• Tiz Inc. D/B/A Provi v. Jason K. SmithAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 23, 2022 · CBM2020-00029 · APJ Frances L Ippolito · CBM · Final written decision

  Claims 1–19 are unpatentable under § 101 because they claim an abstract idea without integrating it into a practical application or adding an inventive concept.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • BurdenDecided for petitioner

    “For the reasons expressed below, we conclude that Petitioner has demonstrated by a preponderance of evidence that claims 1–19 are unpatentable as being directed to ineligible subject matter.” slip op. at 3

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “C. Level of Skill in the Art Based on the full trial record, including our review of the ’585 patent and the types of problems and solutions described in the ’585 patent and cited reference materials, we agree with Dr. Min that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had “the equivalent of a Bachelor’s degree or higher in electrical engineering, computer science or computer networking, and at least 2 years working experience designing communication systems.” See Ex. 1008 ¶ 21. Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s proffered level of ordinary skill in the art.2 See generally PO Resp. 2 In opposing Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude, Patent Owner states that “the Board should modify its definition of person of ordinary skill in the art,” Opp. Exclude 5 n.1, but never proposes a different definition and does not dispute Petitioner’s definition in its Response or Sur-Reply.” slip op. at 19

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

    “Only terms that are in controversy need to be construed, and then only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Petitioner does not propose any explicit constructions for any claim terms. See Pet. 44. Patent Owner also does not propose any explicit constructions for any claim terms. See PO. Resp. We determine that no explicit construction is necessary in order to resolve the issues before us.” slip op. at 19

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

    “items by collecting, analyzing, and transmitting information related to inventory, promotions, and particular sellers” is not an abstract idea because it “requires multiple steps that may or may not be implicated (collecting, analyzing, and transmitting) for information from multiple sources that may or may not be used (inventory, promotions, distributors, i.e., ‘particular sellers’).” PO Resp. 33–34. Contrary to Patent Owner’s position, we do not agree that this abstract idea (or the claims) requires a complex or complicated, multi-step process. Rather, the claims are directed to the collecting, analyzing, and transmitting of information. Claim 1, for example, requires only a list and inventory order of “one or more products” (i.e., the claim may be satisfied with only a single product). The Federal Circuit has explained that, generally, “claims focused on ‘collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis’ are directed to an abstract idea.” SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (quoting Electric Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). “Information as such is an intangible,” hence abstract, and “collecting information, including when limited to particular content (which does not change its character as information), [i]s within the realm of abstract ideas.” Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1353 (citing cases). Thus, even assuming that different types of information may be implicated by a claim limitation, the fact remains that the type or source of information, e.g., inventory, promotions, distributors,” slip op. at 45

  Patent outcomesUS 10,467,585 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 101 eligibilitycites Mayo · Bilski · Berkheimer · Enfish · Electric Power · Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 10,467,585
• Square, Inc. v. Electronic Receipts Delivery Systems, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 29, 2021 · CBM2020-00015 · APJ Miriam L Quinn · CBM · Final written decision

  Claims 1–20 are unpatentable under § 101 and the asserted Moran-based anticipation and obviousness grounds.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Real party in interest / privityRpi dispute resolved for petitionerDecided for petitioner

    “been “charged with infringement,” Pet. 10, but that statement does not foreclose reading that allegation as a charge of infringement against Petitioner. Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.302(a), “[c]harged with infringement means a real and substantial controversy regarding infringement of a covered business method patent exists such that the petitioner would have standing to bring a declaratory judgment action in Federal court.” “[W]here a patent holder accuses customers of direct infringement based on the sale or use of a supplier’s equipment, the supplier has standing to commence a declaratory judgment action if,” for instance, “there is a controversy between the patentee and the supplier as to the supplier’s liability for induced or contributory infringement based on acts of direct infringement by its customers.” Arris Group, Inc. v. British Telecomm. PLC, 639 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2011); see also ABB Inc. v. Cooper Indus., LLC, 635 F.3d 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (holding federal court had subject matter jurisdiction over claim for declaratory judgment of noninfringement where the plaintiff “had an interest in determining whether it would be liable for indemnification, which turned on whether [its contractor] would be liable for infringement”). Further, an allegation of direct infringement of a U.S. patent against the manufacturer’s customers may amount to an implicit allegation of indirect infringement against the manufacturer. Arris Group, 638 F.3d at 1375–76. Petitioner has shown persuasively that it sought to intervene in the district court litigation against its customers to “seek a declaratory judgement that [the] Square Register and Square’s other products and services do not infringe any valid claim of the ’551 [p]atent.” Ex. 1034, 3; Reply 1011. Patent Owner, the plaintiff in that suit, consented to the motion. Ex. 1034, 7; Reply 11. The district court granted Petitioner’s motion to intervene and Petitioner filed its Complaint in Intervention in district court, deeming Petitioner the “true defendant” in the dispute. See Reply 6; Ex. 1018. There is no question that the underlying district court litigation in which Petitioner seeks to assert non-infringement of the ’551 patent stems from Patent Owner’s allegations that Petitioner’s products directly or indirectly infringe the ’551 patent. These facts prove that Petitioner’s involvement in the district court litigation as an intervenor, together with Patent Owner’s accusation of infringement in its Answer and Affirmative Defenses, show a real and substantial controversy between Patent Owner and Petitioner. And the record shows that a federal court indeed has exercised jurisdiction over Patent Owner’s claim of infringement against Petitioner as intervenor, with Petitioner actually defending such a claim. This is sufficient to conclude that at the time of the filing of the Petition, Petitioner had been charged with infringement, and, therefore, had standing to file the Petition in this proceeding.” slip op. at 12

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

    “The parties do not identify claim constructions necessary for the Board to resolve the issues in this proceeding. Pet. 12; see generally Prelim. Resp.; PO Resp. We determine that it is unnecessary to expressly construe any claim term. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017); Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (only terms in controversy must be construed and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy).” slip op. at 8

  • Skill levelOther

    “Petitioner proffers that [a] person of ordinary skill in the art . . . would have a Bachelor’s degree in Computer Science, Computer Engineering, Data Science or Electrical Engineering or any undergraduate degree plus three to five years of professional experience in software development, computer programming, or network engineering or equivalent additional formal education such as graduate studies, or work experience to replace formal education. Pet. 13 (citing Hochman Decl. ¶¶ 16–22). There is no dispute as to whether Petitioner’s proffered level of ordinary skill in the art is appropriate in this case. We do not find it necessary to define the level of skill with specificity save to note that the level of ordinary skill is evidenced by the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (stating that the 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).” slip op. at 23

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

    “components “implemented in a generic computer environment” for performing that abstract idea. Pet. 68. Petitioner further annotates claim 1 to provide identifiers for each limitation. Id. For this part of the analysis, we address specifically limitation [vi], which recites “automatically transmitting a digital receipt for the transaction to the destination associated with the first customer without input from the first customer.” Limitation [vi] recites transmission of a credit card receipt according to instructions previously provided by the credit card user, which constitutes a fundamental economic practice, one of the certain methods of organizing human activity identified in the Guidance as a judicial exception. See Pet. 74 (arguing that issuing receipts for a purchase transaction is “nothing more than the organization of a fundamental and economic activity”). The claim’s recitation of an “automatic[]” transmission does not alter the fundamental business transaction recited in the claim: providing a customer a receipt for a credit card charge. The limitation provides no technological detail of how to automate the transmission of such a receipt or how to effectuate the delivery to a “destination.” See OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“At best, the claims describe the automation of the fundamental economic concept of offer-based price optimization through the use of generic-computer functions.”). The recitation of a “digital” receipt does not alter our analysis either. The modifier adds only that the receipt is in electronic form. The claim language, however, is silent as to how such a receipt is generated or otherwise prepared for transmission to the credit card user. There is no technological detail that would place the “digital” receipt outside of an abstract idea of a fundamental economic practice of providing a credit card receipt to a customer. The other recited limitations also support our determination that the claims are directed to an abstract idea of a fundamental economic practice. For instance, in its simplest form the claimed process includes three basic steps: registering a customer e-mail address for receiving credit card digital receipts (steps [i]—[ii]), initiating a credit card transaction for a sales transaction of the customer (steps [iii]—[v]), and transmitting the digital receipt in accordance with the information received and stored in steps [i] and [ii]. Thus, the claim explains the basic concept of providing a credit card receipt to a customer. These recited steps place no meaningful limit on the claim scope, as the claim lacks specificity as to how any computer or database is specially programmed to perform the claimed steps. See Dealertrack, Inc. v. Huber, 674 F.3d 1315, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“Simply adding a ‘computer aided’ limitation to a claim covering an abstract concept, without more, is insufficient to render the claim patent eligible.”). Each of claims 11 and 16 also recites the automatic transmission of a digital receipt for a credit card transaction to a user. Petitioner provides an explanation accounting for those claims, see id. at 93–94, and our analysis of claim 1 concerning the determination of an abstract idea equally applies to those claims. We determine that Petitioner has shown that claims 1, 11, and 16 recite a fundamental economic practice, which is one of certain methods of organizing human activity identified in the Guidance as a judicially excepted abstract idea.” slip op. at 30

  Patent outcomesUS 8,534,551 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 101 eligibility§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Alice · Mayo · Bilski · Phillips · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,534,551
• American Express Company / American Express Travel Related Services Company, Inc. v. Signature Systems, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 30, 2019 · CBM2018-00035 · APJ Frances L Ippolito · CBM · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 9, 10, 13, and 14 are unpatentable under § 101; proposed substitute claims 17–20 are unpatentable under § 101, and the contingent motion to amend is denied.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelOther

    “F. Level of Skill in the Art Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”)” slip op. at 32

  • Expert testimonyOther

    “For the above reasons, we are persuaded that Petitioner has met its” slip op. at 62

  • Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Corresponding structure / algorithm (indefinite if none)Decided for petitioner

    “1. Principles of Law Use of the word “means” in a claim gives rise to a rebuttable” slip op. at 12

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsMotion to amend, deniedDenied

    “Further, based on the entirety of the record, we determine that proposed substitute claims 17–20 are unpatentable by a preponderance of the evidence based on 35 U.S.C. § 101. Motion to Amend Outcome Claims Substitute Claims: Proposed in the Amendment 17–20 Substitute Claims: Motion to Amend Denied 17–20” slip op. at 101

  Patent outcomesUS 8,423,402 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 101 eligibilitycites Alice · Mayo · Bilski · Berkheimer · Enfish
  Patents in suitUS 8,423,402
• DISH Network Corporation / DISH Network L.L.C. v. Customedia Technologies, L.L.C.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jul 25, 2018 · CBM2017-00032 · APJ Meredith C Petravick · CBM · Final written decision

  Claims 1–4, 6–7, 16–19, 23–24, 26–28, 32–36, and 41 are unpatentable under § 101; the petitioner did not show claims 17, 18, 23, 24, and 28 unpatentable under § 112.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • BurdenOther

    “Considering each claim limitation, as well as each explicit citation to the specification expressly set forth in the Petition, we are persuaded that Petitioner has met its burden of showing, via analysis and evidence explicitly set forth on pages 6–7 of the Petition, that independent claim 1, as a whole, does not recite a technological feature that is novel or unobvious.” slip op. at 22

  • Adverse judgmentOther

    “Response (Paper 24, “PO Resp.”) and disclaimed claims 5, 25, 39, and 43 (Ex. 2006). Petitioner filed a Reply to the Patent Owner’s Response (Paper 38, “Pet. Reply”). Patent Owner filed a Sur-Reply (Paper 40, “PO Sur”), and Petitioner filed a Response to the Sur-Reply (Paper 41, “Pet. Sur”).” slip op. at 2

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Other

    “II. ANALYSIS A. Claim Construction Petitioner and Patent Owner dispute the construction of certain claim terms. Pet. 23–28; PO Resp. 34–46. We apply the constructions of those terms set forth in Paper 49 in this decision.” slip op. at 7

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

    “We agree. The preambles of independent claims 1, 19, and 33 expressly state as much. In particular, the preamble of claims 1 and 33 provide: “A system for providing targeted advertising to a multimedia content end user” (claim 1) or “a plurality of multimedia content end users” (claim 33). Ex. 1003, 46:13–14, 49:59–60. Likewise, claim 19’s preamble refers to “[a] device for providing targeted advertising to an end user.” Id. at 48:20–21. Taking claim 1 as a representative example, the remainder of the claim recites certain tangible components, namely a “storage device” and specifically, an “addressable and reserved storage space”; a “processor”; and “software implemented by” the processor. Id. at 46:13–28. The claim further requires the following functionalities: the processor “reserv[ing]” the storage space; the processor “select[ing] particular advertising data suitable for targeting to at least one end user based upon predefined criteria data”; the storage space “storing digital advertising data” and specifically, the “particular advertising data”; and the “particular advertising data” being “accessible to” the user. Id. Thus, we are persuaded that claim 1, taken as a whole, is focused on the concept of providing targeted advertising to a user. Further, the claims merely invoke computers as a tool to implement the concept of targeted advertising, and are not directed to any improvement in computer functionality. See Pet. 34; Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 944–945. The claims recite generic components and functionality. For example, in claim 1, the required components, outlined above—a storage device and specifically, a storage space, a processor, and software— are conventional. The recited functionalities—reserving the storage space for advertising data, selecting advertising data targeted to a user, storing that data, and making that data accessible to the user—are likewise basic and routine. As Petitioner points out, the specification expressly acknowledges that some of the tangible components of the recited system were known. See Pet. 7–8, 33–34, 40–75; Ex. 1008 ¶ 949. For instance, the specification refers to storage device 14 as “any medium known in the art for storing electronic data” and similarly, “any storage device for audio/video information known in the art.” Ex. 1003, 13:22–28, 15:1–5, 24:66–25:7; see id. at [57], 5:3–6, 21:42–22:2. The testimony of Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Negus, also persuade us that each recited component and functionality was generic, conventional, and known. Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 945, 949–954; see id. ¶¶ 955–987.” slip op. at 26

  Patent outcomesUS 9,053,494 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 101 eligibility§ 112 disclosurecites Mayo · Enfish
  Patents in suitUS 9,053,494
• Ebay Inc. / Paypal, Inc. v. XPRT Ventures, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jul 23, 2018 · CBM2017-00029 · APJ Michael R Zecher · CBM · Final written decision

  Claims 1 and 9 are unpatentable under § 101 because they claim pre-authorized automatic auction payments using conventional computer components, without an inventive concept.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • BurdenDecided for petitioner

    “4. Summary In summary, we determine that Petitioner has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that all of the challenged claims are directed to patent-ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.” slip op. at 34

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

    “II. ANALYSIS A. Claim Construction In a covered business method patent review, we interpret claim terms in an unexpired patent according to the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification of the patent in which it appears. 37 C.F.R. § 42.300(b). “[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). Petitioner proposes a construction for the claim term “web site.” Pet. 23. We, however, need not address the construction of any claim term to resolve the issues before us.” slip op. at 17

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

    “We agree with Petitioner that independent claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea, and we adopt Petitioner’s description of the abstract idea as using a payment account to automatically effect a pre-authorized financial transaction in an electronic auction. Patent Owner does not challenge Petitioner’s description of the abstract idea, other than by making the conclusory statement that the challenged claims are not directed to an abstract idea based on Federal Circuit precedent and USPTO examination guidance. See PO Resp. 7. The language of independent claim 1 supports the finding that it is directed to the abstract idea of using a payment account to automatically effect a pre-authorized financial transaction in an electronic auction. This claim recites a method for automatically effecting payment by a process that includes the steps of maintaining and storing funds in payment accounts for use in transactions in an electronic auction system; receiving authorization prior to an electronic auction to execute an automatic payment; and executing the automatic payment by deducting and transferring funds from a payment account. Ex. 1001, 18:20–53. This purchaser-seller arrangement is not meaningfully distinct from the financial arrangements found to be abstract ideas in Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2356 (“method of exchanging financial obligations between two parties using a third-party intermediary to mitigate settlement risk”), and Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 599 (2010) (arrangement between buyers and sellers to purchase commodities in the energy market at a fixed rate as a way of protecting, or “hedging,” against risks of price changes). The Supreme Court has explained that concepts like intermediated settlement and risk hedging are abstract ideas beyond the scope of 35 U.S.C. § 101 as they are “a fundamental economic practice long prevalent in our system of commerce.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2356 (quoting Bilski, 561 U.S. at 611). Likewise, in this case, the concept of using a payment account to automatically effect a pre-authorized financial transaction is a fundamental economic practice.” slip op. at 22

  Patent outcomesUS 7,567,937 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 101 eligibilitycites Alice · Bilski · Enfish · Electric Power
  Patents in suitUS 7,567,937
• Ebay Inc. / Paypal, Inc. v. XPRT Ventures, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jul 23, 2018 · CBM2017-00025 · APJ Kevin F Turner · CBM · Final written decision

  Claims 13–15 are unpatentable under § 101 because they claim the abstract idea of using a loan to effect a financial transaction without an inventive concept.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “We preliminarily determined that the information presented in the Petition established that the ’528 Patent qualifies as a covered business method patent that is eligible for review, and that it was more likely than not that the challenged claims are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Paper 8. Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 324 and § 18(a) of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”), Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284, 329–31 (2011), we instituted a covered business method patent review as to all of the challenged claims. Id.” slip op. at 2

  • BurdenFwd all claims unpatentableUnpatentable

    “Considering the claim elements as an ordered combination, each claimed method, as a whole, is simply indicative of the abstract idea of using a loan to effect a financial transaction when a buyer has insufficient funds in his or her payment account. See Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2359–60 (explaining that the application of an abstract idea using some unspecified, generic computer is not enough to transform an abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention). There is no indication on the record developed during trial that these claims improve the functioning of a computer, or result in an improvement in any other technology or technical field. See id. at 2359. On the contrary, Dr. Neuman’s unrebutted testimony explains that the computer components recited in the claims add nothing that is not already present when the steps are considered separately, and viewed as a whole, the claims simply recite the well-known, conventional process of debiting and crediting a funded account. Ex. 1005 ¶ 36. Furthermore, there is no evidence of record that independent claim 13 is like those of BASCOM Global Internet Services, Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC (i.e., a “non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of known, conventional pieces”). 827 F.3d 1341, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016). BASCOM explains that where claims “merely recite the abstract idea . . . along with the requirement to perform it on the Internet, or to perform it on a set of generic computer components[, s]uch claims would not contain an inventive concept.” Id. Rather, the ’528 Patent seems to indicate that the existing payment process is simply made faster and more efficient in that an immediate, real-time payment is made without the winning bidder having to access a payment page, through the use of a conventional computing network. See Ex. 1001, 4:30–34, Fig. 1; Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 20–24. Meanwhile, the method of independent claim 13 may offer an improvement to the previously-known manual processes identified in the ’528 Patent––the need for a winning bidder “to draft checks, obtain money orders, etc. and mail them to the various sellers” (Ex. 1001, 3:3–4), or to “enter his credit card information” (id. at 3:15), or for the website operator and seller to exchange e-mails to authorize a commission payment (id. at 3:26–34). “But merely ‘configur[ing]’ generic computers in order to ‘supplant and enhance’ an otherwise abstract manual process is precisely the sort of invention that the Alice Court deemed ineligible for patenting.” Credit Acceptance Corp., 859 F.3d at 1056 (alteration in original). Accordingly, we agree with Petitioner that the claim elements recited” slip op. at 29

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

    “in an unexpired patent according to the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification of the patent in which it appears. 37 C.F.R. § 42.300(b). “[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). Petitioner proposes a construction for the claim term “web site.” Pet. 20. We, however, need not address the construction of any claim term to resolve the issues before us.” slip op. at 16

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

    “We agree with Petitioner that independent claim 13 is directed to an abstract idea, and we adopt Petitioner’s description of the abstract idea as using a loan to effectuate a financial transaction in an electronic auction. Patent Owner does not challenge Petitioner’s description of the abstract idea, other than by making the conclusory statement that the challenged claims are not directed to an abstract idea based on Federal Circuit precedent and USPTO examination guidance. See PO Resp. 7–8. The language of independent claim 13 supports the finding that it is directed to the abstract idea of using a loan to effect a financial transaction when a buyer has insufficient funds in his or her payment account. This independent claim recites methods for effecting payment by a process that includes the steps of providing the user with the option to enable the loaning of funds, through receipt of a user’s authorization, and loaning funds to effect the payment if insufficient funds are determined for a payment source. Ex. 1001, 20:13–37. This purchaser-seller arrangement is not meaningfully distinct from the activity relating to commercial practices found to be abstract ideas in Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2356 (“method of exchanging financial obligations between two parties using a third-party intermediary to mitigate settlement risk”) and Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 599 (2010) (arrangement between buyers and sellers to purchase commodities in the energy market at a fixed rate as a way of protecting, or “hedging,” against risks of price changes). The Supreme Court has explained that concepts like intermediated settlement and risk hedging are abstract ideas beyond the scope of 35 U.S.C. § 101 as they are “a fundamental economic practice long prevalent in our system of commerce.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2356 (quoting Bilski, 561 U.S. at 611). Likewise, in this case, the concept of using a loan to effect a financial transaction when a buyer has insufficient funds in his or her payment account is a fundamental economic practice.” slip op. at 21

  Patent outcomesUS 7,627,528 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 101 eligibilitycites Alice · Mayo · Bilski · Enfish
  Patents in suitUS 7,627,528
• SAP America, Inc. v. Lakshmi ArunachalamAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 21, 2017 · CBM2016-00081 · APJ Kevin F Turner · CBM · Final written decision

  Claims 20 and 21 are unpatentable under § 101 and § 103; the motion to amend proposing claims 22–49 is denied.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner argues that “[b]ased on the technologies disclosed in the ’506 patent, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention would have had the equivalent of a Bachelor’s degree or higher in computer science or computer engineering, as well as at least 3–5 years of academic or industry experience in the relevant field.” Pet. 10 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 22). Although Patent Owner does not address the level of ordinary skill in its Patent Owner’s Response, Patent Owner does opine about the same in its Motion to Amend. Therein, Patent Owner argues that: a person of ordinary skill in the art in 1995 would have been a person who had a degree in computer science, or the equivalent of that degree, and some substantive experience with Web technologies then being developed and considered by persons then working on internet systems. [Ex. 2006, 23] It would have been very rare to find anyone to have had a computer degree and as much as three to five years of experience in the area of Web technology as of November 1995. (Id.) Mot. Amend 5–6. Based on the positions of Petitioner and Patent Owner, we find mostly agreement as to the level of skill of such ordinarily skilled artisans and we are persuaded that one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have had the equivalent of a degree in computer science or computer engineering, as well as some substantive experience 29 with Web technologies then being developed and considered by persons then working on Internet systems. This level of skill is considered and applied in the grounds below.” slip op. at 29

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed petitioner constructionNo construction neededOther

    “networked object,” and that we “willfully left out ‘Individual’ and only construed ‘Network Object.’” PO Resp. 36. Patent Owner is correct that we did not construe “individual networked object.” The reason is that it is not a term recited in the challenged claims, nor claim 14, from which the challenged claims depend. We construed “networked object,” i.e., without “individual,” because it is a term recited in the claims. Patent Owner also argues that the proper construction of “networked object” is “the information entries and attributes in a DOLSIB [distributed on-line service information base].” Id. (citing Ex. 1001, 8:50–54). We do not agree. Although the specification of the ’506 Patent details that “[t]he networked object identity 11 identifies the information entries and attributes in the DOLSIB as individual networked objects,” that is not a definition of “network objects.” We continue to find that the broadest reasonable construction, in view of the specification, of “networked object” is “an object that operates within a network or transmitted over a network.” We are not persuaded that “individual networked object” need be construed because it is not a claim term, and we are not persuaded that every recitation of “networked object” must refer to an “individual networked object.” Patent Owner argues that we did not construe the claim term “attributes,” which should be understood as “characteristics of an object.” Id. at 36–37 (citing Ex. 1001, 4:45–58, 23:19–25). Petitioner counters that the passages cited by Patent Owner do not support the proffered definition, because those passages do not contain the word “attribute.” Pet. Reply 4. Although Patent Owner’s construction is not unreasonable, claim 14 already recites that the step of “associating an object identity with information entries and attributes,” so that “attributes” need not be referred to as “characteristics of an object,” since such an association is already directly recited in the claims. As such, we are not persuaded that the claim term “attributes” needs explicit construction. Similarly, Patent Owner argues that “information entries” should be construed as “values of the characteristics of an object.” PO Resp. 37 (citing Ex. 1001, 4:45–58, 23:19–25). Again, we find it unnecessary to tie “information entries” to an object, since the association is already provided 12 in claim 14. Therefore, we are not persuaded that the claim term “information entries” needs explicit construction. With respect to the claim term “virtual information store,” we construed that term as “an information store in which information entries and attributes are associated with a networked object identity,” as discussed above. Patent Owner argues that we have not given proper effect to the word “virtual,” arguing that the proper construction is “a transient information store that is temporarily created and which contains information entries and attributes associated with a networked object identity.” PO Resp. 39–41. Patent Owner cites to the specification of the ’506 Patent (Ex. 1001, 3:1–5, 8:47–54), and “[t]he IBM Computer Dictionary” (id.), but, as Petitioner points out, Patent Owner has not “submitted this dictionary as an exhibit or provided any further information to locate the dictionary.” Further, the sections of the ’506 Patent cited by Patent Owner are not explicit about the store being “transient” or “temporarily created;” this is an inference drawn by Patent Owner. See PO Resp. 40. The introduction of the terms “transient” and “temporarily” to the construction adds more ambiguity to the claim term because the specification of the ’506 Patent does not discuss how long any “virtual information store” would be stored or maintained. In addition, we are not persuaded that Patent Owner’s provision of affirmatively containing the information entries and attributes is necessary because having a store in which the information entries and attributes are associated with a networked object identity would have been understood by ordinarily skilled artisans as being a store containing those elements. 13 Therefore, we are not persuaded that the claim term “virtual information store” requires a different construction and we maintain the construction provided in the Institution Decision, which is reproduced above.” slip op. at 11

  • BurdenUnpatentable

    “not have been obvious to make any changes to Lawlor’s system,” and that “the whole purpose of Lawlor is to establish a system built upon an existing software and infrastructure that would require no changes.” PO Resp. 80–81 (emphasis in original). We do not agree. We agree with Petitioner that Patent Owner misinterprets Lawlor’s teachings, “improperly concluding that Lawlor teaches away from any combination or modification.” Pet. Reply 24 (emphasis in original). Lawlor explains that “[b]ecause the central computer interacts with the user's bank as a standard POS or ATM network node, no significant software changes are required at the banks’ computers,” demonstrating that Lawlor makes use of a standard ATM network and existing external systems without significant modification. Ex. 1004, Abstr. As explained by Dr. Sirbu, incorporation of techniques described in CORBA into Lawlor’s system would not require modification to the external systems of Lawlor or additional processing at the central computer of Lawlor. Ex. 1002 ¶ 72. Lawlor system does not restrict or disparage modification, and Patent Owner has not pointed out any portion that purportedly restricts or disparages modification. Patent Owner also argues that Lawlor does not disclose “an OSI Layer 7 application layer switch as is the VAN Switch in FIG. 5B.” PO Resp. 79. As discussed above, however, challenged claims 20 and 21 do not recite a VAN switch, and the only consideration of such a switch comes from Patent Owner’s claims constructions that we do not adopt. As such, we are persuaded that Petitioner has shown by a 45 preponderance of the evidence that claim 20 is unpatentable over the combination of Lawlor and CORBA, and that the subject matter of claim 21 is unpatentable over the combination of Lawlor, CORBA and Billings.” slip op. at 45

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsMotion to amend, deniedDenied

    “2. 37 C.F.R. § 42.221(a)(2)(i) Rule 221(a)(2)(i) requires that the amendments in a motion to amend must respond to a ground of unpatentability involved in the trial. Patent Owner’s new claims do not respond to any ground of unpatentability in the trial. Those grounds are based on 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 103 and directed at claims 20 and 21. Pet. 28–73. Both claims 20 and 21 depend on claim 14 and the grounds of unpatentability consider all of the elements of claim 14. Thus, for example, new claim 25, which recites “[t]he apparatus of claim 14, wherein the user device is a multi-media device,” does not purport to demonstrate that such a claim brings the subject matter into the scope of § 101, nor that such a multi-media device would not be obvious over Lawlor, CORBA, and Billings. See Mot. Amend 9–17. Patent Owner’s analysis addresses claims 22–49 as a group and does not address all of the elements of the new claims. Id. Patent Owner also fails to indicate if any of the new claims include any feature of the challenged claims. For at least these reasons, we find that Patent Owner has not complied with the substantive requirements of 37 C.F.R. § 42.221(a)(2)(i). 3. 37 C.F.R. § 42.221(a)(2)(ii) and 35 U.S.C. § 326(d)(3) Rule 221(a)(2)(i) requires that the amendment may not seek to enlarge the scope of the claims of the patent. We also note that this rule is fully supported by 35 U.S.C. § 326(d)(3), which details that “[a]n amendment under this subsection may not enlarge the scope of the claims of the patent.” Patent Owner appears to take this rule as merely requiring that “the new claims do not enlarge the scope of any of the old claims.” Mot. Amend 3. 52 The “old claims,” however, are the only two claims existing in the ’506 Patent, namely claims 20 and 21. They are the “scope of the claims of the patent,” and the scope cannot refer to any claim that might have existed during the prosecution of the ’506 Patent. See Arlington Industries, Inc. v. Bridgeport Fittings, Inc., 345 F.3d 1318, 1329–30 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Therefore, we look to the scope of claims 20 and 21 to determine the scope of the claims of a patent. Proposed new claims in the Motion to Amend improperly enlarge the scope of claims 20 and 21. For example, new claim 27 recites “[t]he apparatus of claim 14, wherein the service is configurable specific to the context of a Web merchant.” This proposed claim is broader, in at least one aspect, than claims 20 and 21, which also depend from claim 14, because it contains none of the elements of claims 20 and 21, although it adds an additional element, i.e., “the service is configurable specific to the context of a Web merchant.” For at least these reasons, we find that Patent Owner has not complied with the substantive requirements of 37 C.F.R. § 42.221(a)(2)(ii) or 35 U.S.C. § 326(d)(3). 4. § 42.221(a)(3) and 35 U.S.C. § 326(d)(1)(B) Section (a)(3) of Rule 221 discusses that a patent owner must propose a reasonable number of substitute claims, and goes on to discuss that “[t]he presumption is that only one substitute claim would be needed to replace each challenged claim, and it may be rebutted by a demonstration of need.” The claims subject to the instant proceeding are claims 20 and 21, such that the normal presumption would be for the inclusion of two substitute claims. 53 Patent Owner does not address why the proposed 28 claims are a reasonable number of substitutes for the 2 challenged claims, so Patent Owner cannot be said to have rebutted the one for one presumption by any demonstration of need. We also note that this rule is fully supported by 35 U.S.C. § 326(d)(1)(B), which details that for the amendment of a patent, for each challenged claim, “a reasonable number of substitute claims” must be proposed. Petitioner points out that the meaning of “reasonable number of substitute claims” has been previously addressed by the Board, providing “in the absence of special circumstance, a challenged claim can be replaced by only one claim, and a motion to amend should, for each proposed substitute claim, specifically identify the challenged claim which it is intended to replace.” Opp. 1–2 (citing Idle Free at 5). Furthermore, as Petitioner addresses, Patent Owner has failed to identify which of the challenged claims are intended to be replaced by the new claims. Id. Patent Owner’s response appears to be that “PO does not propose a reasonable number of substitute claims, because it is not necessary.” PO Reply 2. This, however, is not responsive. For at least these reasons, we find that Patent Owner has not complied with the substantive requirements of 37 C.F.R. § 42.221(a)(3) or the statutory requirements of § 326(d)(1)(B). 5. 37 C.F.R. § 42.221(b)(1) Rule 221(b)(1) requires that a motion to amend must show the changes clearly and set for the support in the original disclosure of the patent for claim that is added. In the case of new claims 22–49, Patent Owner does 54 not indicate any changes from the claims subject to the present proceeding. The claims are indicated as being new, so that no changes from the pending claims are discussed at all. See Claim App’x. In addition, Patent Owner argues that written description support for the new claims can be found in a chart provided in a reexamination of the patent. Mot. Amend 3 (citing inter partes Reexamination Control No. 95/001,129). We note that such incorporation by reference is not permitted under our rules. 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3). As well, as Petitioner points out, Patent Owner has not demonstrated that the claims provided in the chart are the same as the new claims. Opp. 4. Given this deficit, Patent Owner cannot successfully meet the regulatory requirements under 37 C.F.R. § 42.221(a) or (b)(1) regarding written description support, based on the present record. Additionally, Patent Owner has failed to provide any mapping of the new claims to those old claims, and, as Petitioner points out, the Board determined during the cited inter partes reexamination that no written description support was provided for a number of limitations identical to those recited in the new claims. Id. (citing Ex. 1007, 32–36). For at least these reasons, we find that Patent Owner has not complied with the substantive requirements of 37 C.F.R. § 42.221(b)(1). 6. Conclusion As discussed above, Patent Owner has not demonstrated compliance with 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.221(a), 42.221(a)(2)(i), 42.221(a)(2)(i), 42.221(a)(3), or 42.221(b)(1) or 35 U.S.C. § 326(d)(1)(B) and (3). As such, Patent Owner has failed to meet the substantive requirements for a motion to amend.” slip op. at 52

  Patent outcomesUS 7,340,506 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 101 eligibility§ 103 obviousnesscites Alice · Mayo · Enfish · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,340,506
• CQG, Inc. / CQG, LLC et al. v. Chart Trading Development, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 1, 2017 · CBM2016-00047 · APJ Kevin W Cherry · CBM · Final written decision

  Claims 1–56 are unpatentable under § 101 because they claim the abstract idea of confirming or modifying an order using conventional computer components; the motion to amend is denied.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “in all of the independent claims, should be construed as “a visual-based environment that enables an exchange of input and output between a user and a computer.” PO Resp. 15. Patent Owner bases its construction on a set of dictionary definitions for the terms “interface,” “graphical user interface,” and “interactive.” See Ex. 2012 (“interface”); Ex. 2013 (“interactive”); Ex. 2014 (“graphical user interface”); Ex. 2021 (“interactive”). Petitioner contends that Patent Owner is improperly importing limitations into this term. Pet. Reply 1–2. Petitioner argues that the term should be construed as a “graphical interface.” Id. at 2. We agree with Petitioner that Patent Owner seeks to improperly limit the term “second interface.” First, only one of the recited in the claims. The terms “graphical user interface” and “interactive” are absent from the claims. Moreover, the term “graphical user interface” is not used in the specification. Thus, we are reluctant to import the general meaning of these terms into the claims. For example, with respect to “interactive,” there is nothing in the claims that requires the “second interface” be involved in the “exchange of input and output.” Although the claims recite the second interface receiving input from the user, there is no discussion in the independent claims of displaying outputs from the trading system or “exchanging information” from the computer to the user. To the extent other claims explicitly recite exchanging information, we do not believe it is necessary to incorporate that limitation into this term. See Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1237 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“Construing a claim term to include features of that term already recited in the claims would make those expressly recited features redundant.”). In addition, from the definition of “graphical user interface,” Patent Owner derives the requirement that the “second interface” be an “environment.” It is unclear what this term adds to construction. The term “environment” is not used in the specification, so we are left to speculate what additional features that term might pull into or exclude from the claim. To the extent that Patent Owner is attempting to use the term “environment” to incorporate additional software components that are not claimed and not described in the specification, we decline to do so. Instead, we rely on the specification’s description of the graphical interface that the parties agree is what is attempted to be claimed as the “second interface.” The specification describes the “second interface” as follows: invention, a trader may enter the command using a command-line interface, click on a component of a bid and offer in a market cell, enter the command using a graphical interface, or may click on a piece of data in a data window. After initiating a command from a command-line interface, a market cell, or a data window, the present invention may verify the entry by presenting a graphical interface. This interface may be the same graphical interface that may be used to enter a trading command. In addition to displaying the graphical interface, a mouse pointer may be redirected to a portion of the graphical interface to speed up entry of the trading command. After initiating the command, but before completing the command, a trader may then alter the parameters of the command either to complete entry of the parameters or to correct one or more incorrect entries. Ex. 1001, 2:8–23. Thus, the specification describes what is attempted to be claimed as the “second interface” simply as a “graphical interface.” We determine that this is the broadest reasonable construction consistent with the specification. Thus, we construe the term “second interface” as a “graphical interface.”” slip op. at 9

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

    “Claim 1, as a whole, recites a sequence for displaying and submitting electronic versions of what used to be paper forms—i.e., using two interfaces—one displaying trading commands (and for some claims also price information) and the second comprising a detailed order form—to confirm or modify orders. This is essentially a computerized version of the age-old process of displaying prices and providing an order form for placing orders based on that price. Ex. 1026, 297; Ex. 1018, 2. Indeed, contrary to Patent Owner’s assertion that we are improperly distilling the claims, PO Resp. 25, it is only by assessing the claims as a whole that it becomes apparent that claim 1 is directed to placing and modifying an order and not on the scantily described graphical user interface. Merely “relying on a computer to perform routine tasks more quickly or more accurately is insufficient to render a claim patent eligible.” OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (citing Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2359).” slip op. at 14

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

    “The use of a graphical user interface, a known way for a user to interact with the computer, does not change the generic nature of the computer. Merely reciting a generic computer and generic computer functions cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358. Even limiting the input to using a pointer device, would not add anything to these claims because use of a pointer with a graphical interface was entirely conventional, routine, and known. Given the above, we determine that the individual elements of the claim do not transform the nature of the claim into a patent-eligible application. They do not add significantly more to the abstract idea or fundamental economic practice.” slip op. at 27

  • 101 substituteMotion to amend, deniedDenied

    “limitations do not alter the fact that these claims are directed to the pre-electronic analog of a paper order form used as part of the traditional order confirmation and modification process. As we explained above, none of these limitations individually altered our conclusion that the claims are directed to the abstract idea of “[c]onfirming and/or modifying an order as part of the order placement process.” For instance, pre-populating certain fields is simply specifying how and in what order certain data are to be displayed, but without more, that is still abstract. See Elec. Power Grp., 830 F.3d at 1353–54 (explaining that collecting, analyzing, and displaying information is abstract). Even considering them together, we agree with Petitioner that they represent merely a computerized version of pre-electronic trading concepts and, much like Ameranth “[t]he patents claim systems including menus with particular features. They do not claim a particular way of programming or designing the software to create menus that have those features, but instead claim the resulting systems.” See Ameranth, 842 F.3d at 1241; see also Affinity Labs, 838 F.3d at 1262 (claims abstract where the alleged technological features are merely “tools in the aid of a process focused on an abstract idea”). Thus, we agree with Petitioner that the amended claims remain directed to the abstract idea of confirming and/or modifying an order as part of the order placement process.” slip op. at 42

  Patent outcomesUS 8,041,626 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 101 eligibilitycites Alice · Mayo · Bilski · Enfish · Electric Power
  Patents in suitUS 8,041,626
• CQG, Inc. / CQG, LLC (F/K/A CQGT, LLC) et al. v. Chart Trading Development, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 1, 2017 · CBM2016-00046 · APJ Kevin W Cherry · CBM · Final written decision

  Claims 1–78 are unpatentable under § 101 because they claim the abstract idea of confirming or modifying an order using conventional computer interfaces; the motion to amend is denied.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “Claim 1, as a whole, recites a sequence for displaying and submitting electronic versions of what used to be paper forms—i.e., using two interfaces—one displaying price information and the second comprising a detailed order form—to confirm or modify orders. This is essentially a computerized version of the age-old process of displaying prices and providing an order form for placing orders based on that price. Ex. 1026, 297; Ex. 1018, 2. Indeed, contrary to Patent Owner’s assertion that we are improperly distilling the claims, PO Resp. 24, it is only by assessing the claims as a whole that it becomes apparent that claim 1 is directed to placing and modifying an order and not on the scantily described graphical user interface. Merely “relying on a computer to perform routine tasks more quickly or more accurately is insufficient to render a claim patent eligible.” OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (citing Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2359).” slip op. at 14

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

    “functions cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358. Even limiting the input to using a pointer device, would not add anything to these claims because use of a pointer with a graphical interface was entirely conventional, routine, and known. Given the above, we determine that the individual elements of the claim do not transform the nature of the claim into a patent-eligible application. They do not add significantly more to the abstract idea or fundamental economic practice. Moreover, considering all of the elements as an ordered combination, we determine that the combined elements also do not transform the nature of the claim into a patent-eligible application. Patent Owner contends that these claims are similar to the claims found patent eligible in BASCOM Global Internet Services, Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2016), because they are directed to a “non-conventional and non-generic arrangement” of elements. PO Resp. 52. Patent Owner argues that “the claimed solution of the ’416 patent utilizes a specialized graphical trading interface with a particular layout to allow a trader to use a pointing device to execute trades from tabular information.” Id. Patent Owner argues that “the implementation is neither conventional nor generic.” Id. at 53. Patent Owner contends that its claims are unlike Electric Power Group because “the ’416 claims do not recite merely gathering and displaying trading information using conventional computer technology . . . [a]nd they do not purport to monopolize every way of gathering and displaying trading information of every way of gathering and displaying trading information or every way of using user interfaces for placing trading instructions.” Id.” slip op. at 27

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

    “a “graphical interface.” Id. at 2. We agree with Petitioner that Patent Owner seeks to improperly limit the term “second interface.” First, only one of the terms Patent Owner relies upon for its dictionary definitions is actually recited in the claims. The terms “graphical user interface” and “interactive” are absent from the claims. Moreover, the term “graphical user interface” is not used in the specification. Thus, we are reluctant to import the general meaning of these terms into the claims. For example, with respect to “interactive,” there is nothing in the claims that requires the “second interface” be involved in the “exchange of input and output.” Although the independent claims recite the “second interface” receiving input from the user, there is no discussion of the second interface displaying outputs from the trading system or “exchanging information” from the computer to the user. To the extent other claims explicitly recite exchanging information, we do not believe it is necessary to incorporate that limitation into this term. See Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1237 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“Construing a claim term to include features of that term already recited in the claims would make those expressly recited features redundant.”). In addition, from the definition of “graphical user interface,” Patent Owner derives the requirement that the “second interface” be an “environment.” It is unclear what this term adds to construction. The term “environment” is not used in the specification, so we are left to speculate what additional features that term might pull into or exclude from the claim. To the extent that Patent Owner is attempting to use the term “environment” to incorporate additional software components that are not claimed and not described in the specification, we decline to do so. Instead, we rely on the claimed as the “second interface.” The specification describes a second interface as follows: After initiating a command from a command-line interface, a market cell, or a data window, the present invention may verify the entry by presenting a graphical interface. This interface may be the same graphical interface that may be used to enter a trading command. In addition to displaying the graphical interface, a mouse pointer may be redirected to a portion of the graphical interface to speed up entry of the trading command. After initiating the command, but before completing the command, a trader may then alter the parameters of the command either to complete entry of the parameters or to correct one or more incorrect entries. Ex. 1001, 2:12–24. Thus, the specification describes what is attempted to be claimed as the “second interface” simply as a “graphical interface.” We determine that this is the broadest reasonable construction consistent with the specification. Thus, we construe the term “second interface” as a “graphical interface.”” slip op. at 10

  • 101 substituteMotion to amend, deniedDenied

    “The only substantive amendments made to the claims are the addition of an explicit limitation requiring a “pointer device” as providing the input recited in the claims, an explanation that what is selected is the bid price or the bid price and offer price are pre-populated in the second interface. As we discussed above, these limitations do not alter the fact that these claims are directed to the pre-electronic analog of a paper order form used as part of the traditional order confirmation and modification process. As we explained above, none of these limitations individually altered our conclusion that the claims are directed to the abstract idea of “[c]onfirming and/or modifying an order as part of the order placement process.” For instance, pre-populating certain fields is simply specifying how and in what order certain data are to be displayed, but without more, that is still abstract. See Elec. Power Grp., 830 F.3d at 1353–54 (explaining that collecting, analyzing, and displaying information is abstract). Even considering them together, we agree with Petitioner that they represent merely a computerized version of pre-electronic trading concepts and, much like Ameranth “[t]he patents claim systems including menus with particular features. They do not claim a particular way of programming or designing the software to create menus that have those features, but instead claim the resulting systems.” See Ameranth, 842 F.3d at 1241; see also Affinity Labs, 838 F.3d at 1262 (claims abstract where the alleged technological features are merely “tools in the aid of a process focused on an abstract idea”). Thus, we agree with Petitioner that the amended claims remain directed to the abstract idea of confirming and/or modifying an order as part of the order placement process.” slip op. at 40

  Patent outcomesUS 7,890,416 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 101 eligibilitycites Alice · Mayo · Bilski · Enfish · Electric Power
  Patents in suitUS 7,890,416
• Interactive Brokers LLC / CQG, Inc. et al. v. Chart Trading Development, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Aug 18, 2017 · CBM2016-00039 · APJ Brian J Mcnamara · CBM · Final written decision

  Claims 1–22 are unpatentable under § 101 and § 103 over Friesen, Jones, and Kirwin; Patent Owner’s motion to amend with substitute claims 23–44 is denied.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownOther

    “ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART Petitioner contends that one of ordinary skill in the art includes someone who, through education or practical experience, possesses the equivalent of a bachelor’s degree in computer science, information science, or a related field and has at least two years of work experience developing or implementing user interfaces for electronic trading systems. Pet. 13 (citing Ex. 1002, Declaration of Bernard S. Donefer (“Donefer Decl.”) ¶ 45). Patent Owner contends that a person of ordinary skill would have a bachelor’s degree in computer science or equivalent experience, and at least three years of experience in designing and/or developing user interfaces, including experience designing and/or developing graphical user interfaces for electronic trading. PO Resp. 13 (citing Ex. 2027, Declaration of Nazaar Molokhia in Support of Patent Owner Response (“Molokhia Resp. Decl.”) ¶¶ 14–15). Notwithstanding their one year difference in experience level, we find the parties’ assessments of the level of ordinary skill not to be materially different.” slip op. at 7

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “At his level of professional responsibility Mr. Donefer works on system architecture to accommodate trader needs—he acknowledges that he does not code programs and in the college courses he teaches Mr. Donefer does not teach programming. Donefer Tr., 30:10–33:18, 36:19–22. Nevertheless, Mr. Donefer takes courses in programming languages, such as C++, R and Python, to keep up with languages that his students are using. Id. at 54:4–56:5. The college level courses Mr. Donefer teaches in IT in financial markets and financial information systems address order management systems, and Mr. Donefer occasionally invites order management vendors to demonstrate such systems to students. Id. at 35:10– 36:13. Mr. Donefer teaches prospective business analysts about business processes and business problems in order to design solutions, focusing on turning requirements into documentation a coder can use to implement a business process, rather than on coding itself. See id. at 38:10–41:8 There is no requirement imposed by the Federal Rules of Evidence that an expert’s qualifications perfectly match the field of the patent at issue. See SEB S.A. v. Montgomery Ward & Co., 594 F.3d 1360, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2010). The patent claims before us concern a method and an apparatus for providing an interactive graphical representation of a market. Independent method claim 1 recites displaying a graph and a trading dialog box on a display of a workstation. Dependent claims recite the elements of the displayed trading dialog box and user selection options. Independent apparatus claim 9 recites a processor programmed to cause a computer to display a graph and trading dialog box. In the independent and dependent apparatus claims, the programmed processor carries out steps similar to those recited in the method claims. None of the claims in this proceeding recites technical details that require an extensive knowledge of programming or computer design. Mr. Donefer’s background in electronic trading system architectures and supervising the development of graphical user interfaces, along with his many years of experience, are sufficient for him to render opinions as to the subject matter of the claims before us. In addition, the Board can has accord proper weight to the testimony of each party’s expert witness. Therefore, in the context of this covered business method patent review, we are persuaded that we can properly weigh Mr. Donefer’s testimony.” slip op. at 9

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

    “Trading Dialog Box We construed “trading dialog box” to mean “a display on a display terminal through which the user can view values for trading and selected information.” Id. at 13. Patent Owner proposes that we construe this term to mean “an interface that appears as an overlay and enables exchange of input and output between a user and a computer.” PO Resp. 24–29. Petitioner contends that Patent Owner’s construction does present a material dispute, noting that Patent Owner’s testifying expert, Mr. Molokhia states that a popup window, such as that Friesen is an example of an overlay. Pet. Reply 4 (citing Ex. 1024, Transcript of Deposition of Nazaar Molokhia (“Molokhia Tr.”) 54:19–24). Upon review, we agree with Patent Owner that the specification of the ’611 Patent refers to the trading dialog box as an overlay and that the dialog box is used for exchanging information with the computer. PO Resp. 27–28. For purposes of this Decision, we apply Patent Owner’s proposed construction and construe “trading dialog box” to mean “an interface that appears as overlay and enables exchange of input and output between a user and a computer.”” slip op. at 5

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

    “Workstation Neither party previously sought a construction of “workstation” and in our Decision to Institute, we accorded this term its ordinary meaning. Patent Owner now proposes that we construe “workstation” to mean “a display terminal.” PO Resp. 29–37. Our analysis of the construction of “trading dialog box” in our Decision to Institute we noted that claims 1 and 12 recite that the display is displayed on “the workstation,” a term for which there is no antecedent basis. Dec. to Inst. 13. Method claim 1 recites “displaying a trading dialog box on the display of the workstation.” Patent Owner’s proposed construction effectively amend the claim by substituting “display terminal,” which has an antecedent basis for the term “workstation,” which has no antecedent basis. However, the antecedent in the claim recites “a display terminal of an electronic trading system,” not a display terminal of a workstation. Nevertheless, according to Patent Owner the meaning of the claim would be understood by persons of ordinary skill and Petitioner did not argue that the claim was indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112. PO Resp. 31. Patent Owner correctly points out that indefiniteness under 35 U.S.C. § 112 was not presented as an issue in this proceeding and is not an issue we considered. Neither our Decision to Institute nor this Final Decision is based on indefiniteness. In view of Patent Owner’s positon that meaning of the claim would be understood by persons of ordinary skill, that Petitioner has not argued indefiniteness, and that none of our decisions in this covered business method patent review are based on indefiniteness, we need not further construe the term “workstation.”” slip op. at 6

  Patent outcomesUS 8,380,611 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 101 eligibility§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Alice · Mayo · Enfish · Electric Power · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,380,611

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.