• Nautilus Hyosung Inc. v. Diebold Nixdorf, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Aug 14, 2017 · CBM2016-00034 · APJ Barbara A Benoit · CBM · Final written decision

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

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  Patent outcomesUS 7,314,163 unpatentable
  § 101 eligibility§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Alice · Mayo · Bilski · Enfish · Electric Power · Phillips · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,314,163
• Ultratec, Inc. v. Captioncall, L.L.C.Institution denied
  PTAB · Feb 22, 2017 · PGR2016-00037 · APJ Barbara A Benoit · PGR · Institution

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

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  Claim construction§ 101 eligibility§ 103 obviousnesscites Alice · Mayo · Enfish · KSR
  Patents in suitUS 9,197,745
• Westlake Services, LLC v. Credit Acceptance Corp.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 25, 2016 · CBM2014-00176 · APJ David C Mckone · CBM · Final written decision

  Claims 10–12 and 14–33 are unpatentable under § 101 because they claim an abstract financing process using generic computer components.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “As explained in the 008-FWD, the Specification describes an advance amount as the amount of money a lender agrees to pay to the dealer. Ex. 1001, 8:45–46. “[T]he advance amount is determined by the party extending financing based on the customer’s credit score, the dealership’s past collection history, the particular vehicle being considered and other factors.” Id. at 9:21–24. Although the advance amount could be less than the sales price minus the down payment, the Specification does not require that it be so. In any case, Patent Owner has since accepted our construction of “advance amount” and has chosen not to contest it in this proceeding. Tr. 28:1–12. We maintain that construction on the full record of this proceeding. The parties do not argue in this proceeding for different constructions of “front-end profit” and “database.” We maintain these constructions on the full record of this proceeding. Additionally, in the 008-FWD, we determined that the following terms, also relevant to claims at issue in this proceeding, required no express construction: “receiving information related to a database,” “receiving information from the customer,” “calculating,” “determining,” “presenting . . . to the dealer,” “automatically recalculated,” “transmitted,” “generating,” and “selectable criteria.” 008-FWD, 10–18. In the Petition, Petitioner addressed several of these terms, contending, inter alia, that “receiving information related to a database of a dealer’s inventory,” “receiving information from the customer,” “calculating a credit score for the customer based at least in part on the information gathered from the customer,” and terms including “determining” are indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph. Pet. 32–33, 39, 41. We declined to institute on that ground, concluding that the Petition’s showing was unpersuasive. Dec. 27. The parties propose no other constructions for these terms. On the complete record of this proceeding, we maintain our decision not to construe these terms expressly. 3. Additional Terms Construed in the Decision to Institute In the Decision to Institute, we preliminarily construed “calculation unit” to mean “a computer component configured to calculate” and “financing package generating unit” to mean “a computer component that generates financing packages and contains a database and a calculation unit.” Dec. 7. In the Petition, Petitioner contends that these terms are indefinite. Pet. 36. As stated above, we declined to institute on the asserted ground of indefiniteness. Dec. 27. The parties do not dispute further these” slip op. at 9

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

    “costs, for items in a dealer’s inventory; receiving down payment information from a customer wishing to buy a product from the dealer; calculating a credit score for the customer; determining how much a lender will advance to the dealer (advance amount) for each product in the inventory (which need only include two products); calculating profits for the inventory items2 (using arithmetic based on the advance amount, dealer cost, and down payment); and presenting a financing package (with unspecified information) to the dealer for each product in the inventory. The underlying concept of claim 1, when viewed as a whole, simply is to receive information from a customer’s credit application, process that information, 1 Claim 10, at issue in this case, depends from claim 1. Thus, our analysis of claim 10 starts with claim 1. 2 Claim 1 does not recite using such profit information. Claim 12 later recites sorting the financing packages based on selectable criteria, which could be profit. dealer. Rephrased, this is the abstract idea of “processing an application for financing a purchase.” Claim 10 depends from claim 1 and adds providing generic computer structure for performing the steps of claim 1 (a “user terminal” for entering customer information; and a “server” connected to the user terminal “via a network,” for receiving information, accessing the database, performing claim 1’s arithmetic to generate financing packages, and transmitting the financing packages to the user terminal). Thus, claim 10 recites the same abstract concept as recited in claim 1, performed with generic computer components.” slip op. at 15

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

    “applying the steps of claim 1 (which we determined in CBM-008 to be abstract) using generic, conventional computer components, recited in purely functional language. Pet. 22–23. We agree, and conclude that the generic computer components recited in claim 10 do not transform the nature of the claim such that claim 10, as a whole, recites an inventive concept. Claim 1, from which claim 10 depends, recites a database, which stores information about a dealer’s inventory. Claim 10 adds to claim 1 a server for performing calculations, a user terminal for entering the information to be calculated, and a network for moving the information back and forth. As Petitioner argues, claim 10 provides no details as to the components are recited generically, using purely functional language. In essence, claim 10 recites applying the abstract idea of claim 1 using generic computer components. Put differently, claim 10 simply limits the method of claim 1 to a particular technological environment. This is analogous to the claims at issue in Alice, which generically recited a “data storage unit” and “computer,” for example (detailed more fully in the Federal Circuit’s opinion in CLS Bank Int’l v. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd., 717 F.3d 1269, 1285–90 (Fed. Cir. 2013)), and those at issue in Accenture, 728 F.3d at 1344–45, which recited a “database,” “client component,” “server component,” and “automated method,” for example. In the words of the Alice Court, claim 10 essentially “[s]tat[es] an abstract idea while adding the words ‘apply it with a computer.’” 134 S. Ct. at 2358. Nor does claim 10 purport to improve the functioning of the computer itself. See buySAFE, 765 F.3d at 1354; compare with DDR Holdings, 773 F.3d at 1258 (“In short, the claimed solution amounts to an inventive concept for resolving this particular Internet-centric problem, rendering the claims patent-eligible.”).” slip op. at 23

  Patent outcomesUS 6,950,807 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 101 eligibilitycites Bilski
  Patents in suitUS 6,950,807
• The Jewelry Channel, Inc. USA D/B/A Liquidation Channel v. America’S Collectibles Network, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 16, 2015 · CBM2014-00119 · APJ Brian J Mcnamara · CBM · Final written decision

  Claims 1–39 are unpatentable under § 101, and the motion to amend proposing claims 40–42 is denied because those claims also recite patent-ineligible subject matter.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “In the ’211 Patent, the producer tests a plurality of prices throughout the auction. Preliminary indicators, e.g., the number of customers who press “1” to place an order at a particular price, provide statistics about how customers reacted to the offers at various test prices. In the ’211 Patent, the producer adjusts the demand curve by reducing the quantity available based 2 OIP was decided on June 15, 2015, shortly after Patent Owner filed its Reply to Petitioner’s Opposition to the Motion to Amend (Paper 28, “Opp. to Mot. to Amend”), and a month before the oral hearing in this proceeding. At our request, the parties filed post-hearing briefs on October 1, 2015, to address the implications of OIP. Paper 37 (“Petitioner’s Suppl. Brief”) and Paper 39 (“PO Suppl. Brief”). on customers’ reactions to the various price offers, and selects new prices based on the estimated outcome, i.e., expectations that additional customers will purchase units as the price is lowered. The ’211 Patent claims recite that these steps occur before the actual sale of an item being auctioned.” slip op. at 9

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

    “gathering steps, stating “[a]t best, the claims describe the automation of the fundamental economic concept of offer-based price optimization through the use of generic-computer functions.” Id. Thus, considered individually or as an ordered combination, the claim elements in OIP did not transform the claimed abstract idea into a patent eligible process. Id. Similarly, in the ’211 Patent, the remaining claim elements involve a conventional system interface, e.g., providing a website or a call-in telephone number and placing callers into a queue, routine data gathering, e.g., recording the time an inquiry enters the queue and storing the preliminary quantity of units in a database, and routine calculations, e.g., subtracting from the stored preliminary quantity of available units based on the number of customers who indicate they are prepared to make a purchase.” slip op. at 11

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

    “ideas and purported inventive subject matter in our discussion of claims 1– 39. Additional elements such as a computer and ancillary conventional apparatus such as various databases storing information accessed by the computer, a call monitoring component that places a call into a queue and assigns the call to operator, an electronic call record that records the time the call was made, and an automated message, do not impose meaningful limits on the abstract idea of reducing the available quantity and the price during the auction based on the indicators that provide the auction producer confidence the customer will complete a purchase at that price (or a more favorable price) at the close of the auction. “In order for the addition of a machine to impose a meaningful limit on the scope of a claim, it must play a significant part in permitting the claimed method to be performed, rather than function solely as an obvious mechanism for permitting a solution to be achieved more quickly, i.e., through the utilization of a computer for performing calculations.” SiRF Techs., Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm., 601 F.3d 1319, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (determining that a GPS receiver was a meaningful limit on the scope of the claims because, without the recited GPS receiver, it would be impossible to generate pseudo ranges that estimate the distance from a GPS receiver to a plurality of GPS satellites). In contrast, the limitations in the proposed amended claims recite elements of a general purpose computer that facilitate conducting a reverse auction more efficiently. Even limited to the context of an MSIRA, these added features do not limit the scope of the claim in a meaningful way because the reservation of units does not require a specific machine.” slip op. at 16

  Patent outcomesUS 8,370,211 unpatentable
  § 101 eligibilitycites Alice · Bilski
  Patents in suitUS 8,370,211
• The United States Postal Service (Usps) / The United States Of America, As Represented By The Postmaster General v. Return Mail, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 15, 2015 · CBM2014-00116 · APJ Kevin F Turner · CBM · Final written decision

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

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  Patent outcomesUS 6,826,548 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 101 eligibility§ 102 anticipationcites Alice · Mayo
  Patents in suitUS 6,826,548
• Westlake Services, LLC D/B/A Westlake Financial Services, LLC v. Credit Acceptance Corp.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 24, 2015 · CBM2014-00008 · APJ Gregg I Anderson · CBM · Final written decision

  Claims 1–9, 13, and 34–42 are unpatentable under § 101 because they claim an abstract financing process implemented with routine computer use.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “Claim 1 recites in pertinent part “calculating a front-end profit to be realized by the dealer for each individual product in the dealer inventory based on the dealer cost associated with each individual product, the advance amount determined for each individual product, and the down payment amount” (emphases added). The actual claim language as to calculation of the “front-end profit” is repeated in the Specification. Ex. 1001, 3:63–66. “Put simply, the front-end profit, is equal to the down payment amount plus the advance amount minus the dealer’s costs.” Id. at 8:60–63. “Advance amount” is construed immediately hereafter. Thus, we construe “front-end profit” to mean “the down payment amount plus the advance amount minus the dealer cost.”” slip op. at 7

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningNo construction neededOther

    “Patent Owner’s cites to the Specification are not directly supportive of its proposed construction. PO Resp. 40–42. Patent Owner cites to the Nerenberg Declaration, as it did previously, for the proposition that automation of financing options through a computer is quicker than doing so manually. Id. at 41 (citing Ex. 2008 ¶ 53). The speed with which a computer may perform calculations is not a part of the construction of the term at issue. Further, we see no reason why the claims should be construed to require communication over a “network,” when the term is not recited in any of the challenged claims (but is recited in others, such as claim 14, for example). We determine that the term “receiving information from the customer” is plain on its face and requires no express construction.” slip op. at 10

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

    “We conclude that claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea and, at most, merely recites implementing it with a computer. See Bilski, 130 S. Ct. at 3231. The abstract idea of processing an application for financing a purchase claimed is a known concept described in the ’807 patent. Ex. 1001, 1:33–2:50. Specifically, the ’807 patent describes processing a financing application as: a customer completing a credit application; obtaining financing from a financing institution; the customer providing a down payment and signing a promissory note to the dealer; and the financing institution paying the dealer the balance for the purchase after applying the down payment. Id. at 1:33–2:14. If the financing is not completed, the process is repeated. Id. at 2:15–50; see Tr. 34:6–35:10. Patent Owner’s arguments that the claims are directed to a specific method are relevant, if at all, to the second step of the Alice framework, not the first, and are therefore unpersuasive. We disagree that claim 1 taken “as a whole” is any more than an abstract idea relating to the general method of processing an application for financing a purchase. Claim 1 simply describes receiving information, including sale prices and dealer costs, for items in a dealer’s inventory; receiving down payment information from a customer wishing to buy a product from the dealer; calculating a credit score for the customer; determining how much a financer will advance to the dealer (advance amount) for each product in the inventory; calculating profits for the inventory items (using basic arithmetic based on the advance amount, dealer cost, and down payment); and presenting financing packages (with unspecified information) to the dealer. Ex. 1001, 12:56–13:14. The arguments and evidence presented by Petitioner are persuasive that claim 1 is directed to no more than this abstract idea, not tied to any specific machine, of processing an application for financing a purchase. Pet. 37 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 280, 285). Patent Owner’s evidence and arguments in this case do not persuade us otherwise. For purposes of the first step of Alice, Patent Owner has not distinguished any of the other independent or dependent claims from claim 1. Thus, we determine that Petitioner has proven that claims 1–9, 13, and 34–42 are directed to an abstract idea.” slip op. at 26

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

    “We are not persuaded that the claims include something beyond the abstract idea that transforms the claimed abstract idea into patent eligible subject matter. Merely using a computer to speed the steps of generating a financing package for each item of inventory is not such a transformation. See Bancorp Services, 687 F.3d at 1278 (“The computer required by some of Bancorp’s claims is employed only for its most basic function, the performance of repetitive calculations, and as such does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of those claims.”). Likewise, the ability to create an “immediate offer” does nothing more than speed up that which can be done by a human. Although we agree that the claimed steps require a computer, there is insufficient evidence for us to conclude that the computer is being utilized for anything beyond routine or conventional use. We have reviewed the Nerenberg Declaration, including specifically paragraphs 130–153, and find it to be conclusory and lacking sufficient underlying facts or data. As such, we give the declaration minimal weight in our determination. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a). As noted above, routine use of a computer is not enough to meet the inventive concept step of Alice. Ultramercial III, 772 F.3d at 716; see Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358 (“Given the ubiquity of computers, wholly generic computer implementation is not generally the sort of additional featur[e] that provides any practical assurance that the process is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the [abstract idea] itself.”) (citations and quotation marks omitted); Accenture, 728 F.3d at 1344–45 (claims reciting a “database,” “client component,” “server component,” and “automated method,” for example); CLS Bank Int’l v. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd., 717 F.3d 1269, 1289 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (claims reciting a “data storage unit” and “computer,” for example). Even assuming some of the claimed steps were not previously known in the art is not alone enough to confer patent eligibility. Id. Moreover, the ’807 patent itself describes the steps in a financing process as they existed before the ’807 patent. Ex. 1001, 1:33–2:50. Thus, the record supports our conclusion that the steps of the method were known previously. Further, Patent Owner acknowledges the steps individually are known but argues the steps as a whole transform the claim into patentable subject matter. Tr. 31:21–32:1. This argument is not supported sufficiently by any evidence beyond attorney argument to persuade us of patent eligibility. Patent Owner argues that there are many ways of providing financing that do not require calculating either a “front-end profit” or an “advance amount.” PO Resp. 10 (citing Ex. 2008 ¶ 120). Mr. Nerenberg testifies that examples where the two terms are not required for financing are mortgages and student education loans. Ex. 2008 ¶ 120. Nevertheless, calculating an amount a lender will advance or an amount by which a dealer will profit from a transaction are routine, conventional activities for financial transactions. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 1:34–2:10. Furthermore, our construction of the terms “front-end profit” and “advance amount” supports that they are conventional. Regardless, neither term, alone or in combination, “transform[s] the nature of the claim” into patent eligible subject matter. Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294, 1297.” slip op. at 29

  Patent outcomesUS 6,950,807 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 101 eligibilitycites Alice · Bilski
  Patents in suitUS 6,950,807
• American Express Company / American Express Travel Related Services Company, Inc. et al. v. Metasearch Systems, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 13, 2015 · CBM2014-00001 · APJ Howard B Blankenship · CBM · Final written decision

  Claims 2, 6, and 8 are unpatentable under §§ 101 and 103(a); Patent Owner’s motion to amend is denied.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “In this case, representative claim 2 recites eight steps for a search that is “associated with at least one travel related item,” and which include receiving the search results, communicating the results along with an advertisement, receiving an order for the item, and processing the order. See Ex. 1001, col. 145, ll. 33–61. Although the claimed process requires computer hardware and software (e.g., step (a) of claim 2, “receiving a Hypertext Transfer Protocol request from a client device”), we agree with Petitioner that the claim embraces 5 The Court’s decision is sometimes referenced as Ultramercial III. The Federal Circuit heard the second appeal from the U.S. District Court after the Supreme Court vacated the Federal Circuit’s first decision. 772 F.3d at 711–12. the abstract idea of marketing an item on a metasearch Web site with keyword ads and providing a way to order the item.” slip op. at 13

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

    “Next, or in step two of the analysis, we search for an “inventive concept”— i.e., an element or combination of elements that is sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the ineligible concept itself. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355. In this case, the claims recite, for the most part, an ordered combination of steps that contain Internet operations that were conventional at the time of invention. For example, the claims recite communicating with a client device using a Hypertext Transfer Protocol [HTTP]. Momma.com demonstrates that browsers on Internet client devices used such a protocol at the time of invention. See Ex. 1005, 10 (for “Microsoft Internet Explorer,” go to the address “http://www.mamma.com”). The claims further recite a “metasearch engine,” which also was conventional at the time of invention. See id. at 5 (“Mamma is a meta search engine”); see also Prelim. Resp. 3 (Patent Owner did not claim that “metasearching” was novel at the time of invention). Patent Owner argues that designing more than a “rudimentary” metasearch engine in the late 1990’s was not a trivial task. PO Resp. 44. The argument is premised on the assumption that the claims require more than “rudimentary” metasearching. The claims recite, however, as in claim 2, a “metasearch engine to send at least one search query to a plurality of unique hosts”—e.g., a metasearch engine capable of sending a single search query to a plurality (e.g., two) different hosts. The claims are drawn to implementing the abstract idea of marketing an item on a metasearch Web site with keyword ads and some way to order the item with routine, conventional activity. Such an implementation does not transform the abstract idea into patent eligible subject matter.” slip op. at 14

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner

    “5. Combining Knowledge Broker and Mamma.com Patent Owner argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to combine the “disparate technologies” of Mamma.com and Knowledge Broker and would not have known how to do so “without complex, lengthy, and uncertain experimentation.” PO Resp. 62. According to Patent Owner, the “two technologies” of “metasearch engines and structured e-commerce comparison shopping services providing product purchase functionality and associated advertisements—were vastly different technologies during the late 1990s and in particular in 1999-2000.” Id. at 59. A person of ordinary skill in the art would “not have been motivated to combine metasearch engines with structured e-commerce comparison shopping sites due to numerous other technical challenges present at the time.” Id. at 63. We agree with Petitioner, however, that the claims do not require addressing the “technical challenges” submitted by Patent Owner. Pet. Reply 11–12. Adding advertisements to Knowledge Broker would not require combining a metasearch engine with other “technologies” such as “structured ecommerce comparison shopping sites.” For example, the advertisements could be supplied from the hosts. Patent Owner acknowledges there is no limitation as to where the advertisement comes from. Tr. 61:20–25.” slip op. at 26

  • Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › Long-felt need / failure of othersNot shown unpatentableDecided for petitioner

    “The Declaration does not point to any evidence in the record in support of the allegations. Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight. 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a). Moreover, Dr. Carbonell does not allege, let alone show, that others tried and failed to solve the problem allegedly solved by the ’924 patent. See Tex. Instruments, Inc. v. U.S. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 988 F.2d 1165, 1178 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (“[L]ong-felt need is analyzed as of the date of an articulated identified problem and evidence of efforts to solve that problem.”); In re Beattie, 974 F.2d 1309, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (declarations that failed to show a long-felt need and failure of others to meet that need, and which offered only opinion evidence that has little value without sufficient support, were insufficient to establish nonobviousness). Further, on this record, the “desirability of combined search and shopping functionality” (Ex. 2006 ¶ 40) was not unmet at the time of invention. Patent Owner acknowledges that e-commerce services that allowed a user to query structured databases predated the invention. E.g., PO Reply 8–9, 12, 62 (discussing “SoftBot” and “ShopBot” e-commerce services). For the foregoing reasons, we find that Patent Owner’s evidence in support of a long-felt but unmet need is entitled to little weight in support of nonobviousness.” slip op. at 29

  Patent outcomesUS 8,326,924 unpatentable
  § 101 eligibility§ 103 obviousnesscites Mayo · Bilski · Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,326,924

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.