 are unpatentable under § 101 because they claim the abstract idea of inventory management using generic computer components.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “degrees in inventory management or similar fields such as supply chain control or logistics” per se, and has “not studied, for a profession, the history of inventory management.” Id. at 34–35 (citing Ex. 2005, 16:14–21, 41:22– 42:3). According to Patent Owner, “Dr. Siegel admits he has no expertise in information management history and only attempted to educate himself in order to prepare his declaration.” Id. at 35. It is clear from Dr. Siegel’s testimony, however, that he has extensive experience in “the use of information technology with business strategy and operations,” has handled professionally “issues related to the integration of information” using computer and software systems, and holds advanced degrees in engineering and computer science. Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 3–11. We are satisfied that Dr. Siegel possesses sufficient qualifications to testify on matters that are relevant to our analysis here, including matters that do not concern the alleged “ancient” history of inventory management. PO Resp. 35. For example, Dr. Siegel testifies that relevant aspects of automated inventory management and VMI were well known before the priority date of the ’538 patent. Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 25–28 (citing Ex. 1018); Ex. 1027 ¶¶ 5–22 (citing Exs. 1020-1022, 1024, 1025). Dr. Siegel also testifies that the ’538 patent specification describes hardware and software that “require only generic computer implementation—not specialized hardware or software.” Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 43–54, 78–79, 89. In addition, Dr. Siegel discusses general concepts of inventory management using a computer and whether certain limitations of the challenged claims can be performed mentally, using pen and paper, or manually, without use of a computer. Id. at ¶¶ 40, 58–66, 80, 90.” slip op. at 23

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner

    “Both Petitioner and Patent Owner present constructions for several claim terms. Pet. 19–24; PO Resp. 12–23. For example, Patent Owner asserts that Petitioner misconstrues the term “customer” by defining it as “a buyer (person or organization) that uses the claimed inventory management.” PO Resp. 15; Pet. 19–20. Consistent with the specification of the ’538 patent, we adopt Patent Owner’s construction of “customer” as referring to a “buyer of products via the present invention” (Ex. 1001, 5:52– 56), i.e., a buyer of products using the inventory management system recited in the respective claims.” slip op. at 7

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached

    “Patent Owner also presents constructions in relation to other claim terms such as “inventory restocking parameters provided by said customer,” “tracks” or “tracking,” “access” to information according to “assigned permissions or roles,” and “detecting.” PO Resp. 18–23. For many of the reasons stated in Petitioner’s reply to those constructions, we decline Patent Owner’s invitation to import inappropriately “computerized” aspects into those general terms, notwithstanding the fact that the challenged claims elsewhere recite computer components, such as a “computer,” “databases,” and “software.” Reply 23–25; see also Ex. 1001, 3:3–10 (stating that Customer Inventory System 130 allows manual inventory tracking). For purposes of this Decision otherwise, however, we need not expressly construe claim terms further. Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (only claim terms in controversy need to be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy).” slip op. at 8

  • Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step one — 'directed to'Step1 directed to exceptionUnpatentable

    “Based on the complete record before us, we determine that claim 67 is directed to the abstract idea of managing inventory in view of information. We are persuaded that managing inventory in view of collected and analyzed customer inventory, cost information, restocking information provided by a customer, as recited in claim 67, describes the basic concept of inventory management, i.e., a “fundamental economic practice.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2356. The method of claim 67 is sufficiently similar in this regard to the method of hedging against financial risk at issue in Bilski, 130 S.Ct. 3218 (2010), and the idea of intermediated settlement at issue in Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2356–57 (discussing Bilski). See also Accenture Global Servs., GmbH v. Guidewire Software, Inc., 728 F.3d 1336, 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (holding the abstract idea at the heart of a system claim to be “generating tasks [based on] rules . . . to be completed upon the occurrence of an event” (citation omitted)).” slip op. at 22

  Patent outcomesUS 6,996,538 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 101 eligibilitycites Alice · Mayo · Bilski
  Patents in suitUS 6,996,538

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.