• Ebay Inc. / Paypal, Inc. v. XPRT Ventures, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jul 23, 2018 · CBM2017-00025 · APJ Kevin F Turner · CBM · Final written decision

  Claims 13–15 are unpatentable under § 101 because they claim the abstract idea of using a loan to effect a financial transaction without an inventive concept.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “We preliminarily determined that the information presented in the Petition established that the ’528 Patent qualifies as a covered business method patent that is eligible for review, and that it was more likely than not that the challenged claims are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Paper 8. Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 324 and § 18(a) of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”), Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284, 329–31 (2011), we instituted a covered business method patent review as to all of the challenged claims. Id.” slip op. at 2

  • BurdenFwd all claims unpatentableUnpatentable

    “Considering the claim elements as an ordered combination, each claimed method, as a whole, is simply indicative of the abstract idea of using a loan to effect a financial transaction when a buyer has insufficient funds in his or her payment account. See Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2359–60 (explaining that the application of an abstract idea using some unspecified, generic computer is not enough to transform an abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention). There is no indication on the record developed during trial that these claims improve the functioning of a computer, or result in an improvement in any other technology or technical field. See id. at 2359. On the contrary, Dr. Neuman’s unrebutted testimony explains that the computer components recited in the claims add nothing that is not already present when the steps are considered separately, and viewed as a whole, the claims simply recite the well-known, conventional process of debiting and crediting a funded account. Ex. 1005 ¶ 36. Furthermore, there is no evidence of record that independent claim 13 is like those of BASCOM Global Internet Services, Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC (i.e., a “non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of known, conventional pieces”). 827 F.3d 1341, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016). BASCOM explains that where claims “merely recite the abstract idea . . . along with the requirement to perform it on the Internet, or to perform it on a set of generic computer components[, s]uch claims would not contain an inventive concept.” Id. Rather, the ’528 Patent seems to indicate that the existing payment process is simply made faster and more efficient in that an immediate, real-time payment is made without the winning bidder having to access a payment page, through the use of a conventional computing network. See Ex. 1001, 4:30–34, Fig. 1; Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 20–24. Meanwhile, the method of independent claim 13 may offer an improvement to the previously-known manual processes identified in the ’528 Patent––the need for a winning bidder “to draft checks, obtain money orders, etc. and mail them to the various sellers” (Ex. 1001, 3:3–4), or to “enter his credit card information” (id. at 3:15), or for the website operator and seller to exchange e-mails to authorize a commission payment (id. at 3:26–34). “But merely ‘configur[ing]’ generic computers in order to ‘supplant and enhance’ an otherwise abstract manual process is precisely the sort of invention that the Alice Court deemed ineligible for patenting.” Credit Acceptance Corp., 859 F.3d at 1056 (alteration in original). Accordingly, we agree with Petitioner that the claim elements recited” slip op. at 29

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

    “in an unexpired patent according to the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification of the patent in which it appears. 37 C.F.R. § 42.300(b). “[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). Petitioner proposes a construction for the claim term “web site.” Pet. 20. We, however, need not address the construction of any claim term to resolve the issues before us.” slip op. at 16

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

    “We agree with Petitioner that independent claim 13 is directed to an abstract idea, and we adopt Petitioner’s description of the abstract idea as using a loan to effectuate a financial transaction in an electronic auction. Patent Owner does not challenge Petitioner’s description of the abstract idea, other than by making the conclusory statement that the challenged claims are not directed to an abstract idea based on Federal Circuit precedent and USPTO examination guidance. See PO Resp. 7–8. The language of independent claim 13 supports the finding that it is directed to the abstract idea of using a loan to effect a financial transaction when a buyer has insufficient funds in his or her payment account. This independent claim recites methods for effecting payment by a process that includes the steps of providing the user with the option to enable the loaning of funds, through receipt of a user’s authorization, and loaning funds to effect the payment if insufficient funds are determined for a payment source. Ex. 1001, 20:13–37. This purchaser-seller arrangement is not meaningfully distinct from the activity relating to commercial practices found to be abstract ideas in Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2356 (“method of exchanging financial obligations between two parties using a third-party intermediary to mitigate settlement risk”) and Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 599 (2010) (arrangement between buyers and sellers to purchase commodities in the energy market at a fixed rate as a way of protecting, or “hedging,” against risks of price changes). The Supreme Court has explained that concepts like intermediated settlement and risk hedging are abstract ideas beyond the scope of 35 U.S.C. § 101 as they are “a fundamental economic practice long prevalent in our system of commerce.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2356 (quoting Bilski, 561 U.S. at 611). Likewise, in this case, the concept of using a loan to effect a financial transaction when a buyer has insufficient funds in his or her payment account is a fundamental economic practice.” slip op. at 21

  Patent outcomesUS 7,627,528 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 101 eligibilitycites Alice · Mayo · Bilski · Enfish
  Patents in suitUS 7,627,528
• CQG, Inc. / CQG, LLC (F/K/A CQGT, LLC) v. Chart Trading Development, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 1, 2017 · CBM2016-00048 · APJ Kevin W Cherry · CBM · Final written decision

  Claims 1–31 are unpatentable under § 101 because they claim the abstract idea of confirming or modifying an order using conventional graphical interface features.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “Claim 1, as a whole, recites a sequence for displaying and submitting electronic versions of what used to be paper forms—i.e., using two interfaces—one displaying price information and the second comprising a detailed order form—to confirm or modify orders. This is essentially a computerized version of the age-old process of displaying prices and providing an order form for placing orders based on that price. Ex. 1026, 297; Ex. 1018, 2. Indeed, contrary to Patent Owner’s assertion that we are improperly distilling the claims, PO Resp. 21, it is only by assessing the claims as a whole that it becomes apparent that claim 1 is directed to placing and modifying an order and not on the scantily described graphical user interface. Merely “relying on a computer to perform routine tasks more quickly or more accurately is insufficient to render a claim patent eligible.” OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (citing Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2359).” slip op. at 14

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

    “known. Given the above, we determine that the individual elements of the claim do not transform the nature of the claim into a patent-eligible application. They do not add significantly more to the abstract idea or fundamental economic practice. Moreover, considering all of the elements as an ordered combination, we determine that the combined elements also do not transform the nature of the claim into a patent-eligible application. Patent Owner contends that these claims are similar to the claims found patent eligible in BASCOM Global Internet Services, Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2016), because they are directed to a “non-conventional and non-generic arrangement” of elements. PO Resp. 49. Patent Owner argues that “the claimed solution of the ’435 patent utilizes a specialized graphical trading interface with a particular layout to allow a trader to use a pointing device to execute trades from tabular information.” Id. Patent Owner argues that “the claimed implementation is neither conventional nor generic.” Id. at 50. Patent Owner contends that its claims are unlike Electric Power Group because “the ’435 claims do not recite merely gathering and displaying trading information using conventional computer technology . . . [a]nd they do not purport to monopolize every way of gathering and displaying trading information of every way of gathering and displaying trading information or every way of using user interfaces for placing trading instructions.” Id. at 51–52. Instead, Patent Owner asserts that the challenged claims are “directed to an inventive device or technique for trading with a particular layout of elements and particular techniques, including alterable and selectable features, i.e., a specialized [graphical user interface] tool.” Id. at” slip op. at 28

  • 101 substituteMotion to amend, deniedDenied

    “of a limitation for pre-populating the price field, and an explicit limitation requiring that the adjustment of the price field occur using the up and down arrows. As we discussed above, allowing pre-population of data fields and modification of data fields using up and down arrows was known and does not alter the fact that these claims are directed to the pre-electronic analog of a paper order form used as part of the traditional order confirmation and modification process. As we explained above, the original claims already recited the up and down arrows to modify the price and size fields and this limitation only slightly narrows the claim to using those arrows, which were already present in the claim. As we discussed above, those up and down price arrows did not later our conclusion that the claims are directed to the abstract idea of “[c]onfirming and/or modifying an order as part of the order placement process.” Merely, reciting that the already present arrows are used, does not limit the claim in any meaningful way. The explicit use of the arrows and pre-populating a data field are simply specifying how and in what order certain data are to be displayed, which without more, is still collecting, analyzing, and displaying information is abstract). Even considering them together, we agree with Petitioner that they represent merely a computerized version of pre-electronic trading concepts and, much like Ameranth “[t]he patents claim systems including menus with particular features. They do not claim a particular way of programming or designing the software to create menus that have those features, but instead claim the resulting systems.” See Amaranth, 842 F.3d at 1241; see also Affinity Labs, 838 F.3d at 1262 (claims abstract where the alleged technological features are merely “tools in the aid of a process focused on an abstract idea”). Thus, we agree with Petitioner that the amended claims remain directed to the abstract idea of confirming and/or modifying an order as part of the order placement process.” slip op. at 42

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedMixed

    “paragraphs 59–97 of Mr. Molokhia’s Declaration (Exhibit 2027). Mot. Exclude 1. With respect to Exhibit 2026, Petitioner argues that the exhibit is not relevant under Federal Rules of Evidence 401 and 402, would lead to undue prejudice under Federal Rule of Evidence 403, and is inadmissible hearsay under Federal Rule of Evidence 802. Mot. Exclude 2–3. Patent Owner argues that the testimony is relevant, not prejudicial, and not hearsay. Opp. Exclude 3–8. We did not rely on Exhibit 2026, so we dismiss the motion to exclude as moot insofar as it applies to Exhibit 2026. With respect to paragraphs 59–97 of Exhibit 2027, Petitioner argues that they should be excluded under Fed. R. Evid. 702 and as “inadmissible conclusions of law.” Mot. Exclude 3. Petitioner argues that Mr. Molokhia fails to provide any underlying facts or data for his conclusions that the amended claims are not obvious. Id. at 5. Petitioner contends that “[w]ithout sufficient facts or data to support Mr. Molokhia’s opinion, such testimony stands as conclusory and unreliable, and thus inadmissible under F.R.E. 702 in view of the Supreme Court’s holdings in Daubert and Kumho.” Id. at 6. We disagree with Petitioner’s argument that Mr. Molokhia’s testimony should be excluded. We have reviewed Mr. Molokhia’s testimony and find that although phrased at times as the ultimate legal issue of obviousness, the bulk of his testimony goes to the underlying factual issues of obviousness. To the extent that the reasoning provided by Mr. Molokhia is insufficient, Petitioner’s arguments go more to the weight that should be given the testimony than its admissibility. See Microfinancial, Inc. v. Premier Holidays Int’l, Inc., 385 F.3d 72, 81 (1st Cir. matter affecting the weight and credibility of the testimony—a question to be resolved by the [factfinder].”). Thus, we deny Petitioner’s motion to exclude paragraphs 59–97 of Exhibit 2027.” slip op. at 45

  Patent outcomesUS 8,060,435 unpatentable
  § 101 eligibilitycites Alice · Mayo · Bilski · Enfish · Electric Power
  Patents in suitUS 8,060,435
• CQG, Inc. / CQG, LLC et al. v. Chart Trading Development, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 1, 2017 · CBM2016-00047 · APJ Kevin W Cherry · CBM · Final written decision

  Claims 1–56 are unpatentable under § 101 because they claim the abstract idea of confirming or modifying an order using conventional computer components; the motion to amend is denied.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “in all of the independent claims, should be construed as “a visual-based environment that enables an exchange of input and output between a user and a computer.” PO Resp. 15. Patent Owner bases its construction on a set of dictionary definitions for the terms “interface,” “graphical user interface,” and “interactive.” See Ex. 2012 (“interface”); Ex. 2013 (“interactive”); Ex. 2014 (“graphical user interface”); Ex. 2021 (“interactive”). Petitioner contends that Patent Owner is improperly importing limitations into this term. Pet. Reply 1–2. Petitioner argues that the term should be construed as a “graphical interface.” Id. at 2. We agree with Petitioner that Patent Owner seeks to improperly limit the term “second interface.” First, only one of the recited in the claims. The terms “graphical user interface” and “interactive” are absent from the claims. Moreover, the term “graphical user interface” is not used in the specification. Thus, we are reluctant to import the general meaning of these terms into the claims. For example, with respect to “interactive,” there is nothing in the claims that requires the “second interface” be involved in the “exchange of input and output.” Although the claims recite the second interface receiving input from the user, there is no discussion in the independent claims of displaying outputs from the trading system or “exchanging information” from the computer to the user. To the extent other claims explicitly recite exchanging information, we do not believe it is necessary to incorporate that limitation into this term. See Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1237 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“Construing a claim term to include features of that term already recited in the claims would make those expressly recited features redundant.”). In addition, from the definition of “graphical user interface,” Patent Owner derives the requirement that the “second interface” be an “environment.” It is unclear what this term adds to construction. The term “environment” is not used in the specification, so we are left to speculate what additional features that term might pull into or exclude from the claim. To the extent that Patent Owner is attempting to use the term “environment” to incorporate additional software components that are not claimed and not described in the specification, we decline to do so. Instead, we rely on the specification’s description of the graphical interface that the parties agree is what is attempted to be claimed as the “second interface.” The specification describes the “second interface” as follows: invention, a trader may enter the command using a command-line interface, click on a component of a bid and offer in a market cell, enter the command using a graphical interface, or may click on a piece of data in a data window. After initiating a command from a command-line interface, a market cell, or a data window, the present invention may verify the entry by presenting a graphical interface. This interface may be the same graphical interface that may be used to enter a trading command. In addition to displaying the graphical interface, a mouse pointer may be redirected to a portion of the graphical interface to speed up entry of the trading command. After initiating the command, but before completing the command, a trader may then alter the parameters of the command either to complete entry of the parameters or to correct one or more incorrect entries. Ex. 1001, 2:8–23. Thus, the specification describes what is attempted to be claimed as the “second interface” simply as a “graphical interface.” We determine that this is the broadest reasonable construction consistent with the specification. Thus, we construe the term “second interface” as a “graphical interface.”” slip op. at 9

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

    “Claim 1, as a whole, recites a sequence for displaying and submitting electronic versions of what used to be paper forms—i.e., using two interfaces—one displaying trading commands (and for some claims also price information) and the second comprising a detailed order form—to confirm or modify orders. This is essentially a computerized version of the age-old process of displaying prices and providing an order form for placing orders based on that price. Ex. 1026, 297; Ex. 1018, 2. Indeed, contrary to Patent Owner’s assertion that we are improperly distilling the claims, PO Resp. 25, it is only by assessing the claims as a whole that it becomes apparent that claim 1 is directed to placing and modifying an order and not on the scantily described graphical user interface. Merely “relying on a computer to perform routine tasks more quickly or more accurately is insufficient to render a claim patent eligible.” OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (citing Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2359).” slip op. at 14

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

    “The use of a graphical user interface, a known way for a user to interact with the computer, does not change the generic nature of the computer. Merely reciting a generic computer and generic computer functions cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358. Even limiting the input to using a pointer device, would not add anything to these claims because use of a pointer with a graphical interface was entirely conventional, routine, and known. Given the above, we determine that the individual elements of the claim do not transform the nature of the claim into a patent-eligible application. They do not add significantly more to the abstract idea or fundamental economic practice.” slip op. at 27

  • 101 substituteMotion to amend, deniedDenied

    “limitations do not alter the fact that these claims are directed to the pre-electronic analog of a paper order form used as part of the traditional order confirmation and modification process. As we explained above, none of these limitations individually altered our conclusion that the claims are directed to the abstract idea of “[c]onfirming and/or modifying an order as part of the order placement process.” For instance, pre-populating certain fields is simply specifying how and in what order certain data are to be displayed, but without more, that is still abstract. See Elec. Power Grp., 830 F.3d at 1353–54 (explaining that collecting, analyzing, and displaying information is abstract). Even considering them together, we agree with Petitioner that they represent merely a computerized version of pre-electronic trading concepts and, much like Ameranth “[t]he patents claim systems including menus with particular features. They do not claim a particular way of programming or designing the software to create menus that have those features, but instead claim the resulting systems.” See Ameranth, 842 F.3d at 1241; see also Affinity Labs, 838 F.3d at 1262 (claims abstract where the alleged technological features are merely “tools in the aid of a process focused on an abstract idea”). Thus, we agree with Petitioner that the amended claims remain directed to the abstract idea of confirming and/or modifying an order as part of the order placement process.” slip op. at 42

  Patent outcomesUS 8,041,626 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 101 eligibilitycites Alice · Mayo · Bilski · Enfish · Electric Power
  Patents in suitUS 8,041,626
• CQG, Inc. / CQG, LLC (F/K/A CQGT, LLC) et al. v. Chart Trading Development, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 1, 2017 · CBM2016-00046 · APJ Kevin W Cherry · CBM · Final written decision

  Claims 1–78 are unpatentable under § 101 because they claim the abstract idea of confirming or modifying an order using conventional computer interfaces; the motion to amend is denied.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “Claim 1, as a whole, recites a sequence for displaying and submitting electronic versions of what used to be paper forms—i.e., using two interfaces—one displaying price information and the second comprising a detailed order form—to confirm or modify orders. This is essentially a computerized version of the age-old process of displaying prices and providing an order form for placing orders based on that price. Ex. 1026, 297; Ex. 1018, 2. Indeed, contrary to Patent Owner’s assertion that we are improperly distilling the claims, PO Resp. 24, it is only by assessing the claims as a whole that it becomes apparent that claim 1 is directed to placing and modifying an order and not on the scantily described graphical user interface. Merely “relying on a computer to perform routine tasks more quickly or more accurately is insufficient to render a claim patent eligible.” OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (citing Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2359).” slip op. at 14

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

    “functions cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358. Even limiting the input to using a pointer device, would not add anything to these claims because use of a pointer with a graphical interface was entirely conventional, routine, and known. Given the above, we determine that the individual elements of the claim do not transform the nature of the claim into a patent-eligible application. They do not add significantly more to the abstract idea or fundamental economic practice. Moreover, considering all of the elements as an ordered combination, we determine that the combined elements also do not transform the nature of the claim into a patent-eligible application. Patent Owner contends that these claims are similar to the claims found patent eligible in BASCOM Global Internet Services, Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2016), because they are directed to a “non-conventional and non-generic arrangement” of elements. PO Resp. 52. Patent Owner argues that “the claimed solution of the ’416 patent utilizes a specialized graphical trading interface with a particular layout to allow a trader to use a pointing device to execute trades from tabular information.” Id. Patent Owner argues that “the implementation is neither conventional nor generic.” Id. at 53. Patent Owner contends that its claims are unlike Electric Power Group because “the ’416 claims do not recite merely gathering and displaying trading information using conventional computer technology . . . [a]nd they do not purport to monopolize every way of gathering and displaying trading information of every way of gathering and displaying trading information or every way of using user interfaces for placing trading instructions.” Id.” slip op. at 27

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

    “a “graphical interface.” Id. at 2. We agree with Petitioner that Patent Owner seeks to improperly limit the term “second interface.” First, only one of the terms Patent Owner relies upon for its dictionary definitions is actually recited in the claims. The terms “graphical user interface” and “interactive” are absent from the claims. Moreover, the term “graphical user interface” is not used in the specification. Thus, we are reluctant to import the general meaning of these terms into the claims. For example, with respect to “interactive,” there is nothing in the claims that requires the “second interface” be involved in the “exchange of input and output.” Although the independent claims recite the “second interface” receiving input from the user, there is no discussion of the second interface displaying outputs from the trading system or “exchanging information” from the computer to the user. To the extent other claims explicitly recite exchanging information, we do not believe it is necessary to incorporate that limitation into this term. See Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1237 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“Construing a claim term to include features of that term already recited in the claims would make those expressly recited features redundant.”). In addition, from the definition of “graphical user interface,” Patent Owner derives the requirement that the “second interface” be an “environment.” It is unclear what this term adds to construction. The term “environment” is not used in the specification, so we are left to speculate what additional features that term might pull into or exclude from the claim. To the extent that Patent Owner is attempting to use the term “environment” to incorporate additional software components that are not claimed and not described in the specification, we decline to do so. Instead, we rely on the claimed as the “second interface.” The specification describes a second interface as follows: After initiating a command from a command-line interface, a market cell, or a data window, the present invention may verify the entry by presenting a graphical interface. This interface may be the same graphical interface that may be used to enter a trading command. In addition to displaying the graphical interface, a mouse pointer may be redirected to a portion of the graphical interface to speed up entry of the trading command. After initiating the command, but before completing the command, a trader may then alter the parameters of the command either to complete entry of the parameters or to correct one or more incorrect entries. Ex. 1001, 2:12–24. Thus, the specification describes what is attempted to be claimed as the “second interface” simply as a “graphical interface.” We determine that this is the broadest reasonable construction consistent with the specification. Thus, we construe the term “second interface” as a “graphical interface.”” slip op. at 10

  • 101 substituteMotion to amend, deniedDenied

    “The only substantive amendments made to the claims are the addition of an explicit limitation requiring a “pointer device” as providing the input recited in the claims, an explanation that what is selected is the bid price or the bid price and offer price are pre-populated in the second interface. As we discussed above, these limitations do not alter the fact that these claims are directed to the pre-electronic analog of a paper order form used as part of the traditional order confirmation and modification process. As we explained above, none of these limitations individually altered our conclusion that the claims are directed to the abstract idea of “[c]onfirming and/or modifying an order as part of the order placement process.” For instance, pre-populating certain fields is simply specifying how and in what order certain data are to be displayed, but without more, that is still abstract. See Elec. Power Grp., 830 F.3d at 1353–54 (explaining that collecting, analyzing, and displaying information is abstract). Even considering them together, we agree with Petitioner that they represent merely a computerized version of pre-electronic trading concepts and, much like Ameranth “[t]he patents claim systems including menus with particular features. They do not claim a particular way of programming or designing the software to create menus that have those features, but instead claim the resulting systems.” See Ameranth, 842 F.3d at 1241; see also Affinity Labs, 838 F.3d at 1262 (claims abstract where the alleged technological features are merely “tools in the aid of a process focused on an abstract idea”). Thus, we agree with Petitioner that the amended claims remain directed to the abstract idea of confirming and/or modifying an order as part of the order placement process.” slip op. at 40

  Patent outcomesUS 7,890,416 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 101 eligibilitycites Alice · Mayo · Bilski · Enfish · Electric Power
  Patents in suitUS 7,890,416
• Apple, Inc. / Domino’S Pizza, Inc. et al. v. Ameranth, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 20, 2015 · CBM2014-00013 · APJ Meredith C Petravick · CBM · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 10, and 12 are unpatentable under § 101; claims 3, 6–9, 11, and 13–16 were not shown unpatentable because the petition did not establish their claimed features were conventional.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • BurdenMixed

    “We are persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument. Petitioner states that the claimed linking is a “classic example[] of manual tasks that cannot be rendered patent-eligible merely by performing them with a computer.” Reply 15. However, Petitioner fails to provide sufficient evidence to support its statement. See Pet. 49–66; Reply 9–15. Petitioner provides insufficient evidence to establish that a menu having the functionality to perform the claimed linking from a GUI on a hand-held device, was well-known or conventional and merely require a general purpose computer. See id. Upon review, we determine that Petitioner fails to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 3 and 11 recite patent-ineligible subject matter.” slip op. at 37

  • Skill levelOther

    “B. Claim Construction The Board interprets claims of unexpired patents using the broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.300(b). Under the broadest reasonable construction standard, claim terms are given their ordinary and customary meaning, as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art in the context of the entire disclosure. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Any special definition for a claim term must be set forth with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision. In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994). In the absence of such a definition, limitations are not to be read from the specification into the claims. In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Prior to construing the relevant claim limitations, we turn to some initial matters raised by Patent Owner. First, Patent Owner argues that we must construe “the entirety of the challenged claims” (PO Resp. 31), and proposes constructions for some, but not all, limitations of the challenged claims (see id. at 34–36). Claim construction, however, “is not an inviolable prerequisite to a validity determination under § 101.” Bancorp Servs. L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assur. Co. of Canada (U.S.), L.L.C., 687 F.3d 1266, 1273 (Fed. Cir. 2012). See, e.g., Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng'g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (only those terms that are in controversy need to be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy). Below, we construe the limitations that are relevant to the issues of patent-eligibility discussed below. We determine that all other claim limitations need no explicit construction.” slip op. at 8

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notPreamble not limitingDecided for petitioner

    “In general, a preamble limits the invention if it recites essential structure or steps, or if it is ‘necessary to give life, meaning, and vitality’ to the claim.” Catalina Mktg. Int'l, Inc. v. Coolsavings.com, Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 808 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (citing Pitney Bowes Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). A preamble, however, is not limiting where the claim body defines a structurally complete invention and the preamble only states a purpose or intended use for the invention. Id. slip op. at 11

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

    “We are persuaded by Petitioner that the broadest reasonable construction in light of the Specification of the term CPU is the computational and control unit of a computer. Petitioner’s construction is consistent with the Specification, which describes that the system of the ’733 patent uses typical hardware elements in the form of a computer workstation and that “a typical workstation platform includes hardware such as a central processing unit (‘CPU’), e.g., a Pentium® microprocessor.” Ex. 1033, col. 6, ll. 52–54; see also id. at col. 6, l. 65 (“a CPU, e.g., Pentium® microprocessor”). Further, Petitioner’s construction is consistent with the Specification, which as discussed above, discloses using a desktop PC to generate and download menus to a connected handheld device (see id. at col. 7, l. 38–col. 10, l. 15), as well as, discloses the use of a central back-office server (e.g., see id. at col. 2, ll. 37–40). Patent Owner’s proposed construction improperly reads into the claims the central back-office server. See Renishaw, 158 F.3d at 1249 (explaining that extraneous features should not be read into the claims). For these reasons, we determine that the broadest reasonable construction, in light of the Specification, of CPU is the computational and control unit of a computer.” slip op. at 15

  Patent outcomesUS 6,982,733 mixed
  Claim construction§ 101 eligibilitycites Alice · Mayo
  Patents in suitUS 6,982,733
• Agilysys, Inc. / Expedia, Inc. et al. v. Ameranth, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 20, 2015 · CBM2014-00016 · APJ Meredith C Petravick · CBM · Final written decision

  Claims 1–10 are unpatentable under § 101 because they claim the abstract idea of generating a criteria-based menu and transmitting it using conventional computer elements.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “Petition (Paper 8, “Pet.”) requesting review under the transitional program for covered business method patent of claims 1–15 of U.S. Patent No. 6,871,325 B1 (Ex. 1032, “the ’325 patent”). On March 26, 2014, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 324, we instituted this trial as to claims 1–10 of the ’325 patent on only one proposed ground of unpatentability, 35 U.S.C. § 101. Paper 19 (“Dec. to Inst.”). We did not institute as to claims 11–16 on any of the grounds proposed in the Petition. Ameranth, Inc. (“Patent Owner”) filed a Patent Owner Response (Paper 26, “PO Resp.”) and Petitioner filed a Reply (Paper 27, “Reply”).” slip op. at 2

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

    “Prior to construing the relevant claim limitations, we turn to some initial matters raised by Patent Owner. First, Patent Owner argues that we must construe “the entirety of the challenged claims” (PO Resp. 30), and proposes constructions for some, but not all, limitations of the challenged claims (see id. at 33–35). Claim construction, however, “is not an inviolable prerequisite to a validity determination under § 101.” Bancorp Servs. L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assur. Co. of Canada (U.S.), L.L.C., 687 F.3d 1266, 1273 (Fed. Cir. 2012). See, e.g., Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng'g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (only those terms that are in controversy need to be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy). We construe, below, the limitations that are relevant to the issues of patenteligibility discussed below. We determine that all other claim limitations need no explicit construction.” slip op. at 9

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notPreamble not limitingDecided for petitioner
  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner

    “We are persuaded by Petitioner that the broadest reasonable construction in light of the Specification of the term CPU is the computational and control unit of a computer. Petitioner’s construction is consistent with the Specification, which describes that the system of the ’325 patent uses typical hardware elements in the form of a computer workstation and that “[a] typical workstation platform includes hardware such as a central processing unit (‘CPU’), e.g., a Pentium® microprocessor.” Ex. 1032, col. 5, ll. 43–45; see also id. at col. 5, ll. 54–56 (“a CPU, e.g., Pentium® microprocessor”). Further the Specification discloses using a desktop PC to generate and download menus to a connected handheld device (see id. at col. 6, l. 33–col. 9, l. 3), as well as, discloses the use of a central back-office server (e.g., see id. at col. 2, ll. 31–37). Patent Owner’s proposed construction improperly reads into the claims the central back-office server. See Renishaw, 158 F.3d at 1249 (explaining that extraneous features should not be read into the claims). For these reasons, we determine that the broadest reasonable construction, in light of the Specification, of CPU is the computational and control unit of a computer.” slip op. at 15

  Patent outcomesUS 6,871,325 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 101 eligibilitycites Alice · Mayo · Bilski
  Patents in suitUS 6,871,325

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.