• Care N’ Care Insurance Co., Inc. / Trizetto Corp. v. Integrated Claims Systems, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jul 28, 2016 · CBM2015-00063 · APJ Hyun J Jung · CBM · Final written decision

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

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • BurdenDecided for petitioner

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  Patent outcomesUS 7,178,020 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 101 eligibility§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Alice · Bilski
  Patents in suitUS 7,178,020
• Care N’ Care Insurance Company, Inc. / Trizetto Corporation v. Integrated Claims Systems, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 21, 2016 · CBM2015-00064 · APJ Timothy J Goodson · CBM · Final written decision

  Claims 81 and 83–88 are unpatentable under § 101 because they are directed to an abstract idea without an inventive concept.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • BurdenFwd all claims unpatentableUnpatentable

    “Considering the full record before us, we agree with, and adopt as our own, Petitioners’ explanation of why the challenged claims fail to recite any elements that individually or as an ordered combination transform the abstract idea of receiving information, storing it, and determining which of its parts to enter into a display into a patent-eligible application of that idea. Pet. 34–43. Stated simply, the challenged claims require no more than generic computer components performing generic computer functions and conventional activities. See Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2359 (noting, in carrying out the second step, that the “the relevant question is whether the claims here do more than simply instruct the practitioner to implement the abstract idea . . . on a generic computer”); TLI, 2016 WL 2865693 at *6 (“These steps fall squarely within our precedent finding generic computer components insufficient to add an inventive concept to an otherwise abstract idea.”). For example, claim 81 recites receiving data in fields, storing data in memory, determining which data to enter for display using a generic “logic process,” and displaying data. “[A]ll of these computer functions are ‘wellunderstood, routine, conventional activit[ies]’ previously known to the industry.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2359 (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294). The parallels that Petitioner draws between the claims challenged here and those addressed in Content Extraction are compelling. See Pet. 35–36. Patent Owner’s reliance on the use of fields in the challenged claims to satisfy the second step of the Mayo/Alice analysis and to distinguish Content Extraction is unpersuasive in view of Petitioners’ argument and evidence that computer software fields are a generic, well-known concept in data processing, and that using fields to transfer information from a field in one form to a correlated field in another form was routine and conventional. Reply 12; Ex. 1001 ¶¶ 36–37.” slip op. at 24

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

    “We agree with Petitioners. We see no reason why the resolution of the issues before us requires an express construction of this term. Even if we were to construe “field” as a “computer software field,” it would not impact our analysis of claims 81 and 83‒88 under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Accordingly, we do not provide an express construction of “field.” See Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chem. Co., 642 F.3d 1355, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[C]laim terms need only be construed ‘to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”).” slip op. at 14

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

    “We agree with Petitioners that the challenged claims are directed to a process of receiving information, storing it, and determining which of its parts to enter into a display. Pet. 29. Claims directed to such a process are analogous to the data processing claims that the Federal Circuit held were directed to an abstract idea in Content Extraction and Cyberfone. In particular, as Petitioners argue, the step in claim 81 “of determining which parts of the information to enter into a graphical display is analogous to the step in [Content Extraction] of ‘recognizing certain data within the collected data set.’” Pet. 33. Further, the steps in claim 81 of receiving information and storing it are similar to the steps in Content Extraction of collecting data and storing the recognized data in a memory. Id. With respect to Cyberfone, we agree with Petitioners that the challenged claims can be “described as directed to methods of ‘obtaining data . . . separating it into component parts, and sending those parts to different destinations’ that the Federal Circuit in Cyberfone held embodied an abstract idea.” Id. at 34 (quoting Cyberfone, 558 F. App’x at 990). We have considered Patent Owner’s arguments that the challenged claims are not directed to an abstract idea, but those arguments are not persuasive for the reasons that follow.” slip op. at 17

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

    “Considering the full record before us, we agree with, and adopt as our own, Petitioners’ explanation of why the challenged claims fail to recite any elements that individually or as an ordered combination transform the abstract idea of receiving information, storing it, and determining which of its parts to enter into a display into a patent-eligible application of that idea. Pet. 34–43. Stated simply, the challenged claims require no more than generic computer components performing generic computer functions and conventional activities. See Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2359 (noting, in carrying out the second step, that the “the relevant question is whether the claims here do more than simply instruct the practitioner to implement the abstract idea . . . on a generic computer”); TLI, 2016 WL 2865693 at *6 (“These steps fall squarely within our precedent finding generic computer components insufficient to add an inventive concept to an otherwise abstract idea.”). For example, claim 81 recites receiving data in fields, storing data in memory, determining which data to enter for display using a generic “logic process,” and displaying data. “[A]ll of these computer functions are ‘wellunderstood, routine, conventional activit[ies]’ previously known to the industry.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2359 (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294). The parallels that Petitioner draws between the claims challenged here and those addressed in Content Extraction are compelling. See Pet. 35–36. Patent Owner’s reliance on the use of fields in the challenged claims to satisfy the second step of the Mayo/Alice analysis and to distinguish Content Extraction is unpersuasive in view of Petitioners’ argument and evidence that computer software fields are a generic, well-known concept in data processing, and that using fields to transfer information from a field in one form to a correlated field in another form was routine and conventional. Reply 12; Ex. 1001 ¶¶ 36–37. We also agree with Petitioners that the challenged claims fail the machine-or-transformation test because the claims “are not tied to any particular novel machine or apparatus, only a general purpose computer,” and “adding a computer to otherwise conventional steps does not make an invention patent-eligible.” Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716–17. We discern nothing in the challenged claims requiring a novel machine or apparatus. Indeed, as noted above, Patent Owner concedes that “the hardware components recited by the Challenged Claims were known at the time the application leading to the ’609 Patent was filed.” Prelim. Resp. 19; PO Resp. 20. Turning to the transformation prong of the test, “[a]ny transformation from the use of computers or the transfer of content between computers is merely what computers do and does not change the analysis.” Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 717. Moreover, as the Federal Circuit explained in CyberSource, the “mere collection and organization of data regarding credit card numbers and Internet addresses is insufficient to meet the transformation prong of the test.” 654 F.3d at 1370. Here, claim 81 recites receiving an electronic communication that includes digital data in fields, some of which include insurance transaction data and at least one of which includes attachment data, storing the electronic communication, and processing the electronic communication by determining which of the received data to display and displaying the selected data and the attachment on a GUI. Ex. 1003, 50:20–43. We agree with Petitioners that the claimed method merely collects and organizes data, which is insufficient to meet the transformation prong of the machine-or-transformation test. Dependent claims 83–88 also do not recite more than the mere collection and organization of data.” slip op. at 24

  Patent outcomesUS 8,676,609 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 101 eligibilitycites Mayo
  Patents in suitUS 8,676,609
• Travelers Lloyds Of Texas Insurance Co. / The Travelers Indemnity Co. v. Integrated Claims Systems, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 30, 2016 · CBM2014-00187 · APJ Hyun J Jung · CBM · Final written decision

  Claims 27, 30, 36, 42, 43, 45, and 50–52 are unpatentable under § 101; claim 27 is also anticipated by Toy under § 102. The motion to amend is granted.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • BurdenFwd all claims unpatentableUnpatentable

    “Supreme Court clarified the process for analyzing claims to determine whether claims are directed to patent-ineligible subject matter. In Alice, the Supreme Court applied the framework set forth previously in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289 (2012), “for distinguishing patents that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible applications of these concepts.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355. The first step in the analysis is to “determine whether the claims at issue are directed to one of those patent-ineligible concepts.” Id. If they are directed to a patent-ineligible concept, the second step in the analysis is to consider the elements of the claims “individually and ‘as an ordered combination”’ to determine whether there are additional elements that “‘transform the nature of the claim’ into a patent-eligible application.” Id. (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1297, 1298). In other words, the second step is to “search for an ‘inventive concept’––i.e., an element or combination of elements that is ‘sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the [ineligible concept] itself.’” Id. (alteration in original) (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294). Further, the “prohibition against patenting abstract ideas ‘cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the formula to a particular technological environment’ or adding ‘insignificant post solution activity.”’ Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 610– 11 (2010) (quoting Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S.175, 191–92 (1981)).” slip op. at 22

  • Prior constructionPrior construction adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Board will interpret claims according to their broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which they appear. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.300(b). In our Decision to Institute, we construed “unitary data stream” to mean a “transmitted set of information.” Dec. on Inst. 13. The parties do not present arguments for another interpretation (see Reply 6), and based on the complete record, we do not perceive any reason or evidence that now compels any deviation from this interpretation.” slip op. at 20

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

    “We agree with Petitioner that Patent Owner’s proposed construction reads a particular embodiment in the Abstract into claim 27, which only requires “a unitary data stream including N fields of data.” See Superguide Corp. v. DirecTV Enter., Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“Though understanding the claim language may be aided by the explanations contained in the written description, it is important not to import into a claim limitations that are not a part of the claim. For example, a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment.”). “Parsing” does not seem to appear in the specification of the ’020 patent. We thus decline to accept Patent Owner’s proposed construction and give “parsing the unitary data stream” its ordinary and customary meaning.” slip op. at 21

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

    “Patent Owner also proposes that the broadest reasonable interpretation of “field” in view of the specification is a “computer software field” with citations to the specification. PO Resp. 15–24 (citing Ex. 1001, 8:32–37, 9:59–10:12, 10:19–35, 11:53–63, 13:40–14:20, 14:29–38, 15:26–47, 16:26– 32, 17:3–11, 18:5–18, 18:50–19:3, 19:61–20:6, 24:19–31, 24:38–43). Petitioner argues that the plain meaning should be applied. Reply 8. We do not see that the dispute impacts the analysis set forth in the Decision, so we need not decide between the two competing proposals. See Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chem. Co., 642 F.3d 1355, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[C]laim terms need only be construed ‘to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”).” slip op. at 21

  Patent outcomesUS 7,178,020 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 101 eligibility§ 102 anticipationcites Alice · Mayo · Bilski
  Patents in suitUS 7,178,020
• Travelers Lloyds Of Texas Insurance Co. / The Travelers Indemnity Co. v. Integrated Claims Systems, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 30, 2016 · CBM2014-00186 · APJ Hyun J Jung · CBM · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 6, 10-17, and 28-31 are unpatentable under § 101 because they claim an abstract idea without an inventive concept.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • BurdenDecided for petitioner

    “We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(c). This Final Written Decision is issued pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 328(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73. For the reasons that follow, we determine that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1, 6, 10–17, and 28–31 of the ’768 patent are unpatentable. We also grant the motion to amend and deny the motion to dismiss.” slip op. at 2

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

    “MOTION TO AMEND In its Motion to Amend, Patent Owner moves to amend the ’768 patent by canceling claims 11 and 30. Paper 15, 1; see 35 U.S.C. § 316(d); 37 C.F.R. § 42.121(a)(3) (“A motion to amend may cancel a challenged claim or propose a reasonable number of substitute claims.”). The Motion to Amend does not indicate that Patent Owner’s request to cancel claims 11 and 30 is contingent on the claims being determined to be unpatentable. We, therefore, grant the request.” slip op. at 42

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

    “construction in light of the specification of the patent in which they appear. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.300(b). In our Institution Decision, we did not need to construe any term expressly. Patent Owner proposes that the broadest reasonable interpretation of “field” in view of the specification is a “computer software field” with citations to the specification and claim 1. PO Resp. 14–15 (citing Ex. 1001, 10:6–10, 12:66–13:38, 15:57–64, 17:62–66, 28:5–21). Petitioner argues that the plain meaning should be applied. Reply 6 (citing Ex. 1007, 8). We do not see that the dispute impacts the analysis set forth in the Decision, so we need not decide between the two competing proposals. See Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chem. Co., 642 F.3d 1355, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[C]laim terms need only be construed ‘to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”).” slip op. at 21

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

    “Claim 1 requires accepting data, generating a first subset of that data, generating a second subset of that data, and transmitting the first and second subsets of data. Ex. 1001, 45:27–46. We determine that the subject matter of the challenged claims, when considered as a whole, is directed to an abstract idea, namely, examining information to extract relevant portions of that information. In particular, the complete record persuades us that the idea of examining information and extracting relevant portions of that information represents a disembodied, well-known concept, a basic building block of human ingenuity and rises to the level of an abstract idea. See Content Extraction and Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 776 F.3d 1343, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“Applying Mayo/Alice step one, we agree with the district court that the claims of the asserted patents are drawn to the abstract idea of 1) collecting data, 2) recognizing certain data within the collected data set, and 3) storing that recognized data in a memory. The concept of data collection, recognition, and storage is undisputedly well-known. Indeed, humans have always performed these functions.”); see also Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2354 (“in applying the § 101 exception, we must distinguish between patents that claim the ‘“building[g] block[s]”’ of human ingenuity and those that integrate the building blocks into something more”) (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1303).” slip op. at 24

  Patent outcomesUS 7,346,768 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 101 eligibilitycites Alice · Mayo · Bilski
  Patents in suitUS 7,346,768
• Mitchell International, Inc. v. Audatex North America, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 19, 2016 · CBM2014-00174 · APJ Lora M Green · CBM · Final written decision

  Claims 1–31 are unpatentable under § 101 and anticipated by or obvious over Reimel; the motion to amend with substitute claims 32–62 is denied.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “We have carefully considered Patent Owner’s arguments, but we do not agree that the broadest reasonable interpretation of “insurance claim,” when read in light of the Specification, is a “request to recover market value or repair cost in association with an insurance policy.” The portion of the Specification Petitioner is relying upon is only describing the state of the art at the time of invention. Moreover, it uses terms such as “may” and “typically,” and, thus, does not explicitly define “insurance claim” as Patent Owner would have us do. Thus, we see no reason to deviate from the construction of the claim term “data relating to an insurance claim for a damaged vehicle” that we adopted in the Decision on Institution; that is, as encompassing, but not being limited to, any data that would be used in making an insurance claim. Dec. 12. Moreover, even if we were to adopt Patent Owner’s more limited construction of “insurance claim,” Patent Owner does not explain how that would further limit the data that would be entered, and in fact, Patent Owner notes (PO Resp. 1) that it does not disagree with the interpretation of “data” we adopted in the Decision on Institution.” slip op. at 10

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

    “Here, we observe that each challenged claim is directed to the fundamental concept of providing a vehicle valuation using information about the vehicle. Patent Owner contends that, unlike the claims in Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584 (1978), the claims at issue in the instant proceeding are not drawn to an algorithm. PO Resp. 12–14. When the claims are analyzed as a whole, as urged by Patent Owner (PO Resp. 10), however, the claims recite nothing more than the collection of information to generate a valuation report for a damaged vehicle. Moreover, all the steps could be performed without the use of a computer. Specifically, the steps and calculations covered by the claims essentially require determining the value of a damaged vehicle by entering data related to an insurance claim, such as mileage and vehicle condition, and processing the data to generate a valuation report for the damaged vehicle; a calculation that can be performed by the human mind, or with the aid of pencil and paper. See, e.g., Mortgage Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs. Inc., No. 2015-1415, 2016 WL 362415, at *7 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 20, 2016) (noting that the steps of the claims could be performed by a human without the use of a computer in concluding that the claims at issue were drawn to an abstract idea). The fact that the claims at issue are not per se drawn to an algorithm does not insulate them from being found an abstract idea. The claims in Alice were drawn to “a computer-implemented scheme for mitigating ‘settlement risk’ . . . by using a third-party intermediary.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2351–52. The claims at issue in Mortgage Grader were drawn to a computer-implemented system that allowed borrowers to shop anonymously for loan packages from a plurality of lenders. Mortgage Grader, 2016 WL 362415, at *1. Thus, the fact that the claims in those cases were not specifically drawn to an algorithm did not prevent them from being drawn to an abstract idea. We are persuaded that, similar to the concept of intermediated settlement in Alice, the concept of risk hedging in Bilski, and the concept of shopping anonymously for loan packages in Mortgage Grader¸ the concept at issue here—obtaining a vehicle valuation report for a damaged vehicle— is “a fundamental economic practice long prevalent in our system of commerce,” and “squarely within the realm of ‘abstract ideas.’” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2356–57; Bilski, 130 S. Ct. 3231. Accordingly, we determine that Petitioner has demonstrated that the challenged claims are directed to a patent-ineligible abstract idea.” slip op. at 16

  • Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step two — inventive conceptStep2 no inventive conceptUnpatentable
  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable

  Patent outcomesUS 8,200,513 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 101 eligibility§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Alice · Mayo · Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,200,513
• Mitchell International, Inc. v. Audatex North America, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 19, 2016 · CBM2014-00173 · APJ Lora M Green · CBM · Final written decision

  Claims 1–31 are unpatentable under § 101 and §§ 102(b)/103(a) over Reimel; the motion to amend with substitute claims 32–62 is denied.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “not agree that the broadest reasonable interpretation of “insurance claim,” when read in light of the Specification, is a “request to recover market value or repair cost in association with an insurance policy.” The portion of the Specification Petitioner is relying upon is only describing the state of the art at the time of invention. Moreover, it uses terms such as “may” and “typically,” and, thus, does not explicitly define “insurance claim” as Patent Owner would have us do. Thus, we see no reason to deviate from the construction of the claim term “data relating to an insurance claim for a damaged vehicle” that we adopted in the Decision on Institution; that is, as encompassing, but not being limited to, any data that would be used in making an insurance claim, so long as the data includes a vehicle year, model, and geographic location. Dec. 12–13. Moreover, even if we were to adopt Patent Owner’s more limited construction of “insurance claim,” Patent Owner does not explain how that would further limit the data that would be entered, and in fact, Patent Owner notes (PO Resp. 1) that it does not disagree with the interpretation of “data” we adopted in the Decision on Institution.” slip op. at 11

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

    “3. Other Claim Terms We determine that we need not interpret expressly other claim limitations for purposes of this decision. See, e.g., Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chem. Co., 642 F.3d 1355, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[C]laim terms need only be construed ‘to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”) (internal citations omitted).” slip op. at 14

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

    “Here, we observe that each challenged claim is directed to the fundamental concept of providing a vehicle valuation using information about the vehicle. Patent Owner contends that, unlike the claims in Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584 (1978), the claims at issue in the instant proceeding are not drawn to an algorithm. PO Resp. 12–14. When the claims are analyzed as a whole, as urged by Patent Owner (id. at 10), however, the claims recite nothing more than the collection of information to generate a valuation report for a damaged vehicle. Moreover, all the steps could be performed without the use of a computer. Specifically, the steps and calculations covered by the claims essentially require determining the value of a damaged vehicle by entering data related to an insurance claim, such as mileage and vehicle condition, and processing the data to generate a valuation report for the damaged vehicle; a calculation that can be performed by the human mind, or with the aid of pencil and paper. See, e.g., Mortgage Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs. Inc., No. 2015-1415, 2016 WL 362415, at *7 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 20, 2016) (noting that the steps of the claims could be performed by a human without the use of a computer in concluding that the claims at issue were drawn to an abstract idea). The fact that the claims at issue are not per se drawn to an algorithm does not insulate them from being found an abstract idea. The claims in Alice were drawn to “a computer-implemented scheme for mitigating ‘settlement risk’ . . . by using a third-party intermediary.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2351–52. The claims at issue in Mortgage Grader were drawn to a computer-implemented system that allowed borrowers to shop anonymously for loan packages from a plurality of lenders. Mortgage Grader, 2016 WL 362415, at *1. Thus, the fact that the claims in those cases were not specifically drawn to an algorithm did not prevent them from being drawn to an abstract idea. We are persuaded that, similar to the concept of intermediated settlement in Alice, the concept of risk hedging in Bilski, and the concept of shopping anonymously for loan packages in Mortgage Grader, the concept at issue here—obtaining a vehicle valuation report for a damaged vehicle— is “a fundamental economic practice long prevalent in our system of commerce,” and “squarely within the realm of ‘abstract ideas.’” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2356–57; Bilski, 130 S. Ct. 3231. Accordingly, we determine that Petitioner has demonstrated that the challenged claims are directed to a patent-ineligible abstract idea.” slip op. at 17

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

    “We agree with Petitioner’s analysis that the claims do not add additional substantive limitations that transform their nature into a patent-eligible application of an abstract idea. The only technological features recited in the claims at issue in this proceeding are generic computer implementation systems performing generic computer functions. As acknowledged by Patent Owner’s expert, the claims do not improve the function of the computer, they do not solve a problem unique to the internet, nor are they tied to a particular machine or apparatus. Ex. 1015, 223:4–20; 231:9–232:1. Simply utilizing a generic computer system to generate a vehicle valuation report is not enough to transform a patent-ineligible claim into a patent-eligible invention. See Bancorp Servs. LLC v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada, 687 F.3d 1266, 1279 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (finding a claim not patent-eligible when “the computer simply performs more efficiently what could otherwise be accomplished manually”); SiRF Tech., Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 601 F.3d 1319, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (“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.”). Nearly every computer has the capability of performing basic calculation, storage, and transmission functions. See Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2360. At most, the computer implementation involved in the claims at issue here is an attempt to limit use of the abstract concept to a particular technological environment. Claims that simply instruct the practitioner to implement the abstract idea with routine, conventional activity do not transform an abstract idea into patent eligible subject matter. Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716. The claims simply instruct the practitioner to use the internet to obtain a vehicle valuation, without reciting further unconventional features of that system.” slip op. at 20

  Patent outcomesUS 8,468,038 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 101 eligibility§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Alice · Mayo · Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,468,038
• Mitchell International, Inc. v. Audatex North America, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 19, 2016 · CBM2014-00171 · APJ Lora M Green · CBM · Final written decision

  Claims 1–29 are unpatentable under § 101 and anticipated or obvious over Reimel; the motion to amend with substitute claims 30–58 is denied.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “Here, we observe that each challenged claim is directed to the fundamental concept of providing a vehicle valuation using information about the vehicle. Patent Owner contends that, unlike the claims in Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584 (1978), the claims at issue in the instant proceeding are not drawn to an algorithm. PO Resp. 13–14. When the claims are analyzed as a whole, as urged by Patent Owner (id. at 10), however, the claims recite nothing more than the collection of information to generate a valuation report for a damaged vehicle. Moreover, all the steps could be performed without the use of a computer. Specifically, the steps and calculations covered by the claims essentially require determining the value of a damaged vehicle by entering data related to an insurance claim, such as mileage and vehicle condition, and processing the data to generate a valuation report for the damaged vehicle; a calculation that can be performed by the human mind, or with the aid of pencil and paper. See, e.g., Mortgage Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs. Inc., No. 2015-1415, 2016 WL 362415, at *7 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 20, 2016) (noting that the steps of the claims could be performed by a human without the use of a computer in concluding that the claims at issue were drawn to an abstract idea). The fact that the claims at issue are not per se drawn to an algorithm does not insulate them from being found an abstract idea. The claims in Alice were drawn to “a computer-implemented scheme for mitigating ‘settlement risk’ . . . by using a third-party intermediary.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2351–52. The claims at issue in Mortgage Grader were drawn to a computer-implemented system that allowed borrowers to shop anonymously for loan packages from a plurality of lenders. Mortgage Grader, 2016 WL 362415, at *1. Thus, the fact that the claims in those cases were not specifically drawn to an algorithm did not prevent them from being drawn to an abstract idea. We are persuaded that, similar to the concept of intermediated settlement in Alice, the concept of risk hedging in Bilski, and the concept of shopping anonymously for loan packages in Mortgage Grader, the concept at issue here—obtaining a vehicle valuation report for a damaged vehicle— is “a fundamental economic practice long prevalent in our system of commerce,” and “squarely within the realm of ‘abstract ideas.’” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2356–57; Bilski, 130 S. Ct. 3231. Accordingly, we determine that Petitioner has demonstrated that the challenged claims are directed to a patent-ineligible abstract idea.” slip op. at 17

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

    “We agree with Petitioner’s analysis that the claims do not add additional substantive limitations that transform their nature into a patent-eligible application of an abstract idea. The only technological features recited in the claims at issue in this proceeding are generic computer implementation systems performing generic computer functions. As acknowledged by Patent Owner’s expert, the claims do not improve the function of the computer, they do not solve a problem unique to the internet, nor are they tied to a particular machine or apparatus. Ex. 1015, 223:4–20; 231:9–232:1. Simply utilizing a generic computer system to generate a vehicle valuation report is not enough to transform a patent-ineligible claim into a patent-eligible invention. See Bancorp Servs. LLC v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada, 687 F.3d 1266, 1279 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (finding a claim not patent-eligible when “the computer simply performs more efficiently what could otherwise be accomplished manually”); SiRF Tech., Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 601 F.3d 1319, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (“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”). Nearly every computer has the capability of performing basic calculation, storage, and transmission functions. See Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2360. At most, the computer implementation involved in the claims at issue here is an attempt to limit use of the abstract concept to a particular technological environment. Claims that simply instruct the practitioner to implement the abstract idea with routine, conventional activity do not transform an abstract idea into patent eligible subject matter. Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716. The claims simply instruct the practitioner to use the internet to obtain a vehicle valuation, without reciting further unconventional features of that system.” slip op. at 20

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

    “We have carefully considered Patent Owner’s arguments, but we do not agree that the broadest reasonable interpretation of “insurance claim,” when read in light of the Specification, is a “request to recover market value or repair cost in association with an insurance policy.” The portion of the Specification Petitioner is relying upon is only describing the state of the art at the time of invention. Moreover, it uses terms such as “may” and “typically,” and, thus, does not explicitly define “insurance claim” as Patent Owner would have us do. Thus, we see no reason to deviate from the construction of the claim term “data relating to an insurance claim for a damaged vehicle” that we adopted in the Decision on Institution; that is, as encompassing, but not being limited to, any data that would be used in making an insurance claim. Dec. 12–13. Moreover, even if we were to adopt Patent Owner’s more limited construction of “insurance claim,” Patent Owner does not explain how that would further limit the data that would be entered, and in fact, Patent Owner notes (PO Resp. 1) that it does not disagree with the interpretation of “data” we adopted in the Decision on Institution.” slip op. at 11

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

    “As to the anticipation challenge, Patent Owner contends that, if the claim term “valuation report for the damaged vehicle” is construed as “a report that provides a value of the vehicle that was damaged, before the vehicle was damaged, based on factors including mileage, condition, and geographic location,” Reimel cannot anticipate the challenged claims. PO Resp. 7–8. In particular, Patent Owner argues that “Reimel does not explicitly, or inherently, disclose providing a market value for a damaged vehicle before the vehicle was damaged.” Id. That argument is not convincing, because as discussed above, we decline to construe the claim term “valuation report for the damaged vehicle” as “a report that provides a value of the vehicle that was damaged, before the vehicle was damaged, based on factors including mileage, condition, and geographic location.” Thus, Reimel anticipates the challenged claims to the extent they are construed as providing a valuation report for a damaged vehicle for the value of the vehicle after the damage was sustained. Patent Owner contends further that “Reimel does not disclose providing web pages that allow for entry of data related to an insurance claim that request recover[y] of the market value of the vehicle cost or repair cost as required by the claims.” Id. at 7. According to Patent Owner, the only portion of Reimel that relates to use by an insurance company is the following: Insurance companies may use the present invention to evaluate crashed vehicles as well as the damage to stolen vehicles. The present invention will provide a neutral objective standard for assessment of such vehicles by insurance adjusters. Id. (quoting Ex. 1010, 10:13–15). According to Patent Owner, that passage “lacks any disclosure, explicit or inherent, regarding a web page that relates to an insurance claim to request a recovery of market value or repair cost of a damaged vehicle.” Id. (citing Ex. 2006 ¶ 39). That argument by Patent Owner is again not convincing. Claim 1 requires the step of “entering data relating to the insurance claim.” Similarly, the system of claim 10, the server of claim 18, and the computer program storage medium of claim 24 require “web pages [that] allow for receipt of data relating to an insurance claim.” As construed above, data relating to an insurance claim encompasses any data that would be used in making an insurance claim, which encompasses the various characteristics of the vehicle to be valued disclosed by Reimel. We reiterate that there is nothing in the Specification of the ’740 patent that limits the claimed method, system, server, or computer program storage medium to determining a pre-damaged valuation of the vehicle. That is, determining the value of a damaged vehicle as required by the independent claims, as construed above, encompasses determining the value of the vehicle in either” slip op. at 27

  Patent outcomesUS 7,912,740 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 101 eligibility§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Alice · Mayo · Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,912,740

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.