• Supercell OY v. Gree, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Aug 14, 2019 · PGR2018-00029 · APJ Michael W Kim · PGR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–15 are unpatentable: the Board found them ineligible under § 101 and also found claims 1–15 unpatentable under § 112(a).

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “division” to “way of managing a game and playing a game” does not alter our analysis, because “displaying a panel selection in a division” is no more than identifying high level details of a game that are substantively analogous to how “wagering game,” “dice game,” and “bingo game” are identified in the aforementioned cases. Accordingly, we find that independent claim 1 recites “managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions),” which, under the Guidance, is one of certain methods of organizing human activity and, thus, an abstract idea.” slip op. at 26

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

    “way of managing a game and playing a game involving displaying a panel selection in a division.” Accordingly, Petitioner is not required to account for any limitations within this characterization, at least for the purposes of determining whether a claim limitation is “well-understood, routine, conventional.” And when this framework is applied properly, we see how most of Patent Owner’s assertions fall away. First, Patent Owner argues that Petitioner has provided no evidence that the claimed use of panels is well-understood, routine, or conventional. PO Resp. 32–39 (citing Ex. 1001, 6:36–38, 6:42–46, 7:27, 7:36, 7:44–53. 7:55–56; Ex. 2002, ¶¶ 22–30). More specifically, Patent Owner asserts that the panels disclosed in the ’583 patent may “display a still image,” “display a movie when the panels are emphasized and displayed,” “zoom in,” and may have portions of frames, in which the panels are disposed, that “display the texts showing the sound effect and/or an effect display portion.” PO Resp. 32–33 (citing Ex. 1001, 7:27, 7:36, 7:44–53, 7:55–56). Patent Owner asserts that these elements provide an interactive and dynamic format using panels that was unique and unconventional. PO Resp. 34. However, Petitioner is not required to show that those properties of the panels described in the ’583 patent, whether in an interactive and dynamic format or otherwise, are well-understood, routine, and conventional, because these elements are not recited in any of the independent claims.11 Relatedly, Petitioner is not slip op. at 45

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description adequateNot shown unpatentable

    “2. Analysis Petitioner asserts that the Specification of the ’583 patent fails to provide adequate written description support for the following limitations of representative claim 1:” slip op. at 58

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Definiteness (Nautilus)DefiniteNot shown unpatentable

    “Pet. Reply 25; see also Tr. 37:3–11 (continuing line of argument). Here, once again, Petitioner mistakes breadth, which is permitted, for indefiniteness. See In re Miller, 441 F.2d at 693. As admitted by Patent Owner, the limitation and, in particular the term “allowed,” is certainly broad. See Tr. 73:15–74:2. But as stated by Mr. Crane, a person of ordinary skill would have understood that “one character would not be allowed to dispose a panel . . . into a division that is occupied by a panel belonging to another character,” or if “an attempt is being made to dispose a panel into a space where the panel will not fit, it will also not be allowed to be disposed.” PO Sur-Reply 22–23 (citing Ex. 2002 ¶ 44; Ex. 1009, 107:24–108:4). Petitioner has not provided sufficient evidence or analysis to show that such an example from the ’583 patent is insufficient guidance to one of ordinary skill and compels a determination of indefiniteness.17 For these reasons, we are not persuaded that Petitioner has met its burden of showing that claims 1–15 are indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b).” slip op. at 69

  Patent outcomesUS 9,636,583 unpatentable
  § 101 eligibility§ 112 disclosurecites Alice · Enfish · Electric Power · Nautilus
  Patents in suitUS 9,636,583
• Supercell OY v. Gree, Inc.Rehearing denied
  PTAB · Oct 26, 2018 · PGR2018-00039 · APJ Lynne H Browne · PGR · Rehearing

  The Board denied GREE’s rehearing request, finding no abuse of discretion in instituting PGR of claims 1–8 based on the § 101 challenge.

  RulingsRehearing decision

  • RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied

    “limitations. For example, as noted by Patent Owner, the full quotation is “[i]n a conventional battle game, however, during one battle, the user needs to select a command to determine the action of the player character many times . . . .” Ex. 1001, 1:41–43 (emphasis added). And by modeling that behavior in the future, the number of user operations are reduced. Accordingly, while we acknowledge that it is plausible, during trial, that Patent Owner will be able to show that such a disclosure is insufficient evidentiary support for “a second mode for executing the battle with fewer user operations received from the communication terminal than in the first mode,” we disagree that it has no factual bearing on the above limitation.” slip op. at 4

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

    “not rest solely on our determination that the claim elements or combinations of elements analyzed on pages 32–39 of the Petition were well-understood, routine, and conventional to a skilled artisan in the field. Rather, our Decision was also based on the sufficiency of Petitioner’s arguments in totality with respect to the second step of Alice, for example, that for some limitations, “the claimed improvements identified by Patent Owner do not improve the technological field. Rather, they improve game play for the user.” Dec. 17. Further, as we explained, “the claims recite the use of conventional computer activity to determine the outcome of the procedure. Such claims ‘defining a desirable information-based result and not limited to inventive means of achieving the result, fail under § 101’” and that “claim 1 merely indicates that these steps are performed by a server without further details.” Dec. 12–13 (citing Elec. Power Group 830 F.3d 1351; Ex. 1001, 19:52–20:11. While that analysis does concern the first step of Alice, it, nevertheless, does have some bearing on the second step as well.” slip op. at 4

  • Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step two — inventive conceptNot reached

    “not rest solely on our determination that the claim elements or combinations of elements analyzed on pages 32–39 of the Petition were well-understood, routine, and conventional to a skilled artisan in the field. Rather, our Decision was also based on the sufficiency of Petitioner’s arguments in totality with respect to the second step of Alice, for example, that for some limitations, “the claimed improvements identified by Patent Owner do not improve the technological field. Rather, they improve game play for the user.” Dec. 17. Further, as we explained, “the claims recite the use of conventional computer activity to determine the outcome of the procedure. Such claims ‘defining a desirable information-based result and not limited to inventive means of achieving the result, fail under § 101’” and that “claim 1 merely indicates that these steps are performed by a server without further details.” Dec. 12–13 (citing Elec. Power Group 830 F.3d 1351; Ex. 1001, 19:52–20:11. While that analysis does concern the first step of Alice, it, nevertheless, does have some bearing on the second step as well.” slip op. at 4

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “address Patent Owner’s countervailing evidence with respect to the above limitations, in particular, paragraphs 24 and 28–34 of Mr. Zyda’s Declaration. Req. 8–9. While we acknowledge that it was not expressly referenced in our Decision, it was taken into account and determined that, while it is worthy of some weight, Petitioner’s evidence and analysis presented a sufficient factual dispute for which trial is warranted. Given the Petition’s adequate analysis, at this stage of the proceeding, about the generic nature of the components recited in the ’308 patent and the lack of inventive means for achieving the results claimed (Pet. 32–39), we are unpersuaded that our Decision granting institution was an abuse of discretion.” slip op. at 5

  § 101 eligibilitycites Berkheimer
  Patents in suitUS 9,669,308
• DISH Network Corporation / DISH Network L.L.C. v. Customedia Technologies, L.L.C.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jul 25, 2018 · CBM2017-00032 · APJ Meredith C Petravick · CBM · Final written decision

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

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • BurdenOther

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

  • Adverse judgmentOther

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

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

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

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

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

  Patent outcomesUS 9,053,494 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 101 eligibility§ 112 disclosurecites Mayo · Enfish
  Patents in suitUS 9,053,494
• Yahoo! Inc. v. Almondnet, Inc.Rehearing denied
  PTAB · Feb 5, 2018 · CBM2017-00047 · APJ Michael W Kim · CBM · Rehearing

  The Board denied Yahoo!’s rehearing request, leaving in place the denial of institution on the § 101 challenge to claims 1, 2-4, 11-13, 16-17, and 20-22.

  RulingsRehearing decision

  • RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied

    “requesting party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). When rehearing a decision on institution, the Board will review the decision for an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c).” slip op. at 2

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

    “matter, resolution of this issue in Petitioner’s favor is not dispositive, as Petitioner still failed to account sufficiently for the terms “offsite” and “targeted” (to say nothing of “first Internet site,” “second Internet site,” and directing off-site advertisements to visitors of the second Internet site as a consequence of determining visits to the first Internet site “using the tags and the records,” as also recited in claim 1). See Decision 11–14. Moreover, Petitioner’s assertion is incorrect, as while certainly at times, an omission of “Internet” from an identification of what a claim is directed to is proper, our review of the case law cited by Petitioner does not support a blanket assertion that the term “Internet” should never be considered in this manner, under any circumstances. See, e.g., DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1256–57 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (under Alice step one, the court held that “[a]lthough the claims address a business challenge (retaining website visitors), it is a challenge particular to the Internet”). We are unpersuaded that we could have misapprehended or overlooked that which is incorrect.” slip op. at 6

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

    “matter, resolution of this issue in Petitioner’s favor is not dispositive, as Petitioner still failed to account sufficiently for the terms “offsite” and “targeted” (to say nothing of “first Internet site,” “second Internet site,” and directing off-site advertisements to visitors of the second Internet site as a consequence of determining visits to the first Internet site “using the tags and the records,” as also recited in claim 1). See Decision 11–14. Moreover, Petitioner’s assertion is incorrect, as while certainly at times, an omission of “Internet” from an identification of what a claim is directed to is proper, our review of the case law cited by Petitioner does not support a blanket assertion that the term “Internet” should never be considered in this manner, under any circumstances. See, e.g., DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1256–57 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (under Alice step one, the court held that “[a]lthough the claims address a business challenge (retaining website visitors), it is a challenge particular to the Internet”). We are unpersuaded that we could have misapprehended or overlooked that which is incorrect.” slip op. at 6

  § 101 eligibility
  Patents in suitUS 8,244,586
• Yahoo! Inc. v. Almondnet, Inc.Rehearing denied
  PTAB · Feb 5, 2018 · CBM2017-00046 · APJ Michael W Kim · CBM · Rehearing

  The Board denied Yahoo!’s rehearing request, leaving in place the denial of institution on the § 101 challenge to claims 1–8, 10, 13–16, 24, 27–29, 31, 32, 36, 37, 39, and 41–47.

  RulingsRehearing decision

  • RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied

    “II. ANALYSIS A request for rehearing must identify specifically all matters the requesting party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). When rehearing a decision on institution, the Board will review the decision for an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c).” slip op. at 2

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

    “targeted” (to say nothing of “first Internet site,” “second Internet site,” and directing off-site advertisements to visitors of the second Internet site as a consequence of determining visits to the first Internet site “using the tags and the records,” as also recited in claim 1). See Decision 11–14. Moreover, Petitioner’s assertion is incorrect, as while certainly at times, an omission of “Internet” from an identification of what a claim is directed to is proper, our review of the case law cited by Petitioner does not support a blanket assertion that the term “Internet” should never be considered in this manner, under any circumstances. See, e.g., DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1256–57 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (under Alice step one, the court held that “[a]lthough the claims address a business challenge (retaining website visitors), it is a challenge particular to the Internet”). We are unpersuaded that we could have misapprehended or overlooked that which is incorrect. slip op. at 6

  § 101 eligibility
  Patents in suitUS 7,822,639
• SAP America, Inc. v. Lakshmi ArunachalamAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 21, 2017 · CBM2016-00081 · APJ Kevin F Turner · CBM · Final written decision

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

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner

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

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

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

  • BurdenUnpatentable

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

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

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

  Patent outcomesUS 7,340,506 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 101 eligibility§ 103 obviousnesscites Alice · Mayo · Enfish · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,340,506
• Google Inc. v. Performance Pricing Holdings, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 13, 2017 · CBM2016-00050 · APJ Kevin W Cherry · CBM · Final written decision

  Claims 1–14 are unpatentable under §§ 101 and 112(a) because they claim an abstract advertising-pricing idea implemented with conventional technology and lack written-description support.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Factors that may be considered in determining level of ordinary skill in the art include: (1) the educational level of the inventor; (2) type of problems encountered in the art; (3) prior art solutions to those problems; (4) rapidity with which innovations are made; (5) sophistication of the technology; and (6) educational level of active workers in the field.” Daiichi Sankyo Co. v. Apotex, Inc., 501 F.3d 1254, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (quoting Envtl. Designs, Ltd. v. Union Oil Co., 713 F.2d 693, 696 (Fed. Cir. 1983)). Considering these factors, we agree with Petitioner that a degree in computer science is not required for a person of ordinary skill in the art. See Reply 4. First, as Patent Owner admitted at the hearing, the named inventor, Mr. Rosenberg, does not have a computer science degree. Tr. 87:8–22. Second, as Patent Owner’s Response makes clear, the problems encountered in the field of the ’059 patent are problems of maintaining advertising customers, when viewer response to an ad can be tracked and there is an almost limitless inventory. PO Resp. 5–7. These are economic and business problems caused by the particular market conditions present in the Internet advertising market—large inventory and a high level of knowledge of behavior in the market. See Ex. 1003 ¶ 36. We are persuaded that a computer science degree would not provide a person with further useful insight into such economic and business problems. See Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 36–40. Indeed, this understanding is confirmed by the ’059 patent, which describes the business problems Internet advertising had on sellers of advertising. See, e.g., Ex. 1002, 1:55–59 (“As systems of accountability are developed and the amount of advertising inventory increases, vendors or publishers in all media will be faced with the problems of attracting advertisers while, at the same time, covering overhead costs.”); 1:60–63 (noting “[o]ne problem associated with current methods of selling Internet advertising is the difficulty of striking a fair and reasonable balance between fixed-fee pricing and performance-based pricing”); 1:63–3:24 (describing characteristics of the Internet advertising market); 3:27–31 (“[T]he present invention include methods and systems for selling advertising, which incorporates a unique pricing model wherein advertising Buyers earn bonus exposure to the advertising message based on the reflected interest by the Viewers in that advertising message.”). Third, the discussion of computer components in the ’059 patent is only at a very high level. See, e.g., id. at 8:33–9:9 (discussing the components of the claimed system as only “computers,” “servers,” “databases,” “network protocol (such as Hypertext Transfer Protocol or HTTP)”). This indicates that the focus is not on the computer technology, but the pricing strategy. Fourth, the prior art solutions discussed in the ’059 patent are all in terms of different pricing models—“fixed fee” or “performance based”—not in terms of technical solutions. See id. at 1:55– 3:24. Finally, Patent Owner submits a job announcement by Petitioner for hiring a “Technical Program Manager, Ads Quality, AdWords,” as evidence of the level of skill of workers in this field. PO Resp. 29 (citing Ex. 2006 (Google Technical Program Manager, Ads Quality, AdWords Job Announcement)). However, no evidence or explanation is provided why this announcement should be given particular weight for defining the educational level of active workers in the field of the ’059 patent, beyond the fact that they both nominally involve Internet advertising. See PO Resp. 29. Moreover, no evidence or explanation is provided why a job announcement from 2016 would relate to the level of skill in the art at the time of the invention, i.e., at the latest, 2001, the effective filing date of the ’059 patent. See id. Thus, we give Ex. 2006 little weight. Accordingly, considering this evidence together, we agree with Petitioner that a “person of ordinary skill in the art would have, through education or practical experience, the equivalent of a bachelor’s degree in business, economics, or a similar discipline and/or two years of experience with media buying or selling, including Internet advertising or e-commerce systems.” Pet. 17. slip op. at 12

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “lacks a computer science degree, he is not a person of ordinary skill and we should give his testimony no weight. PO Resp. 29. As set forth above, we are unpersuaded that Patent Owner’s definition of a person of ordinary skill above is correct. Accordingly, this argument is unpersuasive. Dr. Farris is a tenured professor of business and during his career, Dr. Farris has written a number of articles and books on advertising, including Internet advertising. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 5–19, Appendix B. He has also taught a number of courses in Internet advertising, and has done extensive consulting on Internet advertising. Id. Thus, contrary to Patent Owner’s contentions, we are persuaded that Dr. Farris’s experience is more than sufficient for him to provide competent testimony on the subject matter of the ’059 patent. Accordingly, we decline to give his testimony no weight.” slip op. at 14

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

    “We construe the challenged claims according to these principles. In our Decision to Institute, we determined that no terms required express construction. In its Patent Owner Response, Patent Owner contends that we should construe the term “impression,” recited in claim 1, as “presentation of an Internet advertising message.” PO Resp. 29–31. In the Reply, Petitioner indicates that it agrees with Patent Owner’s proposed interpretation and points to the testimony of Petitioner’s declarant Dr. Farris and Patent Owner’s declarant Mr. Zatkovich for support. Reply 5–6 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 27, Ex. 1017, 44:19–45:19, 142:15–143:12). This is also the construction we adopted in our Decision to Institute in the related proceeding, CBM2016- 00049. See Google Inc. v. Performance Price Holdings, LLC, Case CBM2016-00049, slip op. 5–6 (PTAB Sept. 21, 2016) (Paper 10). Given that this construction is consistent with the specification, we adopt Patent Owner’s construction of “impression” as “presentation of an Internet advertising message.” See Ex. 1002, 2:36–44, 5:12–16.” slip op. at 15

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

    “We agree with Petitioner that these claims are drawn to an abstract idea. Specifically, we agree with Petitioner that the claims of the challenged patent are directed to decreasing the cost of an advertisement based on the performance of the ad, and that such a concept is an abstract idea. Pet. 19. More succinctly, we are persuaded that the claims are directed to a performance-based pricing model for advertising, and that such a pricing model is an abstract idea. The clear language of the claims and unambiguous disclosure of the specification to the contrary belie Patent Owner’s arguments. For example, beginning with independent claims 1 and 6, the only equipment that those claims identify are a “processor” and “at least one storage device in communication with the at least one processor.” Ex. 1002, 12:24–25, 12:56–57. The remainder of the claim is simply a method embodied in instructions stored on the storage device. As discussed above, these claimed method steps include having the processor (i) “ascertain[ ] . . . a predetermined cost to an entity per impression of an advertising message,” (ii) “present[ ] . . . the advertising message for display on a website such that the advertising message is viewable via one or more viewer computers,” (iii) “detect[ ] . . . a quantity of actions performed by users of the one or more viewer computers,” and (iv) “decrease[e] the cost per impression of the advertising message to the entity below the predetermined cost” as the “quantity of detected actions increases.” Id. at 12:30–43. Thus, the focus of the claims is on collecting and analyzing data for the pricing method, not the hardware on which it is performed or the software that implicitly causes it to happen. The specification reinforces the abstract nature of the claimed invention. The “Summary of the Invention,” explains that “[e]mbodiments of the present invention include methods and system for selling advertising, which incorporates a unique pricing model wherein advertising Buyers earn bonus exposure to the advertising message based on the reflected interest by the Viewers in that advertising message.” Id. at 3:27–33. Indeed, the specification describes the advantages of the claimed invention include helping sellers secure fixed-fee pricing while offering a performance-based incentive to buyers, and attracting potential buyers, while maintaining customer loyalty, encouraging effective creative advertising design and placement, and assisting sellers in managing unsold inventory. Id. at 3:34– 39. These advantages all concern abstract concepts, and not technology.” slip op. at 19

  Patent outcomesUS 8,799,059 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 101 eligibility§ 112 disclosurecites Alice · Mayo · Bilski · Enfish · Electric Power
  Patents in suitUS 8,799,059
• The Kroger Company / Brookshire Grocery Company v. Nexuscard, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · 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 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 101 eligibilitycites Alice · Mayo · Bilski · Enfish · Electric Power
  Patents in suitUS 5,924,080
• Google, Inc. / Apple Inc. v. Smartflash LLCRehearing denied
  PTAB · Jan 27, 2017 · CBM2015-00130 · APJ Jennifer S Bisk · CBM · Rehearing

  The Board denied Smartflash’s rehearing request, leaving in place its determination that claims 3–10, 15–31, and 33 are patent-ineligible under § 101.

  RulingsRehearing decision

  • RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied

    “The burden of showing a decision should be modified lies with the party challenging the decision. The request must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, or a reply.” slip op. at 3

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

    “Id. at 13–14 (citing Ex. 1001, 25:59–61 (claim 1), 26:42–67 (claim 15), 27:36–55). But McRO does not stand for the general proposition that use of rules or conditions to achieve an improved technological result, alone, removes claims from the realm of abstract ideas. In McRO, the Court explained that “the claimed improvement [was] allowing computers to produce ‘accurate and realistic lip synchronization and facial expressions in animated characters’ that previously could only be produced by human animators.” Id. at 1313 (citation omitted). The Court explained that the claimed rules in McRO transformed a traditionally subjective process performed by human artists into a mathematically automated process executed on computers (i.e., the processes were fundamentally different). Id. at 1314. The Court explained that “it [was] the incorporation of the claimed rules, not the use of the computer, that ‘improved [the] existing technological process’ by allowing the automation of further tasks.” Id. at 1314 (alteration in original) (quoting Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l., 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2358 (2014)). The Court distinguished this from situations “where the claimed computer-automated process and the prior method were carried out in the same way.” Id. (citing Parker v. Flook, 437” slip op. at 6

  • Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step two — inventive conceptDecided for petitioner

    “In Amdocs, the Court held that “[claim 1] is eligible under step two because it contains a sufficient ‘inventive concept.’” Amdocs, 841 F.3d at 1300. The claim at issue recited “computer code for using the accounting information with which the first network accounting record is correlated to enhance the first network accounting record.” Id. The Court explained that the “claim entails an unconventional technological solution (enhancing data in a distributed fashion) to a technological problem (massive record flows which previously required massive databases).” Id. The Court noted that, although the solution requires generic computer components, “the claim’s enhancing limitation necessarily requires that these generic components operate in an unconventional manner to achieve an improvement in computer functionality.” Id. at 1300–1301. When determining that the claim was patent-eligible, the Court explained that the “enhancing limitation necessarily involves the arguably generic gatherers, network devices, and other components working in an unconventional distributed fashion to solve a particular technological problem.” Id. at 1301. The Court distinguished the claim from the claim held unpatentable in Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n, 776 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2014) on the grounds that the “enhancing limitation . . . necessarily incorporates the invention’s distributed architecture—an architecture providing a technological solution to a technological problem,” which “provides the requisite ‘something more’ than the performance of ‘well-” slip op. at 8

  § 101 eligibilitycites Alice · Bilski · Enfish
  Patents in suitUS 8,118,221
• Apple Inc. v. Smartflash LLCRehearing denied
  PTAB · Jan 27, 2017 · CBM2015-00127 · APJ Rama G Elluru · CBM · Rehearing

  The Board denied Patent Owner’s rehearing request, leaving intact its determination that claims 4–12 and 16–18 are patent-ineligible under § 101.

  RulingsRehearing decision

  • RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied

    “identify any specific matter that we misapprehended or overlooked. Although Patent Owner repeatedly states that the Board “misapprehends” Smartflash’s argument (see, e.g., Req. Reh’g 5, 10), it does not offer sufficient explanation as to how we misapprehended or overlooked any particular “matter [that] was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, or a reply.” Rather than providing a proper request for rehearing, addressing particular matters that we previously allegedly misapprehended or overlooked, Patent Owner’s Request provides new briefing by expounding on argument already made.” slip op. at 4

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

    “Id. at 13 (citing Ex. 1001, 26:59–67 (claims 4–12), 28:12–19 (claims 16– 18)). But McRO does not stand for the general proposition that use of rules or conditions, such as payment, to achieve an improved technological result, alone, removes claims from the realm of abstract ideas. In McRO, the Court explained that “the claimed improvement [was] allowing computers to produce ‘accurate and realistic lip synchronization and facial expressions in animated characters’ that previously could only be produced by human animators.” Id. at 1313 (citation omitted). The Court explained that the claimed rules in McRO transformed a traditionally subjective process performed by human artists into a mathematically automated process executed on computers (i.e., the processes were fundamentally different). Id. at 1314. The Court explained that “it [was] the incorporation of the claimed rules, not the use of the computer, that ‘improved [the] existing technological process’ by allowing the automation of further tasks.” Id. at 1314 (alteration in original) (quoting Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l., 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2358 (2014)). The Court distinguished this from situations “where the claimed computer-automated process and the prior method were carried out in the same way.” Id. (citing Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 585–86 (1978); Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 611 (2010); Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2356)). As explained in our Final Decision, the challenged claims “merely implement an old practice in a new environment.” Final Dec. 12 (quoting FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Systems, Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1094 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). The challenged claims are similar to the claims found ineligible in FairWarning, which the Court distinguished from those at issue McRO. FairWarning, 839 F.3d at 1094–95. In FairWarning, the Court explained that “[t]he claimed rules ask . . . the same questions . . . that humans in analogous situations . . . have asked for decades, if not centuries” and that it is the “incorporation of a computer, not the claimed rule, that purportedly ‘improve[s] [the] existing technological process.’” Id. at 1095 (citing Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358). This is similar to the challenged claims, where the “payment validation data” and “access rule” in claim 4, via its dependency from claim 3, for example, is merely a condition for “determin[ing] what access is permitted to data stored on the data carrier,” that the ’720 patent explains “will normally be dependent upon payments made for data stored on the data carrier” (i.e., allowing access when the data has been purchased). Ex. 1001, 9:21–25.” slip op. at 5

  • Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step two — inventive conceptStep2 no inventive conceptDecided for patent owner

    “understood, routine, [and] conventional activities previously known to the industry.’” Id. (citations omitted). We are not persuaded that we misapprehended Amdocs. As noted in our Final Decision, “[t]he ’720 patent treats as well-known all potentially technical aspects of the challenged claims, which simply require generic computer components.” Final Dec. 15. Unlike the generic components at issue in Amdocs, the generic components recited in claims 4–12 and 16–18 of the ’720 patent do not operate in an unconventional manner to achieve an improvement in computer functionality. See id. at 17–21. The challenged claims of the ’720 patent simply recite generic memories, data types, processors, and “code to” perform well-known functions with no description of the underlying implementation or programming. See id. at 14–17.” slip op. at 8

  § 101 eligibilitycites Alice · Bilski · Enfish
  Patents in suitUS 7,334,720

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.