• Google Inc. v. Patrick ZuiliAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 5, 2017 · CBM2016-00021 · APJ Jameson Lee · CBM · Final written decision

  Claims 1–3, 6, 10, 14, 15, 18, 19, and 21 are unpatentable under § 101 because they claim an abstract idea without an inventive concept.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • BurdenFwd all claims unpatentableUnpatentable

    “3. Conclusion Petitioner has established by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1–3, 6, 10, 14, 15, 18, 19, and 21 are directed to patent-ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.” slip op. at 40

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied

    “to Petitioner Exhibits 1004, 1005, 1010, 1011, 1013, 1014, 1032, and 1037. Paper 33. None of these exhibits was relied on by Petitioner in support of the sole ground on the basis of which trial was instituted in this proceeding, i.e., subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101, or in support of Petitioner’s arguments for establishing the ’667 patent as a covered business method patent eligible for covered business method patent review. Patent Owner in its Reply to Petitioner’s opposition to Patent Owner’s renewed Motion to Exclude asserts that the Board’s Decision on Institution did rely on the Declaration of Mr. Gray and that Mr. Gray’s Declaration does refer to Exhibits 1004, 1005, and 1037. Paper 40, 3. Mr. Gray’s Declaration, however, covers many subjects, and the portions of Mr. Gray’s Declaration cited to in the Decision on Institution do not rely on or refer to Exhibits 1004, 1005, 1010, 1011, 1013, 1014, 1032, and 1037. We have not relied on any portion of Exhibits 1004, 1005, 1010, 1011, 1013, 1014, 1032, and 1037, in this Final Written Decision. Those exhibits all relate to an alleged ground of unpatentability over prior art that has not been instituted for trial and also were not referred to by Mr. Gray in connection with his testimony regarding either patent subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 or whether the ’667 patent is a covered business method patent eligible for covered business method patent review. Accordingly, Patent Owner’s Renewed Motion to Exclude is dismissed as moot.” slip op. at 40

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

    “We are cognizant that a “pay-per-click system” is expressly recited only in claim 1’s preamble, and that a preamble recitation may not be limiting. “Whether a preamble stating the purpose and context of the invention constitutes a limitation of the claimed process is determined on the facts of each case and in light of the overall form of the claim, and the invention as described in the specification and illuminated in the prosecution history.” Applied Materials, Inc. v. Advanced Semiconductor Materials Am., Inc., 98 F.3d 1563, 1572–73 (Fed. Cir. 1996). In this instance, the recitation of a “pay-per-click system” in the preamble of claim 1 is limiting, because it is necessary to give life, meaning, and vitality to the subject matter of claim 1. See Symantic Corp. v. Computer Assocs. Int’l Inc., 522 F.3d 1279, 1288 (Fed. Cir. 2008); Catalina Marketing Int’l. v. Coolsavings.Com, 289 F.3d 801, 808 (Fed. Cir. 2002); Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305 (Fed. Cir. 1999). In the Summary of the Invention section, the Specification states: “This invention improves upon existing pay-per-click arrangements . . . .” Ex. 1001, 1:62–64. The Specification describes no environment for the disclosed invention other than in a “pay-per-click” system. The body of claim 1 specifically recites a step of “detecting fraudulent activity by measuring the duration between clicks by said client to said selected website by examining said code and website information.” Id. at 3:12–15. The “fraudulent activity” referred to in the body of the claim depends on the operations of a pay-per-click system to have meaning. For instance, the potentially fraudulent activity related to the duration between clicks is a problem, because the merchant has an obligation to pay for each click in a pay-per-click system. Also in the Summary of the Invention section, the Specification states that determining if certain clicks are illegitimate “allows the pay-per-click company to more fairly invoice the merchants, thereby preventing fraudulent [overuse].” Id. at 2:1–4. Claim 1 expressly requires the links provided to a client be “associated with a plurality of websites associated with a plurality of merchants.” Id. at 3:2–5. For all of these reasons, we determine that the recitation of “pay-per-click system” in the preamble of claim 1 is limiting. We determine, in particular, that the step in the body of claim 1 for detecting fraudulent activity derives its meaning and significance from being implemented in a pay-per-click system.” slip op. at 14

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

    “above-noted testimony of Mr. Gray, we agree with Petitioner’s articulation of what constitutes an abstract idea to which the claimed invention is directed, i.e., “detecting fraud based on the time between two requests by the same client.” That articulation is reasonably tied to the claims, and not an over-generalization or over-simplification of the claimed subject matter.” slip op. at 29

  Patent outcomesUS 7,953,667 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 101 eligibilitycites Mayo · Bilski · Enfish
  Patents in suitUS 7,953,667
• American Megatrends, Inc. / Micro-Star International Co., Ltd et al. v. Kinglite Holdings Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 27, 2016 · IPR2015-01079 · APJ Brian J Mcnamara · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–45 are unpatentable: claims 1–40 and 44 as obvious over either PC Tools and Gerace or LogoMania, and claims 41–43 and 45 as obvious over either specified combination.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner
  • ScopeMotion to amend, deniedDenied
  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Definiteness (Nautilus)IndefiniteDecided for petitioner

    “We first note that proposed claim 46 recites a “profile,” a term that is broader than a “user profile” and is not specifically defined. In addition, the meaning of the language in proposed claim 46 “wherein the computer system [that displays the image] characterizes the profile under the operating system environment” is unclear. Although the operating system may be a Windows OS, as Patent Owner argues, Patent Owner does not cite to a description concerning what it means for the computer system, i.e., the system that displays the image, to “characterize[s] the profile” or what steps the computer takes to characterize the profile. Id. at 8–9. Instead, Patent Owner argues that a service center provides additional content based on the user system and profile. Id. at 9. That language, however, is not recited in proposed claim 46. We deny the Motion to Amend on this basis as well.” slip op. at 24

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied

    “It was not Petitioner’s responsibility to monitor whether Patent Owner moved for Mr. Summerfield’s pro hac vice admission. However, we also are troubled by Petitioner’s failure to seek a conference with the Board at the time of the deposition. Although Petitioner argues it could not have moved to quash the deposition because the notice was signed by lead counsel, Christopher Frerking (Reply to Opp. To Mot to Exclude 4), it appears that Petitioner’s counsel was aware that Mr. Summerfield would conduct the cross examination at least several days, and possibly several weeks, before the deposition took place. Hr’g Tr. 47, 49. Petitioner does not allege any prejudice as a result of Mr. Summerfield conducting the cross examination or argue that Mr. Summerfield behaved improperly during the deposition. Mot. To Exclude 4. Instead, Petitioner contends we should exclude the evidence as a matter of policy to demonstrate that our rules concerning pro hac vice admission must be taken seriously and to discourage others from acting in a similar manner, particularly in the case of deposition testimony and arguments that become part of the trial record. Id. at 4–6.8 Petitioner contends that allowing the deposition to take place did not cure its objection to the deposition. Reply to Opp. To Mot. To Exclude. 1–2. Dr. Kaliski’s deposition took place on January 8, 2016. Petitioner could have opposed Mr. Summerfield’s pro hac vice admission until January 16, 2016. However, notwithstanding Mr. Summerfield’s conduct, to which Petitioner objected, Petitioner did not oppose Mr. Summerfield’s pro hac vice admission. Had Petitioner opposed Mr. Summerfield’s admission on the basis that he conducted the deposition without proper authorization, the issue could have been addressed earlier in the proceeding and another deposition scheduled, if it was determined that Mr. Summerfield would not be admitted and the deposition transcript would not be entered. Instead, Petitioner elected to delay the matter until the last possible date for filing a Motion to Exclude. Thus, even if Petitioner’s objection was not cured when Petitioner permitted the deposition to proceed without contacting the Board, Petitioner’s subsequent failure to oppose Patent Owner’s Motion for Admission pro hac vice implies at least some degree of consent. The parties conduct in this case does not warrant excluding Dr. Kaliski’s deposition transcript from evidence. We do not condone Patent Owner’s unreasonable delay in seeking pro hac vice admission of Mr. Summerfield, and under other circumstances our ruling might be different. However, in this case, the absence of prejudice and Petitioner’s failure to” slip op. at 27

  Patent outcomesUS 6,373,498 unpatentable
  § 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites KSR
  Patents in suitUS 6,373,498
• 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
• Headbox, LLC v. Infinite Imagineering, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 22, 2015 · IPR2014-00365 · APJ Benjamin D M Wood · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–3, 5, 8–14, 16–19, 22, and 24–26 are unpatentable under § 103; claim 23 is indefinite under § 112, and its obviousness was not reached.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “headphone set in accordance with claim 1, where each of said speaker headphones includes a pair of stereo headphone driver units in order to increase the volume/audio level when said speaker headphones are not positioned on the user’s head.” Ex. 1001, 12:5–9 (emphasis added). Claim 23 additionally recites “wherein each of said headphone driver units includes a volume controlling means for regulating and presetting the volume level for said exterior speakers and said interior speakers.” Id. at 12:23–26 (emphasis added). Petitioner contends, and we agree, that “volume controlling means” is a means-plus-function claim term under 35 U.S.C. § 112, paragraph 6, and that the claimed function is regulating and presetting the volume level for the exterior speakers and the interior speakers. Pet. 11. Petitioner also contends that the Specification does not identify any structure that corresponds to this function. Id. “If the specification does not contain an adequate disclosure of the structure that corresponds to the claimed function, the patentee will have failed to particularly point out and distinctly claim the invention as required by the second paragraph of section 112, which renders the claim invalid for indefiniteness.” Blackboard, Inc. v. Desire2Learn, Inc., 574 F.3d 1371, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks omitted). The Specification teaches that one embodiment of headphone set 10 includes driver unit 70 for interior speakers 42, 44, and driver unit 72 for exterior speakers 38, 40, with driver units 70, 72 including “volume controlling means” 71 and 73, respectively. Ex. 1001, 6:40–45, Fig. 2B.7 According to the Specification, the volume controlling means are for presetting a maximum volume to each of the interior and exterior speakers, presumably to prevent hearing damage caused by excessively loud audio. Id. at 6:57–7:2. But the Specification does not describe or depict the structure that the volume controlling means uses to preset the maximum volume. Instead, it merely describes their function and depicts each of them as a box in a block diagram. Id. This is not sufficient because it does not “cabin the scope of the functional language in the means[-plus-function] element.” ePlus, Inc. v. Lawson Software, Inc., 700 F.3d 509, 518–19 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (holding that a “black box” in a flow chart only represents a function without specifying structure). Accordingly, we agree with Petitioner that the ’966 patent Specification does not describe structure corresponding to the function of presetting a maximum volume to the interior and exterior speakers, rendering claim 23 indefinite.” slip op. at 6

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Definiteness (Nautilus)IndefiniteOther

    “which renders the claim invalid for indefiniteness.” Blackboard, Inc. v. Desire2Learn, Inc., 574 F.3d 1371, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks omitted). The Specification teaches that one embodiment of headphone set 10 includes driver unit 70 for interior speakers 42, 44, and driver unit 72 for exterior speakers 38, 40, with driver units 70, 72 including “volume controlling means” 71 and 73, respectively. Ex. 1001, 6:40–45, Fig. 2B.7 According to the Specification, the volume controlling means are for presetting a maximum volume to each of the interior and exterior speakers, presumably to prevent hearing damage caused by excessively loud audio. Id. at 6:57–7:2. But the Specification does not describe or depict the structure that the volume controlling means uses to preset the maximum volume. Instead, it merely describes their function and depicts each of them as a box in a block diagram. Id. This is not sufficient because it does not “cabin the scope of the functional language in the means[-plus-function] element.” ePlus, Inc. v. Lawson Software, Inc., 700 F.3d 509, 518–19 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (holding that a “black box” in a flow chart only represents a function without specifying structure). Accordingly, we agree with Petitioner that the ’966 patent Specification does not describe structure corresponding to the function of presetting a maximum volume to the interior and exterior speakers, rendering claim 23 indefinite.” slip op. at 7

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundUnpatentable

    “speaker headphone (ear covers 20) on opposing ends of a headband—each speaker headphone comprising an exterior speaker (audio speaker 25) and an interior speaker (earphone speaker 27)—and a signal wire connecting an audio device output to the speaker headphones. Ex. 1003, 2:8–20, 23–44, 53–59, 3:24–32, Figs. 1, 2. Kuo also discloses a switch that allows a user to listen to either the interior speakers or exterior speakers, although it does not describe the claimed three-way switch that also allows a user to 8 See 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(a) (“Any material fact not specifically denied may be considered admitted.”). simultaneously listen to both interior and exterior speakers. Id. at 2:32–44, 3:27–29. We find, however, that Awaba discloses a three-way switch (mode switch 28) that permits a user to select between the three claimed listening modes. Ex. 1004, 2:5–12, 27–28, 4:30–36, Fig. 1. Further, a skilled artisan9 would have considered Awaba’s three-way switch to be an obvious substitute for Kuo’s two-way switch because both are used for essentially the same purpose: to select between a headphone’s internal and external speakers on similar speaker-equipped headphones. The skilled artisan would have been motivated to make the substitution because Awaba’s threeway switch adds the additional functionality of being able to play both sets of speakers at the same time.” slip op. at 9

  • Obviousness (§103) › KSR rationalesUnpatentable

    “claim 1. We find that the combination of Kuo and Awaba teaches the additional limitations recited in these claims. Specifically, Kuo discloses the input jack, amplifier member, power source, headphone shape and audio-device connection of, respectively, claims 8–10, 12, and 16. Ex. 1003, 2:21– 31, 37–39, 47–59, 3:4–32, Figs. 1, 2, 5–7. Kuo’s mounting of ear covers 20 at the joint ends 11 of headband 10 corresponds to the requirements of claim 5. Id. at 2:12–18, Fig. 2. Further, Awaba discloses the three-way switch of claims 2 and 11 and the electrical connections of claim 11 (Ex. 1004, 2:24– 28, 4:25–36, Fig. 1); Awaba’s transmission of mono signals corresponds to 9 We find that the level of ordinary skill in the art is reflected by the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (holding that the prior art itself can reflect the appropriate level of skill in the art). the monaural system of claim 24 (id. at 4:26–29); and Awaba’s socket 24 corresponds to claim 26’s pocket (id. at 4:10–17). Adding these features to Kuo’s headphones would have constituted use of known techniques to improve similar devices (speaker-equipped headphones) in the same way. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007) (holding that “if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill”).” slip op. at 10

  Patent outcomesUS 8,085,966 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites KSR
  Patents in suitUS 8,085,966
• Facebook, Inc. v. Everymd LLCOther
  PTAB · May 12, 2015 · IPR2014-00242 · APJ Peter P Chen · IPR · Final written decision

  The Board canceled claims 1–3, 5, and 6 and denied substitute claims 7–11 because the Patent Owner failed to establish written-description support for claim 10 and patentability over prior art for claims 7–9 and 11.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsMotion to amend granted in partGranted in part

    “Unlike examination, entry of the proposed substitute claims in an inter partes review is not automatic. As the moving party, Patent Owner must establish that it is entitled to the requested relief. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.20(c). In its Motion to Amend, Patent Owner bears the burden to show, inter alia, that a reasonable number of substitute claims is proposed, there is no broadening of scope, the proposed claims are supported adequately by the written description of the application as filed originally, and the proposed claims are patentable over the prior art. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.121; Idle Free Sys. Inc. v. Bergstrom, Inc., Case IPR2012-00027, slip op. at 5–6 (PTAB June 11, 2013) (Paper 26) (“Idle Free”). We address each of these requirements in turn.” slip op. at 10

  • 112 supportDenied

    “its Motion to Amend to set forth “[t]he support in the original disclosure of the patent for each claim that is added or amended,” and “[t]he support in an earlier-filed disclosure for each claim for which benefit of the filing date of the earlier filed disclosure is sought.” The test for written description support is “whether the disclosure of the application relied upon reasonably conveys to those skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date.” Ariad Pharm., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010). The purpose of the written description requirement is to convey with reasonable clarity to those skilled in the art that, as of the filing date sought, applicant was in possession of the invention as now claimed. Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1563–64 (Fed. Cir. 1991).” slip op. at 12

  • ScopeDecided for patent owner

    “2. No Broadening of Scope Proposed substitute claims in an inter partes review “may not enlarge the scope of the claims of the patent.” 35 U.S.C. § 316(d)(3); see 37 C.F.R. § 42.121(a)(2)(ii). In its Motion to Amend, Patent Owner proposes claim 7 as a substitute for claim 1, claim 8 as a substitute for claim 2, claim 9 as a substitute for claim 3, claim 10 as a substitute for claim 5, and claim 11 as a substitute for claim 6. Mot. 1–5. Each claim includes all of the limitations of the corresponding challenged claim for which it is a substitute, and adds additional limitations. Id. No limitations from the challenged claims were deleted in the proposed substitute claims. Patent Owner asserts that the proposed substitute claims do not enlarge the scope of the claims of the ’047 patent. See Mot. 1. Petitioner does not dispute this assertion (“patent owner’s proposed substitute claims . . . add ancillary features”). Opp. 1. We are persuaded that each of the proposed substitute claims does not enlarge the scope of each of the challenged patent claims it intends to replace.” slip op. at 11

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

    “In the Decision to Institute, we determined that no explicit construction was necessary for any of the claim terms beyond their ordinary and customary meanings. Dec. to Inst. 8–9. Neither party has challenged that determination, and based on the record adduced during trial, we see no reason to provide an express construction for any term. For the proposed substitute claims, Patent Owner states that: Like the terms in the original claims, all of [the newly added claim terms in the proposed substitute claims] are simple [claim terms] whose ordinary meaning applies and for which no construction is required, with the possible exception of “member” and “group.” As explained in the specification (Ex. 1) at 3:2–4, “The present invention comprises a method . . . for allowing on-line communications with members of a group of recipients for whom the invention has been implemented.” In the context of proposed independent claim [7], the claimed invention requires that “said first computer system storing information about said plurality of members in a database.” Thus, in the context of the proposed amended claims[,] a “group” is a group of a plurality of members for whom the first computer system has stored information in a database. Mot. 7. Petitioner does not propose alternative constructions for the claim terms “member” or “group.” We cannot discern how the constructions proffered by Patent Owner add any clarity to the terms “member” and “group,” which are simple and commonly understood terms. We decline to provide an express construction for either “member” or “group.”” slip op. at 8

  Claim construction§ 101 eligibility§ 103 obviousnesscites Alice
  Patents in suitUS 8,499,047
• Regions Financial Corporation / Advance America, Cash Advance Centers, Inc. et al. v. Retirement Capital Access Management Company LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 23, 2015 · CBM2014-00012 · APJ Trenton A Ward · CBM · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 13, 14, 18, 30, and 31 are unpatentable under § 101 because they claim the abstract idea of advancing funds based on future retirement payments without meaningful additional limitations.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Corresponding structure / algorithm (indefinite if none)Term construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner

    “To construe means-plus-function language in a claim, one “must look to the specification and interpret that language in light of the corresponding structure, material, or acts described therein, and equivalents thereof, to the extent that the specification provides such disclosure.” In re Donaldson Co., 16 F.3d 1189, 1193 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (en banc). More particularly, to construe properly the limitations in claims 13 and 30 reciting “means for causing said . . . payments . . . to be deposited into said account,” the limitations “shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.” 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6.5 As noted by Patent Owner (PO Resp. 34–35), the corresponding structure within the specification supporting the means-plus-function limitation is described as follows: “[b]enefits source 12 of system 10 5 Section 4(c) of the AIA re-designated 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6, as 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). Because the ’582 patent has a filing date before September 16, 2012 (effective date), we will refer to the pre-AIA version of § 112. disburses retirement payments directly to an individual direct deposit account 14 in a designated depository 16. Preferably, this is accomplished utilizing the well-known technique of electronic funds transfer.” PO Resp. 34–35 (quoting Ex. 1003, col. 5, ll. 18–22). Accordingly, we construe “means for causing . . . to be deposited into said account,” recited in claims 13 and 30, to require “disbursing directly to said account utilizing an electronic funds transfer.”” slip op. at 8

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Plain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner

    “For method claims 1 and 18, however, we are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument that the term “deposited” should similarly be interpreted to mean “deposited via direct deposit.” PO Resp. 35–39. More particularly, claims 1 and 18 do not contain means-plus-function limitations, like claims 13 and 30, that must be construed according to the corresponding structure within the specification. Furthermore, Patent Owner fails to point to any support in the specification of the ’582 patent that would require the construction of the term “deposited” to mean a direct deposit or electronic funds transfer. If an inventor acts as his or her own lexicographer, the definition must be set forth in the specification “with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision.” Renishaw PLC v. Marposs Societa’ per Azioni, 158 F.3d 1243, 1249 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (citations omitted). The specification of the ’582 patent does not set forth expressly a definition of “deposited.” In fact, as noted above, the ’582 patent states that deposits are “[p]referably” conducted with the “well-known technique of electronic funds transfer.” The specification does not limit the term “deposited” to this implementation. Ex. 1003, col. 5, ll. 20–22 (emphasis added). Even in cases where the specification describes only a single embodiment, the claims are not necessarily limited to that embodiment. Thorner v. Sony Computer Entm’t Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (It is not enough that the only embodiment, or all of the embodiments, contain a particular limitation to limit a claim to that particular limitation.). Here, the specification itself indicates that electronic deposits are preferable, but not required. Therefore, we do not adopt Patent Owner’s proposed construction of “deposited” recited in claims 1 and 18 as limited to “deposited via direct deposit.”” slip op. at 9

  • BurdenDecided for petitioner

    “We agree with Petitioner and determine that it has made a sufficient showing to support its §101 challenge. Neither the claims nor the specification of the ʼ582 patent describes particularly complex technological implementations or modifications of these technologies requiring the explanation of an expert. 35 U.S.C. § 6(a). In fact, the ’582 patent itself states that it describes implementing electronic funds transfer and direct deposit by “utiliz[ing] existing computer capabilities” and “utilizing the well-known technique of electronic funds transfer.” Ex. 1003, col. 5, l. 2; col. 5, ll. 21–22 (emphasis added). Furthermore, the “without encumbering” limitation discussed above expresses an easily understood concept and recites no specific technological mechanism for achieving its result.” slip op. at 21

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

    “In accordance with the Supreme Court’s “framework for distinguishing patents that claim . . . abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible applications of those concepts,” we must first “determine whether the claims at issue are directed to one of those patent-ineligible concepts.” Alice, 134 S.Ct. at 2355. In Alice, the Supreme Court determined that the claims at issue were “drawn to the concept of intermediated settlement,” i.e., the use of a third party to mitigate settlement risk. Id. Furthermore, the Supreme Court determined that “[l]ike the risk hedging in Bilski [v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593 (2010)], the concept of intermediated settlement is ‘a fundamental economic practice long prevalent in our system of commerce.’” Alice, 134 S.Ct. at 2356 (citations omitted). With respect to the first step of the “Mayo framework,” the Supreme Court concluded in Alice that “there is no meaningful distinction between the concept of risk hedging in Bilski and the concept of intermediated settlement” in Alice and that “[b]oth are squarely within the realm of ‘abstract ideas’ as we have used that term.” Alice, 134 S.Ct. at 2357. Here, Petitioner argues that Patent Owner’s claims are directed to the abstract concept of advancing funds based on future retirement payments. Reply 4. Patent Owner does not dispute this. In the related case, CBM2013-00014, Patent Owner’s counsel stated at the oral hearing that Patent Owner is “happy to accept what they claim is the abstract concept” with respect to the challenged claims of the ’582 patent. CBM2013-00014, Paper 32 (Oral Hearing Transcript), 40; see CBM2013-00014 Final Decision, 13. Similar to the concept of intermediated settlement in Alice and the concept of risk hedging in Bilski, we find that the concept of advancing funds based on future retirement payments is an economic practice long prevalent in our system of commerce and squarely within the realm of abstract ideas.” slip op. at 14

  Patent outcomesUS 6,625,582 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 101 eligibilitycites Alice · Mayo · Bilski · Phillips · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,625,582
• U.S. Bancorp v. Retirement Capital Access Management CompanyAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Aug 22, 2014 · CBM2013-00014 · APJ Trenton A Ward · CBM · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 13, 14, 18, 30, and 31 are unpatentable under § 101 because they claim an abstract economic concept without meaningful additional limitations.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “To construe means-plus-function language in a claim, one “must look to the specification and interpret that language in light of the corresponding structure, material, or acts described therein, and equivalents thereof, to the extent that the specification provides such disclosure.” In re Donaldson Co., Inc., 16 F.3d 1189, 1193 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (en banc). More particularly, to construe properly the limitations in claims 13 and 30 reciting a “means for causing said future retirement payments . . . to be deposited into said account,” the limitations “shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.” 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6.3 As noted by Patent Owner (PO Resp. 29), the corresponding structure within the specification supporting the means-plus-function limitation states the following: “[b]enefits source 12 of system 10 disburses retirement payments directly to an individual direct deposit account 14 in a designated depository 16. Preferably, this is accomplished utilizing the well-known technique of electronic funds transfer.” Ex. 1003, col. 5, ll. 18–22. Accordingly, we construe “means for causing . . . to be deposited into said account,” recited in claims 13 and 30, to mean “disbursing directly to said account utilizing an electronic funds transfer.”” slip op. at 7

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Plain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner

    “Unlike the means-plus function claims, we are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument that the term “deposited” in method claims 1 and 18 should similarly be interpreted to mean “deposited via direct deposit.” PO Resp. 30–33. Patent Owner fails to point to any support in the specification of the ’582 patent that would require the construction of the term “deposited” to mean a direct deposit or electronic funds transfer. If an inventor acts as his or her own lexicographer, the definition must be set forth in the specification with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision. Renishaw PLC v. Marposs Societa’ per Azioni, 158 F.3d 1243, 1249 (Fed. Cir. 1998). The specification of the ’582 patent does not set forth expressly a definition of “deposited.” In fact, as cited above, the ’582 patent states that deposits are “[p]referably” conducted with the “well-known technique of electronic funds transfer,” but the specification does not limit the term “deposited” to this implementation. Ex. 1003, col. 5, ll. 20–22 (emphasis added). Even in cases where the specification describes only a single embodiment, the claims are not necessarily limited to that embodiment. Thorner v. Sony Computer Entm’t Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (It is not enough that the only embodiment, or all of the embodiments, contain a particular limitation to limit a claim to that particular limitation.). Here, the specification itself indicates that electronic deposits are preferable, but not required. Therefore, we do not adopt Patent Owner’s proposed construction of “deposited” recited in claims 1 and 18 as limited to “deposited via direct deposit.”” slip op. at 8

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

    “In accordance with the Supreme Court’s “framework for distinguishing patents that claim . . . abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible applications of those concepts,” we must first “determine whether the claims at issue are directed to one of those patent-ineligible concepts.” Alice Corp., 132 S.Ct. at 2355. In Alice Corp., the Supreme Court determined that the claims at issue were “drawn to the concept of intermediated settlement,” i.e., the use of a third party to mitigate settlement risk. Id. Furthermore, the Supreme Court determined that “[l]ike the risk hedging in Bilski [v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593 (2010)], the concept of intermediated settlement is ‘a fundamental economic practice long prevalent in our system of commerce.’” Alice Corp., 132 S.Ct. at 2356 (citations omitted). With respect to the first step of the “Mayo framework,” the Supreme Court concluded in Alice Corp. that “there is no meaningful distinction between the concept of risk hedging in Bilski and the concept of intermediated settlement” in Alice Corp. and that “[b]oth are squarely within the realm of ‘abstract ideas’ as we have used that term.” Alice Corp., 132 S.Ct. at 2357. Here, Petitioner argues that Patent Owner’s claims are directed to the abstract concept of advancing funds based on future retirement payments. Reply 4. Patent Owner does not disagree. Tr. 40 (Patent Owner’s counsel stated at the oral hearing that Patent Owner is “happy to accept what [Petitioner] claim[s] is the abstract concept.”). Similar to the concept of intermediated settlement in Alice Corp. and the concept of risk hedging in Bilski, we find that the concept of advancing funds based on future retirement payments is an economic practice long prevalent in our system of commerce and squarely within the realm of abstract ideas.” slip op. at 12

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

  Patent outcomesUS 6,625,582 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 101 eligibilitycites Alice · Mayo · Bilski · Phillips · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,625,582

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.