- Meta Platforms, Inc. v. Sitnet, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Sep 8, 2025 · IPR2024-00530 · APJ Thu A Dang · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–16 are unpatentable as obvious; the Board denied the contingent motion to amend proposing substitute claims 17–32.
RulingsFinal written decision- Expert testimonyOther
“iv. Claim 1 Conclusion Based on the complete record presented, Petitioner has shown that Gage teaches all limitations of claim 1. Thus, we determine that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the subject matter of claim 1 would have been obvious over Gage. v. Independent claim 8 Independent claim 8 recites a method of “providing situation related information to a situation authority via a situational network,” wherein the method comprises “receiving, by a participant device, a roll call query soliciting a reply related to a status of a participant based on the participant being determined, by the situation authority, to be geographically proximate to the situation,” “receiving, by the participant device, a selection of a status response from the participant,” and “sending the status response to the central authority, wherein the status response is included in a roll call list.” Ex. 1001, 34:46–57. Petitioner generally refers to its contentions with respect to claim 1. Pet. 34–36. In particular, Petitioner contends that Gage teaches a subscriber device that communicates a status indicator to the disaster response system through a subscriber status reporting system that implements a “situational network” configured for use during disasters. Id. at 34 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 19, 25). Petitioner additionally contends that Gage’s “disaster response system” is a “situation authority” because the disaster response system detects an occurrence of a disaster affecting a region, receives and aggregates information related to the disaster, and then provides the information to various participants in the network. Id. (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 8–9, 21, 36, 45; Ex. 1003 ¶ 104). With respect to the “situational network” limitation, Patent Owner” slip op. at 39
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“1. “situational network” (claims 1, 8, 13) Patent Owner points out that the district court has already construed” slip op. at 12
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successUnpatentableMotivation foundUnpatentable
“viii. Ground 1 Conclusion In light of the above analysis, we determine that Petitioner’s evidence” slip op. at 46
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsMotion to amend, deniedDenied
“c. Conclusion on Petitioner’s Patentability Challenges based on Obviousness for Proposed Substitute Claims For the above reasons, we determine that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of evidence that the subject matter of proposed substitute claims 17–32 would have been unpatentable. IV. CONCLUSION9 For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that Petitioner has shown by a” slip op. at 82
Patent outcomesUS 9,877,345 unpatentableClaim construction§ 101 eligibility§ 103 obviousnesscites Alice · Mayo · Bilski · Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,877,345 - The Kroger Company / Brookshire Grocery Company v. Nexuscard, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Mar 27, 2017 · CBM2015-00183 · APJ Minn Chung · CBM · Final written decision
Claims 1–11 are unpatentable under § 101 because they claim the abstract idea of collecting, storing, and processing membership discount information without an inventive concept.
RulingsFinal written decision- Burden
“Upon considering all of the evidence of record, we are persuaded Petitioner has demonstrated by a preponderance of evidence that claims 1 and 11 fail to recite any elements that individually or as an ordered combination transform the claimed abstract idea into a patent-eligible application.” slip op. at 34
- Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)§112(f) appliesOther
“communication means” Claimed Function: “providing real time (1, 8, 11) 2, 3 communication between [a point of purchase] member merchant’s computer terminal and [a centralized] provider’s computer” Corresponding Structure: a cash register with a communication capability, a credit card verification machine, a terminal, or a scanner, and equivalents “memory storage means” Claimed Function: “containing at least . . . (1, 11) consumer identification code” Corresponding Structure: a magnetic stripe on a card, and equivalents slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownOther
“real time “communication without intentional delay, communication” (1, 7, 11) given the processing limitations of the system and the time required to effect the communication” See Dec. on Inst. 8–11. The parties do not dispute these interpretations in their Patent Owner Response and Reply. For this Final Written Decision, after considering the complete record, we see no reason to deviate from those constructions and, therefore, maintain our constructions as set forth above. slip op. at 9
- Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step one — 'directed to'Step1 directed to exceptionUnpatentable
“Under the approach described in Alice and further explained in Enfish, Internet Patents, and Electric Power Group, we are persuaded by Petitioner’s argument and evidence that claims 1 and 11 are directed to an abstract idea. As discussed above, Petitioner has shown that the claims recite a process to “collect, store, and process information about consumer memberships, merchants, manufacturers, and sales transactions” (Pet. 34), a process that qualifies as an “abstract idea” (id. at 71) of “conventional information processing” in the retail industry (id. at 72), for which conventional components, such as a magnetic stripe scanner, computers, and databases, are merely invoked as tools used in their ordinary and conventional manner (Pet. Reply 8–11). In Electric Power Group, the Federal Circuit explained that the “the realm of abstract ideas” includes “collecting information, including when limited to particular content.” Elec. Power Grp., 830 F.3d at 1353. The court determined, therefore, that the claims at issue were directed to an abstract idea because “the focus of the asserted claims” is “on collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis.” Id. We are persuaded that claims 1 and 11 in this case are similarly directed to an abstract idea because Petitioner’s argument and evidence shows that the focus of the claims, the claims’ “character as a whole,” is on conventional information processing in the context of membership discount programs that use generic computers and conventional devices as tools to provide discounts without coupons.” slip op. at 18
Patent outcomesUS 5,924,080 unpatentableClaim construction§ 101 eligibilitycites Alice · Mayo · Bilski · Enfish · Electric PowerPatents in suitUS 5,924,080 - Westlake Services, LLC v. Credit Acceptance Corp.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Jan 25, 2016 · CBM2014-00176 · APJ David C Mckone · CBM · Final written decision
Claims 10–12 and 14–33 are unpatentable under § 101 because they claim an abstract financing process using generic computer components.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownNo construction neededOther
“As explained in the 008-FWD, the Specification describes an advance amount as the amount of money a lender agrees to pay to the dealer. Ex. 1001, 8:45–46. “[T]he advance amount is determined by the party extending financing based on the customer’s credit score, the dealership’s past collection history, the particular vehicle being considered and other factors.” Id. at 9:21–24. Although the advance amount could be less than the sales price minus the down payment, the Specification does not require that it be so. In any case, Patent Owner has since accepted our construction of “advance amount” and has chosen not to contest it in this proceeding. Tr. 28:1–12. We maintain that construction on the full record of this proceeding. The parties do not argue in this proceeding for different constructions of “front-end profit” and “database.” We maintain these constructions on the full record of this proceeding. Additionally, in the 008-FWD, we determined that the following terms, also relevant to claims at issue in this proceeding, required no express construction: “receiving information related to a database,” “receiving information from the customer,” “calculating,” “determining,” “presenting . . . to the dealer,” “automatically recalculated,” “transmitted,” “generating,” and “selectable criteria.” 008-FWD, 10–18. In the Petition, Petitioner addressed several of these terms, contending, inter alia, that “receiving information related to a database of a dealer’s inventory,” “receiving information from the customer,” “calculating a credit score for the customer based at least in part on the information gathered from the customer,” and terms including “determining” are indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph. Pet. 32–33, 39, 41. We declined to institute on that ground, concluding that the Petition’s showing was unpersuasive. Dec. 27. The parties propose no other constructions for these terms. On the complete record of this proceeding, we maintain our decision not to construe these terms expressly. 3. Additional Terms Construed in the Decision to Institute In the Decision to Institute, we preliminarily construed “calculation unit” to mean “a computer component configured to calculate” and “financing package generating unit” to mean “a computer component that generates financing packages and contains a database and a calculation unit.” Dec. 7. In the Petition, Petitioner contends that these terms are indefinite. Pet. 36. As stated above, we declined to institute on the asserted ground of indefiniteness. Dec. 27. The parties do not dispute further these” slip op. at 9
- Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step one — 'directed to'Step1 directed to exceptionUnpatentable
“costs, for items in a dealer’s inventory; receiving down payment information from a customer wishing to buy a product from the dealer; calculating a credit score for the customer; determining how much a lender will advance to the dealer (advance amount) for each product in the inventory (which need only include two products); calculating profits for the inventory items2 (using arithmetic based on the advance amount, dealer cost, and down payment); and presenting a financing package (with unspecified information) to the dealer for each product in the inventory. The underlying concept of claim 1, when viewed as a whole, simply is to receive information from a customer’s credit application, process that information, 1 Claim 10, at issue in this case, depends from claim 1. Thus, our analysis of claim 10 starts with claim 1. 2 Claim 1 does not recite using such profit information. Claim 12 later recites sorting the financing packages based on selectable criteria, which could be profit. dealer. Rephrased, this is the abstract idea of “processing an application for financing a purchase.” Claim 10 depends from claim 1 and adds providing generic computer structure for performing the steps of claim 1 (a “user terminal” for entering customer information; and a “server” connected to the user terminal “via a network,” for receiving information, accessing the database, performing claim 1’s arithmetic to generate financing packages, and transmitting the financing packages to the user terminal). Thus, claim 10 recites the same abstract concept as recited in claim 1, performed with generic computer components.” slip op. at 15
- Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step two — inventive conceptStep2 no inventive conceptUnpatentable
“applying the steps of claim 1 (which we determined in CBM-008 to be abstract) using generic, conventional computer components, recited in purely functional language. Pet. 22–23. We agree, and conclude that the generic computer components recited in claim 10 do not transform the nature of the claim such that claim 10, as a whole, recites an inventive concept. Claim 1, from which claim 10 depends, recites a database, which stores information about a dealer’s inventory. Claim 10 adds to claim 1 a server for performing calculations, a user terminal for entering the information to be calculated, and a network for moving the information back and forth. As Petitioner argues, claim 10 provides no details as to the components are recited generically, using purely functional language. In essence, claim 10 recites applying the abstract idea of claim 1 using generic computer components. Put differently, claim 10 simply limits the method of claim 1 to a particular technological environment. This is analogous to the claims at issue in Alice, which generically recited a “data storage unit” and “computer,” for example (detailed more fully in the Federal Circuit’s opinion in CLS Bank Int’l v. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd., 717 F.3d 1269, 1285–90 (Fed. Cir. 2013)), and those at issue in Accenture, 728 F.3d at 1344–45, which recited a “database,” “client component,” “server component,” and “automated method,” for example. In the words of the Alice Court, claim 10 essentially “[s]tat[es] an abstract idea while adding the words ‘apply it with a computer.’” 134 S. Ct. at 2358. Nor does claim 10 purport to improve the functioning of the computer itself. See buySAFE, 765 F.3d at 1354; compare with DDR Holdings, 773 F.3d at 1258 (“In short, the claimed solution amounts to an inventive concept for resolving this particular Internet-centric problem, rendering the claims patent-eligible.”).” slip op. at 23
Patent outcomesUS 6,950,807 unpatentableClaim construction§ 101 eligibilitycites BilskiPatents in suitUS 6,950,807 - NRT Technology Corp. / NRT Technologies, Inc. v. Everi Payments, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Jan 22, 2016 · CBM2015-00167 · APJ Michael J Fitzpatrick · CBM · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show any challenged claim was more likely than not unpatentable under § 101, Akel, or grounds relying on Reeder.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“We may not institute a CBM patent review “unless the Director[2] determines that the information presented in the petition . . . would demonstrate 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).3 Based on our review of the record, we conclude that Petitioner is less likely than not to prevail with respect to all of the challenged claims. Accordingly, we deny the Petition to institute a CBM patent review, as set forth below.” slip op. at 2
- Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step one — 'directed to'Step1 not directed to exceptionNot shown unpatentable
“As Patent Owner points out, Petitioner has oversimplified the challenged claims. Prelim. Resp. 31. The challenged claims are not directed simply to the idea of providing money to an account holder or using trial-and-error until success is achieved. Rather, the claims are directed to particular methods of providing money to an account holder using an ATM via a POS transaction after an ATM transaction has failed. See Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2354 (“Applications of such concepts to a new and useful end . . . remain eligible for patent protection.”) (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted). Further, Petitioner’s analysis omits any consideration of the elements of the claims as ordered combinations to determine whether the additional elements transform the nature of the claims into a patent-eligible application. It was Petitioner’s burden to do so. Petitioner has not shown that the claims are more likely than not patent-ineligible. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2354 (“an invention is not rendered ineligible for patent simply because it involves an abstract concept”).” slip op. at 11
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“It is a petitioner’s burden to explain how a challenged claim should be construed and how, being so construed, it is unpatentable. 37 C.F.R. § 42.204(b)(3)–(4). Petitioner does not propose an express construction for “personal identification number” and does not show that its plain and ordinary meaning would include a password. Further, claim 1 requires entering a PIN into the terminal. In the context of the specification and surrounding claim language, this step is part of the claimed “method of providing money or an item of value to an account-holder.” The teaching on which Petitioner relies, however, relates to a system operator’s back-end access of the Akel system. See Ex. 1006, 6:58–62 (“Each system operator requires a password to access the system . . . .”) (emphasis added). Elsewhere, Akel describes a “customer” (distinct from a system operator) as using a kiosk to obtain cash. Id. at 2:56–3:11. But, Akel does not describe entering a password into a terminal, let alone a PIN, as part of that process. Thus, even if Akel’s password fell within the scope of the recited PIN, the Petition would still fail to show how its use by an operator “to access the system” (see Ex. 1006, 258–60) meets the recited “entering a personal identification number into the terminal” as part of the claimed “method of providing money or an item of value to an account-holder.” Petitioner has not shown that Akel teaches “entering a personal identification number into the terminal.” Accordingly, Petitioner has not shown that claim 1, or dependent claims 2–8, are more likely than not anticipated by Akel.” slip op. at 13
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Patents / published applications (effective date, provisional support)Reference not prior artNot shown unpatentable
“The invention date of the ’792 patent is no later than its filing date, which is January 5, 1998. Although the Reeder application was filed, and thus privately known to Mr. Reeder, before the ’792 filing date, such private knowledge is not within the scope of § 102(a). See, e.g., Carella v. Starlight Archery & Pro Line Co., 804 F.2d 135, 139 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (“The statutory language, ‘known or used by others in this country’ (35 U.S.C. § 102(a)), means knowledge or use which is accessible to the public.”). Reeder was 8 The AIA took effect on March 18, 2013. Because the application from which the ’792 patent issued was filed before that date, our citations to 35 U.S.C. § 102 are to its pre-AIA version. eventually patented of course but not until after the filing date of the ’792 patent. For these reasons, Reeder is not prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a), which is the only provision under which the Petition asserted Reeder. Reeder presumptively is prior art to the ’792 patent under a different subsection of the statute, namely § 102(e). However, a reference that is prior art under only § 102(e) may not be asserted in a CBM patent review. Under the AIA, a Petition for a CBM patent review may challenge novelty or non-obviousness of a claim only on the basis of: (i) prior art that is described by section 102(a) . . . ; or (ii) prior art that— (I) discloses the invention more than 1 year before the date of the application for patent in the United States; and (II) would be described by section 102(a) . . . if the disclosure had been made by another before the invention thereof by the applicant for patent. AIA § 18(a)(1)(C). Because Petitioner has not shown that Reeder is prior art that may be asserted in a Petition for a CBM patent review, all of the grounds that rely on Reeder are denied.” slip op. at 15
§ 101 eligibility§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites AlicePatents in suitUS 6,081,792 - The Jewelry Channel, Inc. USA D/B/A Liquidation Channel v. America’S Collectibles Network, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Oct 16, 2015 · CBM2014-00119 · APJ Brian J Mcnamara · CBM · Final written decision
Claims 1–39 are unpatentable under § 101, and the motion to amend proposing claims 40–42 is denied because those claims also recite patent-ineligible subject matter.
RulingsFinal written decision- Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step one — 'directed to'Step1 directed to exceptionUnpatentable
“In the ’211 Patent, the producer tests a plurality of prices throughout the auction. Preliminary indicators, e.g., the number of customers who press “1” to place an order at a particular price, provide statistics about how customers reacted to the offers at various test prices. In the ’211 Patent, the producer adjusts the demand curve by reducing the quantity available based 2 OIP was decided on June 15, 2015, shortly after Patent Owner filed its Reply to Petitioner’s Opposition to the Motion to Amend (Paper 28, “Opp. to Mot. to Amend”), and a month before the oral hearing in this proceeding. At our request, the parties filed post-hearing briefs on October 1, 2015, to address the implications of OIP. Paper 37 (“Petitioner’s Suppl. Brief”) and Paper 39 (“PO Suppl. Brief”). on customers’ reactions to the various price offers, and selects new prices based on the estimated outcome, i.e., expectations that additional customers will purchase units as the price is lowered. The ’211 Patent claims recite that these steps occur before the actual sale of an item being auctioned.” slip op. at 9
- Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step two — inventive conceptStep2 no inventive conceptUnpatentable
“gathering steps, stating “[a]t best, the claims describe the automation of the fundamental economic concept of offer-based price optimization through the use of generic-computer functions.” Id. Thus, considered individually or as an ordered combination, the claim elements in OIP did not transform the claimed abstract idea into a patent eligible process. Id. Similarly, in the ’211 Patent, the remaining claim elements involve a conventional system interface, e.g., providing a website or a call-in telephone number and placing callers into a queue, routine data gathering, e.g., recording the time an inquiry enters the queue and storing the preliminary quantity of units in a database, and routine calculations, e.g., subtracting from the stored preliminary quantity of available units based on the number of customers who indicate they are prepared to make a purchase.” slip op. at 11
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsMotion to amend, deniedDenied
“ideas and purported inventive subject matter in our discussion of claims 1– 39. Additional elements such as a computer and ancillary conventional apparatus such as various databases storing information accessed by the computer, a call monitoring component that places a call into a queue and assigns the call to operator, an electronic call record that records the time the call was made, and an automated message, do not impose meaningful limits on the abstract idea of reducing the available quantity and the price during the auction based on the indicators that provide the auction producer confidence the customer will complete a purchase at that price (or a more favorable price) at the close of the auction. “In order for the addition of a machine to impose a meaningful limit on the scope of a claim, it must play a significant part in permitting the claimed method to be performed, rather than function solely as an obvious mechanism for permitting a solution to be achieved more quickly, i.e., through the utilization of a computer for performing calculations.” SiRF Techs., Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm., 601 F.3d 1319, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (determining that a GPS receiver was a meaningful limit on the scope of the claims because, without the recited GPS receiver, it would be impossible to generate pseudo ranges that estimate the distance from a GPS receiver to a plurality of GPS satellites). In contrast, the limitations in the proposed amended claims recite elements of a general purpose computer that facilitate conducting a reverse auction more efficiently. Even limited to the context of an MSIRA, these added features do not limit the scope of the claim in a meaningful way because the reservation of units does not require a specific machine.” slip op. at 16
Patent outcomesUS 8,370,211 unpatentable§ 101 eligibilitycites Alice · BilskiPatents in suitUS 8,370,211 - Westlake Services, LLC D/B/A Westlake Financial Services, LLC v. Credit Acceptance Corp.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Mar 24, 2015 · CBM2014-00008 · APJ Gregg I Anderson · CBM · Final written decision
Claims 1–9, 13, and 34–42 are unpatentable under § 101 because they claim an abstract financing process implemented with routine computer use.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownOther
“Claim 1 recites in pertinent part “calculating a front-end profit to be realized by the dealer for each individual product in the dealer inventory based on the dealer cost associated with each individual product, the advance amount determined for each individual product, and the down payment amount” (emphases added). The actual claim language as to calculation of the “front-end profit” is repeated in the Specification. Ex. 1001, 3:63–66. “Put simply, the front-end profit, is equal to the down payment amount plus the advance amount minus the dealer’s costs.” Id. at 8:60–63. “Advance amount” is construed immediately hereafter. Thus, we construe “front-end profit” to mean “the down payment amount plus the advance amount minus the dealer cost.”” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningNo construction neededOther
“Patent Owner’s cites to the Specification are not directly supportive of its proposed construction. PO Resp. 40–42. Patent Owner cites to the Nerenberg Declaration, as it did previously, for the proposition that automation of financing options through a computer is quicker than doing so manually. Id. at 41 (citing Ex. 2008 ¶ 53). The speed with which a computer may perform calculations is not a part of the construction of the term at issue. Further, we see no reason why the claims should be construed to require communication over a “network,” when the term is not recited in any of the challenged claims (but is recited in others, such as claim 14, for example). We determine that the term “receiving information from the customer” is plain on its face and requires no express construction.” slip op. at 10
- Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step one — 'directed to'Step1 directed to exceptionDecided for petitioner
“We conclude that claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea and, at most, merely recites implementing it with a computer. See Bilski, 130 S. Ct. at 3231. The abstract idea of processing an application for financing a purchase claimed is a known concept described in the ’807 patent. Ex. 1001, 1:33–2:50. Specifically, the ’807 patent describes processing a financing application as: a customer completing a credit application; obtaining financing from a financing institution; the customer providing a down payment and signing a promissory note to the dealer; and the financing institution paying the dealer the balance for the purchase after applying the down payment. Id. at 1:33–2:14. If the financing is not completed, the process is repeated. Id. at 2:15–50; see Tr. 34:6–35:10. Patent Owner’s arguments that the claims are directed to a specific method are relevant, if at all, to the second step of the Alice framework, not the first, and are therefore unpersuasive. We disagree that claim 1 taken “as a whole” is any more than an abstract idea relating to the general method of processing an application for financing a purchase. Claim 1 simply describes receiving information, including sale prices and dealer costs, for items in a dealer’s inventory; receiving down payment information from a customer wishing to buy a product from the dealer; calculating a credit score for the customer; determining how much a financer will advance to the dealer (advance amount) for each product in the inventory; calculating profits for the inventory items (using basic arithmetic based on the advance amount, dealer cost, and down payment); and presenting financing packages (with unspecified information) to the dealer. Ex. 1001, 12:56–13:14. The arguments and evidence presented by Petitioner are persuasive that claim 1 is directed to no more than this abstract idea, not tied to any specific machine, of processing an application for financing a purchase. Pet. 37 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 280, 285). Patent Owner’s evidence and arguments in this case do not persuade us otherwise. For purposes of the first step of Alice, Patent Owner has not distinguished any of the other independent or dependent claims from claim 1. Thus, we determine that Petitioner has proven that claims 1–9, 13, and 34–42 are directed to an abstract idea.” slip op. at 26
- Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step two — inventive conceptStep2 no inventive conceptDecided for petitioner
“We are not persuaded that the claims include something beyond the abstract idea that transforms the claimed abstract idea into patent eligible subject matter. Merely using a computer to speed the steps of generating a financing package for each item of inventory is not such a transformation. See Bancorp Services, 687 F.3d at 1278 (“The computer required by some of Bancorp’s claims is employed only for its most basic function, the performance of repetitive calculations, and as such does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of those claims.”). Likewise, the ability to create an “immediate offer” does nothing more than speed up that which can be done by a human. Although we agree that the claimed steps require a computer, there is insufficient evidence for us to conclude that the computer is being utilized for anything beyond routine or conventional use. We have reviewed the Nerenberg Declaration, including specifically paragraphs 130–153, and find it to be conclusory and lacking sufficient underlying facts or data. As such, we give the declaration minimal weight in our determination. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a). As noted above, routine use of a computer is not enough to meet the inventive concept step of Alice. Ultramercial III, 772 F.3d at 716; see Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358 (“Given the ubiquity of computers, wholly generic computer implementation is not generally the sort of additional featur[e] that provides any practical assurance that the process is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the [abstract idea] itself.”) (citations and quotation marks omitted); Accenture, 728 F.3d at 1344–45 (claims reciting a “database,” “client component,” “server component,” and “automated method,” for example); CLS Bank Int’l v. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd., 717 F.3d 1269, 1289 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (claims reciting a “data storage unit” and “computer,” for example). Even assuming some of the claimed steps were not previously known in the art is not alone enough to confer patent eligibility. Id. Moreover, the ’807 patent itself describes the steps in a financing process as they existed before the ’807 patent. Ex. 1001, 1:33–2:50. Thus, the record supports our conclusion that the steps of the method were known previously. Further, Patent Owner acknowledges the steps individually are known but argues the steps as a whole transform the claim into patentable subject matter. Tr. 31:21–32:1. This argument is not supported sufficiently by any evidence beyond attorney argument to persuade us of patent eligibility. Patent Owner argues that there are many ways of providing financing that do not require calculating either a “front-end profit” or an “advance amount.” PO Resp. 10 (citing Ex. 2008 ¶ 120). Mr. Nerenberg testifies that examples where the two terms are not required for financing are mortgages and student education loans. Ex. 2008 ¶ 120. Nevertheless, calculating an amount a lender will advance or an amount by which a dealer will profit from a transaction are routine, conventional activities for financial transactions. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 1:34–2:10. Furthermore, our construction of the terms “front-end profit” and “advance amount” supports that they are conventional. Regardless, neither term, alone or in combination, “transform[s] the nature of the claim” into patent eligible subject matter. Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294, 1297.” slip op. at 29
Patent outcomesUS 6,950,807 unpatentableClaim construction§ 101 eligibilitycites Alice · BilskiPatents in suitUS 6,950,807
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.