• Snap Inc. / Facebook, Inc. et al. v. Palo Alto Research Center LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 24, 2023 · IPR2021-01294 · APJ Sheila F Mcshane · IPR · Final written decision

  The Board held all challenged claims 1–25 unpatentable under the asserted obviousness grounds and denied Patent Owner’s contingent motions to amend.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “2. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Snap proposes that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the ’599 patent would have possessed “an undergraduate degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science or a related field along with at least two years of work experience in the field of content presentation and context-based systems/processes.” Snap Pet. 3 (citing Snap IPR, Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 30–32); Snap IPR, Ex. 1022 ¶ 32. Snap further asserts that additional “education can supplement practical experience and vice versa.” Id. In the Decision on Institution, we determined that Snap’s proposed description of the qualifications of a person of ordinary skill in the art aligned with the technology and claims of the ’599 patent. Snap Inst. Dec. 6–7. For this proceeding, Patent Owner and Dr. Martin apply this level of skill in the art. Snap PO Resp. 11–12; Snap IPR, Ex. 2003 ¶¶ 48–50. Accordingly, for the reasons given in the Decision on Institution, we adopt Snap’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art. Snap Inst. Dec. 6–7.” slip op. at 11

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner

    “Dr. Martin also provides consistent testimony on this issue. Snap IPR, Ex. 2003 ¶¶ 81–82. Put simply, the Specification’s disclosure is that the set of rules for multiple content packages includes an expected response, and actions are then performed based on whether an expected response is or is not provided. Moreover, as Dr. Almeroth testifies, neither the claims nor the Specification use the term “unexpected response”—rather the Specification only identifies an “expected response.” Snap IPR, Ex. 1022 ¶ 42. Accordingly, the disclosures in Table 1 and the Specification support Dr. Almeroth’s testimony that a person of ordinary skill would have understood that “the claimed ‘determin[e/ing]’ limitation requires what it plainly recites: ‘determin[e/ing] whether the received response matches the expected response[]’. . . . [i]t does not require an unexpected response not known to the system.” Snap IPR, Ex. 1022 ¶ 51.” slip op. at 18

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

    “time,’ ‘type of location,’ and other contextual information to automatically determine whether users would like to undertake learning activities.” Twitter Pet. Reply 18 (citing Twitter IPR, Ex. 1005, 2 3, 5 (“A check . . . to see if the information from the database corresponds with the location sensor (i.e. a check on whether the learner is really keeping his/her schedule).”), Fig.1; Twitter IPR, Ex. 1025 ¶ 49; Twitter IPR, Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 85, 157–162, 238, 435, 451, 517; Twitter Pet. 20–21). Accordingly, the evidence of record support that Yau teaches that context triggers the display of a content piece, such as an exercise/test/quiz. Patent Owner also argues that Twitter asserts that PALLES’ content piece is “‘exercise[s],’ ‘test[s],’ and/or ‘MP Quiz[zes],’” but also contends that Yau’s “formal assessment” is the claimed content piece. Twitter PO Resp. 32. Patent Owner argues that “Twitter points back to its limitation 12.1 PALLAS evidence for the purported ‘content piece’” and also does not mention Yau for limitation 12.5 and 12.6 and “only conclusorily states that ‘PALLAS in view of Yau renders obvious triggering an exercise/test/quiz.’” Id. Patent Owner’s arguments overlook Twitter’s assertion, with Dr. Turnbull’s supporting testimony, that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that Yau’s formal assessments are “tests with answers for comparing against learner’s responses to assess knowledge/performance/skill (contrasting with ‘un-assessed’ exercises whose responses are unchecked).” Twitter Pet. 43; Twitter IPR, Ex. 1003 ¶ 154. Further, Patent Owner overlooks Petitioner’s assertion that it is implementing PALLAS’s context-triggerbased content display using Yau’s teachings of displaying assessments/questions based on context. Twitter Pet. 43. Patent Owner also asserts that in the PALLAS-Yau combination, Twitter does not explain how a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the prior art in the manner Petitioner alleges. Twitter PO Resp. 42. Patent Owner argues that “PALLAS says nothing about forcing quizzes, tests, or exercises on its users without the users asking for such exercises,” and a person of skill would understand that the combined system still requires that a student select a learning activity and that PALLAS’s system should be unobtrusive because learners “may have small time slots to engage in learning.” Id. (citing Twitter IPR, Ex. 2013 ¶ 168; Twitter IPR, Ex. 1004, 54). Patent Owner further contends that “Twitter’s conclusory, hindsight-driven statements” do not suffice and PALLAS teaches away from the modifications suggested by Twitter. Id. at 42–43 (citing Twitter IPR, Ex. 2013 ¶ 144). Patent Owner argues that because a learner may not have time to complete a test, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not be motivated to change PALLAS to trigger exercises/tests/quizzes based on location or time. Id. at 43 (citing Twitter IPR, Ex. 2013 ¶¶ 142–144). The evidence of record does not support Patent Owner’s arguments.” slip op. at 115

  • ScopeMotion to amend, grantedGranted

    “2. Enlarging Scope of Claims Patent Owner asserts that it proposes narrowing limitations in direct response to the grounds of unpatentability involved in this proceeding. See, e.g., Snap Mot. 3–4. Facebook argues Patent Owner is “improperly attempting to enlarge the scope of the original claims.” Facebook Pet. Opp. 1. Facebook asserts, “[i]f ‘an expected response’ means one or more expected responses, therefore, determining whether the received response ‘matches the expected response’ means that the received response must match [all of] the one or more previously-recited expected responses in the content package.” Id. at 3 (emphasis omitted). Facebook then argues “the term ‘predefined response’ is broader than ‘expected response,’” because “an ‘expected response’ does not include any conceivable or possible response; it is a response that is expected.” Id. at 4–5 (emphasis omitted). Twitter argues that “‘predefined response’ is broader than ‘expected response’ because a ‘predefined response’ can include any possible response as long as that response has been somehow defined in advance.” Twitter Pet. Opp. 2. We consider the amendments in view of the claim as a whole. Although the term “one predefined response” may be broader than “an expected response,” we also consider the amended portion “wherein the received response is expected if the received response matches one or more of the at least one predefined response,” and “the received response is unexpected if the received response does not match any of the at least one predefined response.” Unless the response had been predefined within the content package, any “received response” could not be considered “expected” under the claims, and the additional clause requires a match of the response with the predefined response to be deemed “expected.” This equates to an equivalent scope to the original claim. This is consistent with Dr. Martin’s testimony, which we credit, that he is not aware of a situation where the substitute but not original claims are infringed because “[t]he substitute claims would only be satisfied when a ‘predefined response’ in the substitute claims is an ‘expected response’ in the original claims.” Facebook IPR, Ex. 2023 ¶ 59.” slip op. at 136

  Patent outcomesUS 8,489,599 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 101 eligibility§ 103 obviousnesscites Alice · Mayo · Bilski · Electric Power · Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,489,599
• Nautilus Hyosung Inc. v. Diebold Nixdorf, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Aug 14, 2017 · CBM2016-00034 · APJ Barbara A Benoit · CBM · Final written decision

  Claims 1–24 are unpatentable under § 101; claims 1–3 and 5 are also anticipated by Riach, and specified claims are obvious over combinations of Riach, Graf, Gustin, and Anderson.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “For these reasons, we determine that claim 20—its focus and its” slip op. at 37

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

    “For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that claim 20 is directed to an” slip op. at 52

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

    “encompasses Riach’s process that copies a portion (but not all) of the original check image data to produce the required modified check image data. Accordingly, we agree that the portion of Riach on which Petitioner relies discloses step (b) of claim 1 that requires, among other limitations, the modified check image data not include at least some visual feature data included in the check image data. Pet. 30 (relying on Ex. 1008, 5:16–30, Figs. 4, 7).” slip op. at 73

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

    “several elements is not proved obvious merely by demonstrating that each of its elements was, independently, known in the prior art.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418. Rather, “it can be important to identify a reason that would have prompted a person of ordinary skill in the relevant field to combine the elements in the way the claimed new invention does.” Apple, 839 F.3d at 1058 (quoting KSR, 550 U.S. at 418–19); see also KSR, 550 U.S. at 418 (“[T]here must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.”) (quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)).” slip op. at 89

  Patent outcomesUS 7,314,163 unpatentable
  § 101 eligibility§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Alice · Mayo · Bilski · Enfish · Electric Power · Phillips · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,314,163
• Google Inc. v. Patrick ZuiliAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Apr 24, 2017 · CBM2016-00008 · APJ Stacey G White · CBM · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 5, 9, and 11 are unpatentable under § 101 and obvious over IAB 1 and IAB 2; claims 5 and 11 are also obvious over IAB 1, IAB 2, and Laurent.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “a first code on the server side computing device . . . sending said first code to said at least one device over a communication network. PO Resp. 144. According to Patent Owner, Petitioner “inconsistently pointed [] to cookies as constituting a first code,” and Patent Owner alleges that this is insufficient because claim 1 does not discuss cookies. Id. at 146. Patent Owner contends that Petitioner has equated code generation with cookies and that is improper because cookies are used only to store the code after it has been generated. Id. We do not agree with Patent Owner’s analysis. Petitioner’s declarant, Stephen Gray, asserts that “[c]ookies are set by servers that store the cookie in the client. That cookie is then transmitted back from the client to the server upon subsequent accesses by the user to the origin server that set the cookie.” Ex. 1006 ¶ 60. Gray opines that one of ordinary skill in the art would have known that “when a user clicks a cookie-enabled website, a cookie is generated on the server and this cookie is stored on the client computer along with all of the information.” Ex. 1006 ¶ 105. We find that this comports with IAB 1’s description of measuring the number of visits to a web site by using a “Unique Cookie with Heuristic.” Ex. 1004, 5. IAB 1’s server stores “a small piece of information with a browser.” Id. IAB 2 notes that “[t]he web server responds to the user browser by checking for an existing cookie and creating one if one does not exist.” Ex. 1005, 27 (emphasis added). As described in the IAB references, cookies are designed to be unique to each browser, or if possible, the cookies should be unique to each user. Ex. 1004, 5, Ex. 1005, 21–22, 27. We find that these disclosures from IAB 1 and IAB 2 would have taught one of ordinary skill in the art the claimed first code.” slip op. at 32

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

    “analyze patentability using the broadest reasonable construction of the claims in light of the specification. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2144–46 (2016) (upholding the use of the broadest reasonable interpretation standard under 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b)). Neither party makes an explicit claim construction argument in the proceeding. See generally PO Resp., Reply. For purposes of this Final Written Decision, we determine that no claim terms require express construction. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“[O]nly those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.”).” slip op. at 17

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

    “Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (citation omitted). Thus, we must determine whether the claims are directed to “longstanding conduct that existed well before the advent of computers and the Internet.” Id. at 1327. What we are presented with is a system for marking the occurrence of two events and making a determination about the validity of the second occurrence based on the time elapsed between occurrences. We find that this is a longstanding business practice as exemplified by Petitioner’s pharmacy example. See Pet. 47. Patent Owner asserts that the ’057 patent is different from the sort of fraud detection that may be performed by a pharmacist because the challenged claims are “able to handle millions of clicks in real time whether from the same or different users.” PO Resp. 90. We do not agree. The claims recite only two data points, a time associated with click one and a time associated with click two. Thus, a pharmacist comparing the dates or times for two prescription requests is performing the same comparison as the one recited in the claims. There is no requirement in the claims that the system be able to handle millions of data points. Further, there is no discussion of the determination being made in real time and to the contrary the specification states that “by observing a metric like the number of clicks for a given period of time, be it a short time or a longer period, such as a day or a week, the system can automatically determine if certain clicks are illegitimate.” Ex. 1001, 2:64‒3:2. In addition, while the claims recite the creation of codes and encoded codes none of this is used by the claimed method to perform its determination. That data merely is sent from one place to another while the system marks the time associated with a click. The only information used in the determination is the time of the two clicks. The claims are not directed to improving the function of the computer or its associated software; instead, they are directed to using a computer to perform a well-known business task. See Bancorp Servs., LLC v. Sun Life Assurance Co., 687 F.3d 1266, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“[T]he fact that the required calculations could be performed more efficiently via a computer does not materially alter the patent eligibility of the claimed subject matter.”). Therefore, we are persuaded that the challenged claims are directed to a longstanding economic task and not to an improvement to the computer functionality itself. Cf. Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2016). For all of the foregoing reasons, we find that Petitioner has established that claims 1, 5, 9, and 11 are directed to an abstract idea.” slip op. at 23

  Patent outcomesUS 8,671,057 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 101 eligibility§ 103 obviousnesscites Alice · Mayo · Enfish
  Patents in suitUS 8,671,057
• Ultratec, Inc. v. Captioncall, L.L.C.Institution denied
  PTAB · Feb 22, 2017 · PGR2016-00037 · APJ Barbara A Benoit · PGR · Institution

  The Board denied institution on all challenged claims because the petition did not show that any claim was more likely than not unpatentable under § 101 or § 103.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “review of claims 1–23 of U.S. Patent No. 9,197,745 B1 (Ex. 1001, “the ’745 patent” or “the challenged patent”). Paper 1 (“Pet.”). Patent Owner, CaptionCall, L.L.C., filed a Preliminary Response. Paper 9 (“Prelim. Resp.”). We have authority to determine whether to institute a post-grant review. 35 U.S.C. § 324; 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). The standard for instituting a post-grant review is set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 324(a), which provides that a post-grant review may be instituted only if “the information presented in the petition . . . demonstrate[s] that it is more likely than not that at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition is unpatentable.” 35 U.S.C. § 324(a). After considering the Petition and the Preliminary Response, we determine that the information presented in the Petition does not demonstrate it is more likely than not that at least one of the challenged claims is unpatentable. Accordingly, we do not institute a post-grant review.” slip op. at 2

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

    “interpreted according to their broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.200(b); see Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2144–46 (2016) (upholding the use of broadest reasonable construction standard in inter partes review9). Consistent with the broadest reasonable construction standard, claim terms are presumed to have their ordinary and customary meaning as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art in the context of the entire patent disclosure at the time of the invention. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Petitioner proposes constructions for “message” recited in claims 2, 4–8, and 12 and for “module” recited in claims 2–6 and 8. Pet. 9–11. Patent Owner challenges Petitioner’s proposed claim constructions as overly narrow. Prelim. Resp. 8–9. We determine, however, that no claim terms need express construction for this decision.” slip op. at 9

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

    “We agree with Patent Owner (Prelim. Resp. 12) that claim 1, as a whole, is directed to an apparatus that facilitates voice communication and captioned text communication using a relay for hearing-impaired users over one or more communications networks and, under specified circumstances— when captioning has been enabled by the hearing-impaired user and the system determines that an attempted connection has failed—automatically reconnects to a captioning communication service. In other words, the claim is directed to a communication device that automatically reconnects to a captioning communication service following an unwanted interruption to the 12 captioning communication service in certain circumstances. See Ex. 1001, 1:13–16 (describing the field of the disclosure as relating to a communication device that automatically reconnects to the captioning communication service “following an unwanted interruption to the captioning communication session”). We determine that claim 1 as a whole is not directed to redialing a telephone as “callers have performed for as long as there have been telephones.” See Pet. 20. Moreover, the claim is directed to an apparatus having communication elements and a processor, and requires two connections and captioning, which, taken as a whole, distinguish claim 1 from a conventional telephone and further supports our determination that the claim merely involves, but is not directed to, the concept of reconnection or redialing. Moreover, looking at the elements individually, claim 1 requires communication elements coupled with a processor configured to able to connect a communication device and connect with a captioning session over two connections. Claim 1 recites a function—“automatically connect with the captioning communication service through a second connection to establish a captioning communication session during the voice communication session responsive to a determination that an attempted connection to the captioning communication service failed during a time in which a caption select option has been enabled by the hearing-impaired user, wherein the attempted automatic connection through the second connection is not made during a time in which the caption select option has been 13 disabled by the hearing-impaired user”—which requires more than “redialing” a telephone. See Prelim. Resp. 11–12. Specifically, the claimed apparatus only performs the “automatically connect” function if three conditions are met: (i) responsive to a determination that an attempted connection to the captioning communication service failed (ii) during a time in which a caption select option has been enabled by the hearing-impaired user, and (iii) “the attempted automatic connection through the second connection is not made during a time in which the caption select option has been disabled by the hearing-impaired user.”” slip op. at 12

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable

    “excerpts from Parker as purportedly describing aspects of the automatically reconnect limitation. Id. at 40–42. Petitioner does not assert that either the Ultratec User Guide or Parker alone would have conveyed to one of ordinary skill in the art the automatically connect function with the three conditional limitations (id.), nor is such an assertion required under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Petitioner is required under 35 U.S.C. § 103, however, to explain how the combination of the references would have conveyed to one of ordinary skill 25 in the art the recited automatically connect function with its three conditional limitations. Petitioner has not provided such an explanation, much less adequate analysis by Mr. Zatkovich or factual support as to how one of ordinary skill in the art would understand the separate disclosures of the references to teach the automatically connect limitations. Specifically absent from the Petition is any discussion as to how Petitioner’s combination of references would have conveyed to one of ordinary skill in the art the limitations of automatically connecting under the required conditions—the failed attempt limitation, the when-enabled limitation, and the when-not-disabled limitation. Petitioner’s combination relies on Parker’s reconnection function to establish a lost persistent connection, but Parker’s reconnection function does not do so conditionally, much less under the specific conditions required by claim 1. Petitioner does not explain how the combination of Parker’s unconditional reconnection function would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art to retry conditionally based on whether the Ultratec User Guide’s caption button was enabling captioning and had not been disabled by the caption telephone user. Furthermore, Petitioner contends that “adding an auto-retry and/or auto-reconnect feature as in Parker to a captioned telephone device as disclosed in [the Ultratec User Guide and Engelke] would amount to simply adding a known technique to a known system, wherein the technique operates in the same way as it was already known to operate and dos not have any unpredictable result.” Pet. 34. As such, Petitioner’s combination 26 expressly relies on Parker’s auto-retry and/or auto-reconnect feature “as in Parker,” which is an unconditional retry in the event of a lost connection. In sum, neither reference by itself describes the automatically reconnect limitation and Petitioner fails to articulate how one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood the claimed automatic reconnect in view of the cited disparate disclosures from the references. “[A] patent composed of several elements is not proved obvious merely by demonstrating that each of its elements was, independently, known in the prior art.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). Petitioner asserts in a conclusory manner that the combination of a teaching of a button to enable or disable captioning with a teaching of automatic reconnection unrelated to whether captioning is enabled or disabled would have conveyed to one of ordinary skill in the art the automatic reconnection limitation. Petitioner fails to provide adequate explanation or factual support. This flaw of the Petition is particularly problematic when the threshold for institution is “more likely than not,” as here, rather than the threshold of “a reasonable likelihood” required to institute an inter partes review. Compare 35 U.S.C. § 324(a), with 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).” slip op. at 25

  Claim construction§ 101 eligibility§ 103 obviousnesscites Alice · Mayo · Enfish · KSR
  Patents in suitUS 9,197,745
• Amazon.Com, Inc. / Amazon Web Services, LLC v. Personalized Media Communications, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 24, 2016 · IPR2014-01530 · APJ Trenton A Ward · IPR · Final written decision

  Claim 6 is unpatentable under § 103 over Higgins and Metcalfe and over Furukawa; the contingent motion to amend with substitute claim 30 is denied.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “implementation of communications systems and controlling these systems (or similar types of systems) through the use of computer technology.” Ex. 1001 ¶ 33. Patent Owner’s declarant, Dr. Samuel H. Russ (“Dr. Russ”) stated that, a person of ordinary skill in the art relevant to the ’956 patent would have had a bachelor’s degree in digital electronics, electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, and two to five years of post-degree experience in a similar field. Ex. 2018 ¶ 27. Thus, the parties’ assessments of the level of ordinary skill in the art are roughly equivalent. Based on our review of the ’956 patent, the types of problems and solutions described in the ’956 patent and cited prior art, and the testimony of Petitioner’s declarant and Patent Owner’s declarant, we adopt Patent Owner’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention. We note that the applied prior art also reflects the appropriate level of skill at the time of the claimed invention. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). slip op. at 13

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

    “instructed that “claims should always be read in light of the specification and teachings in the underlying patent.” PO Resp. 12 (emphasis omitted) (quoting Microsoft Corp. v. Proxyconn, Inc., 789 F.3d 1292, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2015)). Furthermore, the specification “is the single best guide to the meaning of a disputed term.” Translogic Tech., 504 F.3d at 1257 (quoting Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1315). Accordingly, we must construe the term “module” for claim 6 of the ’956 patent in light of the disclosure in the ’956 patent specification regarding “modules.” In accordance with the ’956 patent specification, there are various types of modules, such as program modules, object modules, and data modules; thus, the general term “module” cannot be construed to be limited to one of these types of modules. Patent Owner acknowledges that the ’956 patent specification discloses a “data module” as a type of “module.” PO Resp. 15 (citing Ex. 1003, 248:58–249:30). Patent Owner fails, however, to persuasively explain how the disclosed “data module” would meet its proposed definition of a “module” being “a discrete unit of a larger computer program . . . .” For example, it is unclear how a “data module” containing the “particular cost-of-a-trimmed-pork-belly-unit” (Ex. 1003, 189:4–9) constitutes a discrete unit of larger computer program. Patent Owner fails to cite any disclosure in the specification of the ’956 patent that restricts a “module” to be “a discrete unit of a larger computer program.” Although the specification of the ’956 patent does not limit modules to be a discrete unit of a larger computer program, the specification does disclose that each type of module, including program modules, object modules, and data modules, is executed by a computer to perform a specific function. See Ex. 1003, 186:10–17, 188:35–37, 188:59–61. For example, with respect to one embodiment of the data module, the ’956 patent specification discloses that “[e]xecuting the information of said intermediate generation set causes computer, 73, also to generate a particular associated data module.” Id. at 188:59–61. Similarly, with respect to one embodiment of the object module, the ’956 patent specification discloses that “computer, 73, compiles the information of said instance and places the resulting so-called ‘object module’ at particular memory.” Id. at 188:35–37. Likewise, with respect to one embodiment of the program module, the ’956 patent specification discloses that computer 73 compiles “formula-and-item-of-this-transmission information into a machine language program module; and . . . link[s] said module to other program modules.” Id. at 186:10–17. Accordingly, we are persuaded to modify our initial construction of “module” in the Decision on Institution as “a discrete unit of digital data” (Dec. to Inst. 8) to incorporate being executed by a computer to perform a specific function. Therefore, we construe the term “module,” in view of the specification of the ’956 patent, as “a discrete unit of digital data that is executed and/or processed to perform a specific function.” We note that a discrete unit of digital data can be a set of commands or instructions that can be executed and/or processed to perform a specific function.” slip op. at 8

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

    “subscriber specific action in respect to said problem or interest.” Petitioner argues that the “recommending” limitation not be assigned patentable weight as printed matter. Pet. 6 (citing In re Huai-Hung Kao, 639 F.3d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 2011) and MPEP § 2111.05). In Kao, the Federal Circuit determined that the printed matter doctrine applied because there was “no functional relationship” between the disputed limitations (Kao, 630 F.3d 1073), but here the “recommending” step in claim 6 requires outputting the “subscriber specific action” in “video, audio, or print.” Therefore, we are not persuaded by Petitioner that the printed matter doctrine is applicable to the “recommending” step in claim 6. Patent Owner argues, regarding this “recommending” step, the term “recommend” should be construed to mean “to suggest a choice or a course of action.” PO Resp. 19.4 In support of its proposal, Patent Owner cites two dictionary definitions of the term “recommend.” PO Resp. 20 (citing Exs. 2006, 2007). The first definition, from Cambridge Dictionaries, defines “recommend” as “to suggest that someone or something would be good or suitable for a particular job or purpose, or to suggest that a particular action should be done.” Ex. 2006, 1. The second definition, from the American College Dictionary, defines “recommend” as “to advise a person, etc. to do something.” Ex. 2007, 3. The specification of the ’956 patent uses the term “recommended” to describe a proposed planting plan for minimum cost and maximum revenue: When accessed, the instructions of said module cause a microcomputer, 205, to analyze any given crop planting plan and generate information of a recommended planting plan and growing method that minimizes the expense of insect and other crop pest damage given maximum revenue. Ex. 1003, 275:11–16. We determine the dictionary definitions of “recommend” comport with the use of that term in the specification ’956 patent and with the ordinary and customary meaning, as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. See In re Translogic Tech, 504 F.3d at 1257. Therefore, we are persuaded by Patent Owner’s proposed definition. Accordingly, we construe the claim 6 limitation of “recommending in outputted video, audio, or print subscriber specific action in respect to said problem or interest” to mean “suggesting a 4 We note that claim 6 does not include the term “recommend” but recites “recommending.” choice or a course of action in outputted video, audio, or print subscriber specific action in respect to said problem or interest.”” slip op. at 10

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

    “teach the claim 6 step of “generating at least a portion of a module including said selected generally applicable information.” PO Resp. 33. Specifically, Patent Owner argues that the proposed combination fails to teach generating a module that is a “discrete unit of a larger computer program that is executed and/or processed to perform a specific function,” in accordance with Patent Owner’s proposed construction of “module.” Id. As discussed above, we do not adopt Patent Owner’s construction of “module” but construe “module” as “a discrete unit of digital data that is executed and/or processed to perform a specific function.” Petitioner proposes that the generation of an Ethernet packet according to Metcalfe would result in a “module including said selected generally applicable information” to communicate the trade information disclosed in Higgins from a branch computer to a work station. Pet. 28–29 (citing Ex. 1001 ¶¶ 75–78, 89, 95– 96; Ex. 1007, 3:1–3; Ex. 1009, 395). Petitioner argues that this packet is generated at the branch computer before it is transmitted to the work stations. Ex. 1001 ¶¶ 94, 96. In view of Higgins’s disclosure of regarding the processing of the trade information, including the stock symbol, prices of the stock, and volume traded (Ex. 1007, 4:45–49, 2:24–47), to generate a price limit alert to be displayed on the work station CRT in Higgins (Ex. 1007, Fig. 2), we determine that Higgins in view of Metcalfe teaches or suggests “generating at least a portion of a module including said selected generally applicable information,” wherein a “module” is construed to mean “a discrete unit of digital data that is executed and/or processed to perform a specific function.”” slip op. at 21

  Patent outcomesUS 7,864,956 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 101 eligibility§ 103 obviousnesscites Alice · Mayo · Bilski · Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,864,956
• Amazon.Com, Inc. / Amazon Web Services, LLC v. Personalized Media Communications, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 22, 2016 · IPR2014-01534 · APJ Georgianna W Braden · IPR · Final written decision

  Claim 9 is unpatentable as obvious over either Monat or Calo; the motion to amend with substitute claim 22 is denied because Patent Owner did not establish its patentability under § 101.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownOther

    “Based on our review of the ’587 patent, the types of problems and solutions described in the ’587 patent and cited prior art, the testimony of Petitioner’s declarant, and the testimony of Patent Owner’s declarant, we find that a person of skill in the art relevant to the ’587 patent would have had a Bachelor of Science in Electrical Engineering or a closely related field and at least two to five years of post-degree experience in a similar field. We note that the applied prior art reflects the appropriate level of skill at the time of the claimed invention. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 23

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

    “explicitly the term “incomplete processor instructions,” and the embodiments in Examples Nos. 93 and 10, as discussed by Patent Owner, do not use or recite the term “incomplete processor instructions.” See Ex. 1002, 183:1–220:21. In fact, the term is not used in the specification except in claims 9 and 10. Although, the embodiments in Examples Nos. 9 and 10 as cited by Patent Owner are instructive, we are unpersuaded by Patent Owner’s argument that claim construction should only be guided by those examples and not by the specification in its entirety, especially in light of the patent applicant’s statements during the prosecution the ’587 patent discussed above. Rather, the disclosure in the ’587 patent teaches embodiments that use the word “incomplete” to refer to commands, signals or other instructions that are not yet in the form in which they will be transmitted to a subscriber station. See id. at 28:34–49. Specifically, the specification discloses that “[i]n a system that communicates information only in words that are multiples of eight, a signal whose information is represented in twenty-one” slip op. at 17

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

    “claimed invention and any commercial success or industry praise. Patent Owner also failed to demonstrate a long-felt but unmet need for the claimed invention. We, thus, find that the evidence of objective indicia of nonobviousness is insufficient to overcome the evidence of obviousness over Monat. f. Conclusion of Analysis Regarding Monat For the foregoing reasons, and weighing the evidence as a whole, Petitioner has proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Monat teaches all elements of challenged claim 9 of the ’587 patent. We determine the record supports Petitioner’s contentions as summarized above and adopt the supported contentions as our own. Furthermore, we conclude that understanding Monat’s teachings as it applies to claim 9 would have been within the level of ordinary skill in the art, as evidenced by the prior art of record. We, therefore, determine that claim 9 would have been obvious at the time of the invention, and thus, is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103.” slip op. at 45

  • Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › NexusObjective indicia no nexusDecided for petitioner

    “Media, Patent Owner has done little more than cite to the declaration of Mr. Gerald Holtzman, which lists licenses and their respective sales revenue. See PO Resp. 50–51 (citing Ex. 2008). The cited testimony of Mr. Holtzman only details the revenues for each license and does not establish whether the licensing program was successful because of the merits of the claimed invention, the merits of other patented inventions, or for other economic reasons, such as to avoid litigation or because of prior business relationships. See Ex. 2008 ¶¶ 8–27; see also Antor Media, 689 F.3d at 1294 (affirming Board’s finding that evidence of existence of licenses was insufficient to overcome prima facie case of obviousness). Additionally, Mr. Holtzman’s testimony lists patent family licenses and revenue, but does not discuss the merits of any of the challenged claims as they relate to any particular license for the ’587 patent in the portfolio of licenses. See PO Resp. 50 (citing Ex. 2008). We, therefore, find that the evidence provided by Patent Owner does not establish a sufficient link between the merits of the invention claimed in the ’587 patent and the taking of the noted licenses. Although, Mr. Holtzman notes that some of the provided licenses were taken in situations where there was pending litigation against the licensee (Ex. 2008 ¶ 14), he does not address whether litigation had been threatened against other licensing parties. Furthermore, evidence of $350M in licensing revenue alone is not enough to show commercial success, because Patent Owner must relate that figure to the overall market. In re Baxter Travenol Labs, 952 F.2d 388, 392 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (“Information solely on numbers of units sold is insufficient to establish commercial success.”); see also In re Huang, 100 F.3d 135, 140 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (“Declining to find evidence of commercial success because ‘[a]though [the inventor’s] affidavit certainly indicates that many units have been sold, it provides no indication of whether this represents a substantial quantity in this market.’”). We, therefore, cannot determine whether the licenses reflect the commercial value of the invention claimed in the ’587 patent, or whether they were taken merely to avoid the cost of litigation, either pending or threatened. Absent a persuasive showing of nexus, Patent Owner’s evidence of licensing fails to establish commercial success. Accordingly, we give little weight to Patent Owner’s argument that its licensing program is evidence that the claims are not obvious.” slip op. at 41

  Patent outcomesUS 7,827,587 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 101 eligibility§ 103 obviousnesscites Alice · Mayo · Bilski · Phillips · Markman · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,827,587
• Amazon.Com, Inc. / Amazon Web Services, LLC v. Personalized Media Communications, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 8, 2016 · IPR2014-01533 · APJ Georgianna W Braden · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 2, 3, 9–13, 18, 24, 49, 52, and 53 are unpatentable as obvious over Powell and Guillou; the motion to amend substitute claims 56–67 is denied.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “We agree with Petitioner’s position. Particularly, we credit the testimony of Petitioner’s witness, Mr. Anthony J. Wechselberger, who explains that Campbell, Block, and Furukawa teach “force” or “automatic” tuning of a receiver, i.e., “sending a signal that forces a receiver to tune to a particular channel” and that such technology was well-known in 1981. Ex. 1035 ¶¶ 122–125. Patent Owner and Patent Owner’s expert, Dr. Weaver, also acknowledged that Furukawa teaches that a television system in which a signal is received from a central facility that causes the television to tune to a different channel. Mot. 15 (stating that “Furukawa describes the operation of a spot channel wherein a television set receiving any channel may be forced by a central facility to receive a spot channel”); PO Reply to Opp. 3 (discussing prior art “disclosure of the ‘automatic channel tuning’ feature which [Patent Owner] has already acknowledged in Furukawa”); Ex. 1038, 137:11–24, 140:16–21, 145:1–11. Patent Owner’s witness testified that “[a] person of ordinary skill in the art before 1981 would have known that you could send a signal to a properly equipped and responsive television and make it change channels.” Ex. 1038, 136:19–24. Additionally, other references (i.e., Hartung and Cogswell) that disclose “automatic channel tuning” are cited in the prosecution history of the ’749 patent. PO Reply to Opp. 3 (citing Exs. 1045, 1046). According to Patent Owner, these references describe “the state of the art.” Id. Thus, we are satisfied that “automatic channel tuning,” as taught by Campbell, Block, and Furukawa, was known to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention of the ’749 patent. Although Patent Owner argues that applying such “automatic channel tuning” to digital television systems (rather than using analog television systems) would have been difficult and that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to use such technology to change channels and to send encrypted digital data (Mot. 20–23; PO Reply to Opp. 10–11), we are not persuaded given the state of the art as shown by Guillou, discussed in detail previously. Guillou discloses the decryption of digital data (Ex. 2014 ¶ 85) and explains that such technology “could be applied to other systems without difficulty for the man skilled in the art, and notably to the CEEFAX or ORACLE systems or the VIEWDATA or PRESTEL systems” (Ex. 1022, 21:23–28). The Ceefax, Oracle, Viewdata, and Prestel systems are analog systems that send signals over television channels or telephone lines. Therefore, we are satisfied that a person of skill in the art would have had reason to use “automatic channel tuning” and apply digital encryption technology in order to “transmit messages to a receiver station on a first communication channel that, when processed by the receiver station, causes the receiver station to connect [to] a communication channel different from the first channel to receive encrypted programming or data.” Accordingly, we find that Patent Owner has not demonstrated the patentability of proposed substitute claims 56–62.” slip op. at 37

  • BurdenUnpatentable

    “We disagree with Patent Owner’s contentions, because (1) we agree with Petitioner’s explanation of why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the teachings of Powell and Guillou, and (2) we agree with Petitioner’s arguments regarding the collective teachings of Powell and Guillou from the perspective of one of ordinary skill in the art. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 420 (“[F]amiliar items may have obvious uses beyond their primary purpose, and in many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle.”). To the contrary, we agree with Petitioner’s contentions with respect to claim 2 and adopt them as our own. We specifically credit the testimony of Mr. Slinn that a skilled artisan would have looked to the teachings of Guillou in combination with Powell in an attempt to solve the problem of controlling access to content and providing billing opportunities for content (even advertising content) accessible via a videotext system and address the same problem–control and management of those communications. See Ex. 1004 ¶ 100. We also are satisfied that Petitioner has shown that one of skill in the art would have had the ability to apply the teachings of Guillou to Powell, because Guillou specifically states that its methods are applicable to the Prestel system discussed in Powell “without any difficulty for the man skilled in the art.” Ex. 1022, 21:23–28. Such points weigh in favor of finding that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have “fit the teachings” of Guillou and Powell together to render the challenged claims obvious. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 420 (“Under the correct analysis, any need or problem known in the field of endeavor at the time of invention and addressed by the patent can provide a reason for combining the elements in the manner claimed.”).” slip op. at 16

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

    “We disagree with Patent Owner’s contentions, because (1) we agree with Petitioner’s explanation of why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the teachings of Powell and Guillou, and (2) we agree with Petitioner’s arguments regarding the collective teachings of Powell and Guillou from the perspective of one of ordinary skill in the art. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 420 (“[F]amiliar items may have obvious uses beyond their primary purpose, and in many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle.”). To the contrary, we agree with Petitioner’s contentions with respect to claim 2 and adopt them as our own. We specifically credit the testimony of Mr. Slinn that a skilled artisan would have looked to the teachings of Guillou in combination with Powell in an attempt to solve the problem of controlling access to content and providing billing opportunities for content (even advertising content) accessible via a videotext system and address the same problem–control and management of those communications. See Ex. 1004 ¶ 100. We also are satisfied that Petitioner has shown that one of skill in the art would have had the ability to apply the teachings of Guillou to Powell, because Guillou specifically states that its methods are applicable to the Prestel system discussed in Powell “without any difficulty for the man skilled in the art.” Ex. 1022, 21:23–28. Such points weigh in favor of finding that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have “fit the teachings” of Guillou and Powell together to render the challenged claims obvious. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 420 (“Under the correct analysis, any need or problem known in the field of endeavor at the time of invention and addressed by the patent can provide a reason for combining the elements in the manner claimed.”). Moreover, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference. In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Rather, “the test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those having ordinary skill in the art.” See id. (citing In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981)). Thus, Patent Owner’s contentions regarding backward compatibility are not persuasive and fail to show that a skilled artisan would have been discouraged from combining the teachings of the cited references in the manner claimed.” slip op. at 16

  • Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › NexusObjective indicia no nexusNot shown unpatentable

    “We are not persuaded. In cases in which the proffered evidence of commercial success is licenses, rather than sales of products embodying the invention, there is a danger that the licenses may have been taken only because they were a less costly alternative to defending an infringement suit. See EWP Corp. v. Reliance Universal Inc., 755 F.2d 898, 908 (Fed. Cir. 1985). In such situations, nexus between the commercial success and the patent cannot be inferred; rather, “affirmative evidence of nexus” is required. Iron Grip Barbell Co. v. USA Sports, Inc., 392 F.3d 1317, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2004). In other words, a patent owner must demonstrate “a nexus between the merits of the invention and the licenses of record”; otherwise the licenses are to be accorded little weight. In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d at 1580 (emphasis added) (citation omitted). Moreover, our reviewing court has held that “without a showing of [a] nexus, ‘the mere existence of . . . licenses is insufficient to overcome the conclusion of obviousness.’” In re Antor Media Corp., 689 F.3d 1282, 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting Iron Grip Barbell, 392 F.3d at 1324). Like the applicant in Antor Media, Patent Owner has done little more than cite to the declaration of Mr. Gerald Holtzman, which lists licenses and their respective sales revenue. See PO Resp. 52 (citing Ex. 2018). The cited testimony of Mr. Holtzman only details the revenues for each license and does not establish whether the licensing program was successful because of the merits of the claimed invention, the merits of other patented inventions, or for other economic reasons, such as to avoid litigation or because of prior business relationships. See Ex. 2018 ¶¶ 8–27; see also Antor Media, 689 F.3d at 1294 (affirming Board’s finding that evidence of existence of licenses was insufficient to overcome prima facie case of obviousness). We find that the evidence provided by Patent Owner does not establish a sufficient link between the merits of the invention claimed in the ’749 patent and the taking of the licenses. Although Mr. Holtzman notes that some of the provided licenses were taken in situations where there was pending litigation against the licensee (Ex. 2018 ¶ 14), he does not address whether litigation had been threatened against other licensing parties. Furthermore, evidence of $350M in licensing revenue alone is not enough to show commercial success, because Patent Owner must relate that figure to the overall market. In re Baxter Travenol Labs, 952 F.2d 388, 392 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (“Information solely on numbers of units sold is insufficient to establish commercial success.”); see also In re Huang, 100 F.3d at 140 (“Declining to find evidence of commercial success because ‘[a]though [the inventor’s] affidavit certainly indicates that many units have been sold, it provides no indication of whether this represents a substantial quantity in this market.’”). We, therefore, cannot determine whether the licenses reflect the commercial value of the invention claimed in the ’749 patent, or whether they were taken merely to avoid the cost of litigation, either pending or threatened. Absent a persuasive showing of nexus, Patent Owner’s evidence of licensing fails to establish commercial success. Accordingly, we give little weight to Patent Owner’s argument that its licensing program is evidence that the claims are not obvious.” slip op. at 26

  Patent outcomesUS 7,805,749 unpatentable
  § 101 eligibility§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,805,749
• The United States Postal Service (Usps) / The United States Of America, As Represented By The Postmaster General v. Return Mail, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 15, 2015 · CBM2014-00116 · APJ Kevin F Turner · CBM · Final written decision

  Claims 39–44 are unpatentable under § 101 because they claim the abstract idea of relaying mailing address data without significantly more; anticipation by 1997 ACS was not shown.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “II. ANALYSIS A. Claim Construction We construe all terms, whether or not expressly discussed here, using the broadest reasonable construction in light of the ’548 Patent specification. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.300(b); see also In re Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC, 93 F.3d 1268, 1278–80 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“Congress implicitly approved the broadest reasonable interpretation standard in enacting the AIA,” and “the standard was properly adopted by PTO regulation.”). During the pre-trial stage of this proceeding, the parties submitted their constructions for specific claim terms and we adopted constructions consistent with the constructions adopted by the U.S. Court of Federal Claims (Ex. 1011). Dec. 8–10. Return Mail does not dispute the constructions adopted. PO Resp. 16–27. Upon review of the parties’ explanations and supporting evidence before us, we discern no reason to modify our claim constructions set forth in the Decision on Institution with respect to these claim terms. Dec. 8–10. For convenience, our claim constructions are reproduced in the table below:” slip op. at 6

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

    “USPS has shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claim 39, as a whole, is directed to the processing of returned mail items, involving decoding information, obtaining an updated address, and electronically transmitting that updated address to a transferee. USPS has shown that the steps are directed to the abstract idea of relaying mailing address data, with the inclusion of an electrical transmission step. Regarding whether claim 39 includes limitations that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea of relaying mailing address data, per our claim construction, USPS has shown that the “decoding” step is “deciphering information into useable form,” but that does not necessarily bring it out of the realm of processes performed in the past by human beings. In fact, all of the claimed steps could be performed in the human mind, with the exception of the transmitting step. Additionally, USPS has shown that what the data might be deemed to represent to the human mind — e.g., “information indicating whether the sender wants a corrected address to be provided for the intended recipient” — does not substantially affect the underlying structure or function of the claim or any machine on which it is carried out. Consistent with USPS’s position, the ’548 Patent disclosure does not describe any particular hardware to perform the steps recited in claim 39, but refers merely in broad terms to generic computer hardware and software.” slip op. at 14

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

    “significantly more than the abstract idea of relaying mailing address data, per our claim construction, USPS has shown that the “decoding” step is “deciphering information into useable form,” but that does not necessarily bring it out of the realm of processes performed in the past by human beings. In fact, all of the claimed steps could be performed in the human mind, with the exception of the transmitting step. Additionally, USPS has shown that what the data might be deemed to represent to the human mind — e.g., “information indicating whether the sender wants a corrected address to be provided for the intended recipient” — does not substantially affect the underlying structure or function of the claim or any machine on which it is carried out. Consistent with USPS’s position, the ’548 Patent disclosure does not describe any particular hardware to perform the steps recited in claim 39, but refers merely in broad terms to generic computer hardware and software.” slip op. at 14

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “deciding between the proffered constructions of “[d]ecipher information into useable form” and “[c]onvert information into useable form,” the court concluded that “using the terms ‘decipher’ and ‘deciphered’ more closely follow the customary meaning of the terms and reflects the claim language. This is because decoding must operate on encoded data,” which is recognized in the term “decipher” but not in “convert.” Ex. 1011, 22–23. USPS contends that “the carrier converts into intelligible form the participant code and endorsement thereby performing the claimed ‘decoding.’” Pet. 45. However, we find no support within 1997 ACS that the carrier decodes or deciphers the participant code or endorsement because the carrier (a person) is merely reading those indicators. The indicator “ADRESS SERVICE REQUESTED” is merely read and there is no disclosure that the carrier decodes the participant code or the keyline. We disagree with Dr. Lubenow that the plain-English endorsements “meet the plain and ordinary meaning of the term ‘code.’” Ex. 1028 ¶ 18. As such, we are not persuaded that the carrier in 1997 ACS acts to decode encoded data on the returned mail items.” slip op. at 24

  Patent outcomesUS 6,826,548 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 101 eligibility§ 102 anticipationcites Alice · Mayo
  Patents in suitUS 6,826,548
• American Express Co. / American Express Travel Co. et al. v. Harvey LunenfeldAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 22, 2015 · CBM2014-00050 · APJ Frances L Ippolito · CBM · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 5, 15, 21, 31, and 35 are unpatentable under §§ 101 and 103; the contingent motion to amend is denied.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “C. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Patent Owner disagrees with Petitioner’s definition of PHOSITA” slip op. at 10

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

    “Accordingly, utilizing this framework, we analyze claims 1, 5, 15, 21, 31,” slip op. at 28

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

    “Accordingly, based on the evidence of record, we determine that the” slip op. at 35

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

    “1. Knowledge Broker is not a Metasearch Engine As discussed previously, we do not agree with Patent Owner’s assertion” slip op. at 57

  Patent outcomesUS 8,239,451 unpatentable
  § 101 eligibility§ 103 obviousnesscites Alice · Mayo · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,239,451
• SAP America, Inc. v. Lakshmi ArunachalamRehearing denied
  PTAB · May 22, 2015 · CBM2014-00018 · APJ Brian J Mcnamara · CBM · Rehearing

  The Board denied Patent Owner’s rehearing request, leaving claims 4–6 and 9–10 unpatentable based on the prior final written decision.

  RulingsRehearing decision

  • RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied

    “§ 42.6(a)(3). We consider only those arguments advanced in Patent Owner’s Request for Rehearing concerning subject matter Patent Owner contends we overlooked or misapprehended in our Final Written Decision. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). We are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument that we misapprehended or overlooked that the subject matter of the ’158 Patent is drawn to a technical solution to a technical problem because Patent Owner coined terms such as POSvc application, VAN service, object routing, service network, and VAN switch. Req. Rh’g. 3–4. We addressed these issues extensively in our Final Written Decision, noting that claim 1, from which claim 4 depends, is directed to a method of performing a transaction that includes providing a webpage for display, providing an application the user can select to access checking and savings accounts, accepting signals from an input device, and transferring funds. Final Dec. 14. We also addressed the terminology used in the claims and determined that none of these features changes the non-technological nature of the claim. Id. at 13–15. Patent Owner has not identified any matter that we overlooked or failed to apprehend on this issue.” slip op. at 5

  • Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step one — 'directed to'Not reached

    “In a conclusory fashion, Patent Owner states that we have erroneously applied the Supreme Court’s Decision in Alice Corp. Pty, Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014). Req. Rh’g. 15. However Patent Owner does not otherwise address our conclusion that claims 9 and 10 are unpatentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and does not explain how we misapplied the Court’s decision in Alice.” slip op. at 7

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached

    “Patent Owner takes a similar approach to our analysis of the prior art, stating that SFCU and Computerworld did not conduct real-time transactions and that Lawlor operates over phone lines. Id. at 15. However, the Request for Rehearing does not address our combinations of the art, i.e., Lawlor and Computerworld, Final Dec. 20–23, and EB and SFCU, id. at 23–26, along with CORBA 1 and CORBA 2, id. at 26–36. Patent Owner does not address the further combination with respect to claims 5 and 6 with SNMP.” slip op. at 7

  § 101 eligibility§ 103 obviousnesscites Alice
  Patents in suitUS 8,037,158

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.