• Interactive Brokers LLC / CQG, Inc. et al. v. Chart Trading Development, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Aug 18, 2017 · CBM2016-00039 · APJ Brian J Mcnamara · CBM · Final written decision

  Claims 1–22 are unpatentable under § 101 and § 103 over Friesen, Jones, and Kirwin; Patent Owner’s motion to amend with substitute claims 23–44 is denied.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownOther

    “ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART Petitioner contends that one of ordinary skill in the art includes someone who, through education or practical experience, possesses the equivalent of a bachelor’s degree in computer science, information science, or a related field and has at least two years of work experience developing or implementing user interfaces for electronic trading systems. Pet. 13 (citing Ex. 1002, Declaration of Bernard S. Donefer (“Donefer Decl.”) ¶ 45). Patent Owner contends that a person of ordinary skill would have a bachelor’s degree in computer science or equivalent experience, and at least three years of experience in designing and/or developing user interfaces, including experience designing and/or developing graphical user interfaces for electronic trading. PO Resp. 13 (citing Ex. 2027, Declaration of Nazaar Molokhia in Support of Patent Owner Response (“Molokhia Resp. Decl.”) ¶¶ 14–15). Notwithstanding their one year difference in experience level, we find the parties’ assessments of the level of ordinary skill not to be materially different.” slip op. at 7

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “At his level of professional responsibility Mr. Donefer works on system architecture to accommodate trader needs—he acknowledges that he does not code programs and in the college courses he teaches Mr. Donefer does not teach programming. Donefer Tr., 30:10–33:18, 36:19–22. Nevertheless, Mr. Donefer takes courses in programming languages, such as C++, R and Python, to keep up with languages that his students are using. Id. at 54:4–56:5. The college level courses Mr. Donefer teaches in IT in financial markets and financial information systems address order management systems, and Mr. Donefer occasionally invites order management vendors to demonstrate such systems to students. Id. at 35:10– 36:13. Mr. Donefer teaches prospective business analysts about business processes and business problems in order to design solutions, focusing on turning requirements into documentation a coder can use to implement a business process, rather than on coding itself. See id. at 38:10–41:8 There is no requirement imposed by the Federal Rules of Evidence that an expert’s qualifications perfectly match the field of the patent at issue. See SEB S.A. v. Montgomery Ward & Co., 594 F.3d 1360, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2010). The patent claims before us concern a method and an apparatus for providing an interactive graphical representation of a market. Independent method claim 1 recites displaying a graph and a trading dialog box on a display of a workstation. Dependent claims recite the elements of the displayed trading dialog box and user selection options. Independent apparatus claim 9 recites a processor programmed to cause a computer to display a graph and trading dialog box. In the independent and dependent apparatus claims, the programmed processor carries out steps similar to those recited in the method claims. None of the claims in this proceeding recites technical details that require an extensive knowledge of programming or computer design. Mr. Donefer’s background in electronic trading system architectures and supervising the development of graphical user interfaces, along with his many years of experience, are sufficient for him to render opinions as to the subject matter of the claims before us. In addition, the Board can has accord proper weight to the testimony of each party’s expert witness. Therefore, in the context of this covered business method patent review, we are persuaded that we can properly weigh Mr. Donefer’s testimony.” slip op. at 9

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

    “Trading Dialog Box We construed “trading dialog box” to mean “a display on a display terminal through which the user can view values for trading and selected information.” Id. at 13. Patent Owner proposes that we construe this term to mean “an interface that appears as an overlay and enables exchange of input and output between a user and a computer.” PO Resp. 24–29. Petitioner contends that Patent Owner’s construction does present a material dispute, noting that Patent Owner’s testifying expert, Mr. Molokhia states that a popup window, such as that Friesen is an example of an overlay. Pet. Reply 4 (citing Ex. 1024, Transcript of Deposition of Nazaar Molokhia (“Molokhia Tr.”) 54:19–24). Upon review, we agree with Patent Owner that the specification of the ’611 Patent refers to the trading dialog box as an overlay and that the dialog box is used for exchanging information with the computer. PO Resp. 27–28. For purposes of this Decision, we apply Patent Owner’s proposed construction and construe “trading dialog box” to mean “an interface that appears as overlay and enables exchange of input and output between a user and a computer.”” slip op. at 5

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

    “Workstation Neither party previously sought a construction of “workstation” and in our Decision to Institute, we accorded this term its ordinary meaning. Patent Owner now proposes that we construe “workstation” to mean “a display terminal.” PO Resp. 29–37. Our analysis of the construction of “trading dialog box” in our Decision to Institute we noted that claims 1 and 12 recite that the display is displayed on “the workstation,” a term for which there is no antecedent basis. Dec. to Inst. 13. Method claim 1 recites “displaying a trading dialog box on the display of the workstation.” Patent Owner’s proposed construction effectively amend the claim by substituting “display terminal,” which has an antecedent basis for the term “workstation,” which has no antecedent basis. However, the antecedent in the claim recites “a display terminal of an electronic trading system,” not a display terminal of a workstation. Nevertheless, according to Patent Owner the meaning of the claim would be understood by persons of ordinary skill and Petitioner did not argue that the claim was indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112. PO Resp. 31. Patent Owner correctly points out that indefiniteness under 35 U.S.C. § 112 was not presented as an issue in this proceeding and is not an issue we considered. Neither our Decision to Institute nor this Final Decision is based on indefiniteness. In view of Patent Owner’s positon that meaning of the claim would be understood by persons of ordinary skill, that Petitioner has not argued indefiniteness, and that none of our decisions in this covered business method patent review are based on indefiniteness, we need not further construe the term “workstation.”” slip op. at 6

  Patent outcomesUS 8,380,611 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 101 eligibility§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Alice · Mayo · Enfish · Electric Power · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,380,611
• Interactive Brokers LLC / CQG, Inc. et al. v. Chart Trading Development, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Aug 18, 2017 · CBM2016-00038 · APJ Brian J Mcnamara · CBM · Final written decision

  Claims 1–42 are unpatentable under § 101 as patent-ineligible and under § 103 as obvious over Friesen, Jones, and Kirwin.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “We agree with Petitioner that the term “interactive graphical representation of a market” in the preamble is not limiting. Pet. Reply. 4–5. The organization of claims 1 and 9 is similar—claim 1 recites a method for providing an interactive graphical representation of a market and claim 9 recites an apparatus for providing an interactive graphical representation of a market. Thus, the argued term merely sets forth an intended use for the claimed method and apparatus, and it is the elements of the claim that define this term in the preamble. See Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“If, however, the body of the claim fully and intrinsically sets forth the complete invention, including all of its limitations, and the preamble offers no distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, but rather merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, then the preamble is of no significance to claim construction because it cannot be said to constitute or explain a claim limitation.”).” slip op. at 6

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

    “serves as a trading interface. Although we consider the term in the preamble to be non-limiting, for purposes of clarity, we address its construction in this Decision. Having considered the above arguments, we determine that our initial construction was not the broadest reasonable interpretation. Both method claim 1 and apparatus claim 9 recite “providing an interactive graphical representation of a market.” Our initial construction reads into the preamble term “interactive” a feature that concerns allowing a user to place a trade. However the preamble term “interactive” does not require such a limited view of user interactions. An “interactive graphical representation of a market” encompasses a broader spectrum of user interactions with the graph of the market than making trades. The provided graphical representation is a graph of a market. The graph is interactive because it is presented to the user in a form that the user can interact with it. Other features recited in the claim, e.g., allowing a user to select a portion of the graph, define the scope of that interaction. Thus, we construe “an interactive graphical representation of a market” to mean a graph of a market presented to a user in such a form that the user can take actions using the graph.” slip op. at 6

  • Skill levelOther

    “ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART Petitioner contends that one of ordinary skill in the art includes someone who, through education or practical experience, possesses the equivalent of a bachelor’s degree in computer science, information science, or a related field and has at least two years of work experience developing or implementing user interfaces for electronic trading systems. Pet. 13 (citing Ex. 1002, Declaration of Bernard S. Donefer (“Donefer Decl.”) ¶ 45). Patent Owner contends that a person of ordinary skill would have a bachelor’s degree in computer science or equivalent experience, and at least three years of experience in designing and/or developing user interfaces, including experience designing and/or developing graphical user interfaces for electronic trading. PO Resp. 13 (citing Declaration of Nazaar Molokhia (“Molokhia Decl.”) ¶¶ 14–15). Notwithstanding their one year difference in experience level, we find the parties’ assessments of the level of ordinary skill not to be materially different.” slip op. at 8

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “testimony because he lacks requisite education and experience to satisfy either party’s definition of a person of ordinary skill. PO Resp. 14–22. Patent Owner acknowledges that Mr. Donefer “may well be experienced with the business considerations of traders and financial institution by virtue of his degrees in two fields of business and his work experience in the business departments of various financial institutions.” PO Resp. 20. Patent Owner argues, however, that Mr. Donefer’s business experience is not a substitute for the relevant technical experience needed to testify as to claim construction, the scope of the ’190 Patent claims, the state of the art, anticipation or obviousness. Id. at 21–22. In addition to the arguing that Mr. Donefer does not have the technical background that his testimony states is a baseline for one of ordinary skill, Patent Owner notes that Mr. Donefer has always held non-technical positions as a project manager and testified that he never used trading software allowing a trader to place a trade directly from a graph and that he does not know when products with such features were introduced to the market. Id. at 18–19. Petitioner contends that Mr. Donefer is more experienced than a typical end user of an electronic trading system and has been developing such systems for many years. Pet. Reply 3. Petitioner emphasizes that, in addition to his bachelor’s in economics and MBA in finance, Mr. Donefer also minored in information systems. Id. at 2. Petitioner further notes that, as a consultant and project manager, Mr. Donefer has extensive experience developing, designing, and implementing graphical user interfaces (GUIs) and that Mr. Donefer was recognized by Fidelity Investments for his work in developing an electronic trading system. Id. at 3. Although, that system did not represent market information in a graph, information it provided to other terminals, such as those used by Bloomberg, may have been presented as graphical information. Ex. 2026, Transcript of Deposition of Bernard S. Donefer (“Donefer Tr.”), 72:16–73:11. At his level of professional responsibility, Mr. Donefer works on system architecture to accommodate trader needs—he acknowledges that he does not code programs and does not teach programming in the college courses he teaches. Ex. 2026, Donefer Tr., 30:10–33:18, 36:19–22. Nevertheless, Mr. Donefer takes courses in programming languages, such as C++, R and Python, to keep up with languages that his students are using. Id. at 54:4–56:5. The college-level courses Mr. Donefer teaches—in IT in financial markets and financial information systems—address order management systems, and Mr. Donefer occasionally invites order management vendors to demonstrate such systems to students. Id. at 35:10– 36:13. Mr. Donefer teaches prospective business analysts about business processes and business problems in order to design solutions, focusing on turning requirements into documentation a coder can use to implement a business process, rather than on coding itself. See id. at 38:10–41:8. There is no requirement imposed by the Federal Rules of Evidence” slip op. at 9

  Patent outcomesUS 7,113,190 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 101 eligibility§ 103 obviousnesscites Alice · Mayo · Enfish · Electric Power · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,113,190
• 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
• SAP America, Inc. v. Lakshmi ArunachalamRehearing denied
  PTAB · May 22, 2015 · CBM2014-00018 · APJ Brian J Mcnamara · CBM · Rehearing

  The Board denied Patent Owner’s rehearing request, leaving claims 4–6 and 9–10 unpatentable based on the prior final written decision.

  RulingsRehearing decision

  • RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied

    “§ 42.6(a)(3). We consider only those arguments advanced in Patent Owner’s Request for Rehearing concerning subject matter Patent Owner contends we overlooked or misapprehended in our Final Written Decision. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). We are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument that we misapprehended or overlooked that the subject matter of the ’158 Patent is drawn to a technical solution to a technical problem because Patent Owner coined terms such as POSvc application, VAN service, object routing, service network, and VAN switch. Req. Rh’g. 3–4. We addressed these issues extensively in our Final Written Decision, noting that claim 1, from which claim 4 depends, is directed to a method of performing a transaction that includes providing a webpage for display, providing an application the user can select to access checking and savings accounts, accepting signals from an input device, and transferring funds. Final Dec. 14. We also addressed the terminology used in the claims and determined that none of these features changes the non-technological nature of the claim. Id. at 13–15. Patent Owner has not identified any matter that we overlooked or failed to apprehend on this issue.” slip op. at 5

  • Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step one — 'directed to'Not reached

    “In a conclusory fashion, Patent Owner states that we have erroneously applied the Supreme Court’s Decision in Alice Corp. Pty, Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014). Req. Rh’g. 15. However Patent Owner does not otherwise address our conclusion that claims 9 and 10 are unpatentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and does not explain how we misapplied the Court’s decision in Alice.” slip op. at 7

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached

    “Patent Owner takes a similar approach to our analysis of the prior art, stating that SFCU and Computerworld did not conduct real-time transactions and that Lawlor operates over phone lines. Id. at 15. However, the Request for Rehearing does not address our combinations of the art, i.e., Lawlor and Computerworld, Final Dec. 20–23, and EB and SFCU, id. at 23–26, along with CORBA 1 and CORBA 2, id. at 26–36. Patent Owner does not address the further combination with respect to claims 5 and 6 with SNMP.” slip op. at 7

  § 101 eligibility§ 103 obviousnesscites Alice
  Patents in suitUS 8,037,158
• 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
• SAP America, Inc. v. Lakshmi ArunachalamAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 6, 2015 · CBM2014-00018 · APJ Brian J Mcnamara · CBM · Final written decision

  Claims 4–6 are unpatentable under § 103, and claims 9–10 are unpatentable under § 101 as directed to patent-ineligible subject matter.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Prior constructionPrior construction adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “Web application We addressed the construction of this term in our Final Written Decision in IPR2013-00194. See SAP Am., Inc. v. Arunachalam, Case IPR2013-00194, slip op. at 11–14 (PTAB Sep. 18, 2014) (Paper 67). We apply the same construction in this proceeding. For the reasons discussed in IPR2013-00194, we construe “Web application” to mean a computer program to perform a certain type of work using the Web. Point-of-service (POSvc) application We addressed the construction of this term in our Final Written Decision in related case IPR2013-00194. See SAP Am., Inc. v. Arunachalam, Case IPR2013-00194, slip op. at 14-16 (PTAB Sep. 18, 2014) (Paper 67). We apply the same construction in this proceeding. Thus, we construe POSvc application to mean a software program that facilitates execution of transactions requested by a user. Service network running atop the World Wide Web We addressed the construction of “service network (running on top of a facilities network)” in our Final Written Decision in related case IPR2013- 00194. See SAP Am., Inc. v. Arunachalam, Case IPR2014-00194, slip op. at 16–18 (PTAB Sep. 18, 2014) (Paper 67). In that proceeding, we construed “service network” to mean a network on which services, other than underlying network communication services, are provided. We apply a similar construction to this similar term in this proceeding. We construe “service network running atop the World Wide Web” to mean a network on which services other than underlying network communications services are provided over the Web. Utilizing a routed transactional data structure that is both complete and non-deferred In our Decision to Institute, we construed this term to mean “using a data structure that facilitates switching a user who selects a transactional application to a service provider program that provides immediate processing.” Dec. to Institute 11–12. In our Final Written Decision in CBM2013-00013, we reconsidered our construction of this term and concluded that “utilizing a routed transaction data structure” encompasses using a data structure that facilitates switching the processing of information associated with a user selected transactional application that provides immediate processing. We apply this broadest reasonable construction for purposes of our analysis under 35 U.S.C. §§ 101 and 103 in this proceeding.11 11 In CBM2013-00013, we also concluded that this term is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph. That challenge is not before us in this proceeding, although we determined that claims 4–6 are unpatentable over Object routing In related proceeding CBM2013-00013, we construed “object routing” in claim 4 to mean the use of individual network objects to route a user from a selected transactional application to the processing provided by the service provider. We apply the same construction in this proceeding. Virtual Information Store In our Decision to Institute, we construed “virtual information store” to mean an information store in which information entries and attributes are associated with a networked object identity. We apply that construction in this final written decision.” slip op. at 10

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

    “under 35 U.S.C. §101, applying the most recent guidance from the Supreme Court in Alice Corp. Pty, Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014), which was decided after the Patent Owner Response was filed. To determine whether a claim recites patent-ineligible subject matter, the first step is to determine whether the subject claim is drawn to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea. Id. at 134 S. Ct. 2356 (citing Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289, 1296–97 (2012)). If the claim is directed to patent-ineligible subject matter, the second step is to consider the elements of each claim both individually and “as an ordered combination” to determine whether the additional elements “transform the nature of the claim” into a patent-eligible application. Id. This second step of the analysis searches for an element or combination of elements that is “sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the [ineligible concept] itself.” Id. (internal quotations omitted). Applying the broadest reasonable construction, claim 1 recites a method of carrying out a transaction from a Web application (a computer program to perform a certain type of work on the Web) in which a user selects a POSvc application (a software program that facilitates execution of transactions requested by a user). Thus, claim 1 recites an abstract method, i.e., performing a real-time Web transaction by displaying and providing at least one application a user selects to access checking and savings accounts, and transferring funds (i.e., debiting or crediting) in response to user signals from an input device. Patent Owner contends that our Decision to Institute ignores concrete limitations of claim 1, e.g., the routed transactional data” slip op. at 16

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

    “of routing a data structure as a whole, does not compare a routed data structure to standard I/O, and recites only that the point of service application provides access to the checking and savings account. Although claim 1 recites that transferring funds from checking to savings utilizes a routed transactional data structure that is specific to the POSvc application, claim 1 does not recite specifically what steps are taken to transfer funds in this manner. This recitation does not impose a meaningful limitation on the scope of claim1 because it does not play a significant part in permitting the claimed method to be performed.12 See SiRF Tech. Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm., 601 F.3d 1319, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2010). The Specification does not describe clearly how a data structure is transactional, as opposed to non-transactional, or routed, as opposed to non-routed. To the extent that “utilizing a routed transactional data structure that is both complete and nondeferred,” can be construed, we have interpreted it to mean using a data structure that facilitates switching the processing of information associated 12 Claim 1 does not recite what, if any, role is played by the claimed “routed transactional data structure.” with a user- selected transactional application that provides immediate processing. Switching the processing of information from one resource to another, such as from one data base or program, e.g., the claimed point-of service application, to another, is a well-known abstract concept that is not limited to any particular technical approach. The remaining limitations in claim 1 do not contribute any patent- eligible subject matter. The service network atop the Web, which we have construed to mean a network on which services other than underlying network communications services are provided over the Web, is an abstract concept under which customers and service providers communicate over a network so that the service provider can service the customer, in this case to allow the user to transfer funds between checking and savings accounts. This does not impose a meaningful limitation on the scope of the claim. See SiRF Tech, 601 F.3d at 1333. Thus, we conclude that claim 1 does not recite patent-eligible subject matter. Claims 9 and 10 do not add limitations that contribute to patent eligibility. Thus, we conclude that Petitioner has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 9 and 10 do not recite patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.” slip op. at 18

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

    “We agree with Petitioner that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have considered it obvious to include accessing banking services over the Internet using a browser (as taught in Computerworld) in the system of Lawlor. Pet. 54–56. Lawlor discloses “a new central/communications system performing new functions” and an ATM network linking to a digital packet switched network, such as the Internet, of which the World Wide Web is a part. Ex. 1006, col. 7, ll. 40–50. Petitioner notes that the combination of Lawlor and Computerworld is nothing more than combining the remote banking services of Lawlor with the World Wide Web banking Web sites described in Computerworld without any significant modification and that, like the ’158 Patent, both Lawlor and Computerworld address providing real-time transactional capabilities. Pet. 54. Petitioner points out that both references discuss home banking systems, i.e., the disclosed Computerworld systems operate on the World Wide Web, while Lawlor operates over standard phone networks. Id. at 55. Citing the Declaration of Dr. Sirbu (Ex. 1003) (“Sirbu 1 Decl.”), Petitioner persuasively argues that one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to adapt the Lawlor system to the World Wide Web, as Computerworld discusses banks that were performing money transfers over the World Wide Web. Id. In view of the above, we conclude that the combination of Lawlor and Computerworld discloses all of the limitations of claim 1, from which claims 4–6 directly or indirectly depend.” slip op. at 23

  Patent outcomesUS 8,037,158 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 101 eligibility§ 103 obviousnesscites Alice · Mayo
  Patents in suitUS 8,037,158
• Fidelity National Information Services, Inc. v. Checkfree CorporationAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 22, 2014 · CBM2013-00030 · APJ Brian J Mcnamara · CBM · Final written decision

  Claims 1–21 are unpatentable under § 101 because they claim an abstract payment-intermediation concept implemented with generic computer functions.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “BACKGROUND On December 23, 2013, we entered a Decision to Institute a covered business method patent review, Paper 16 (“Dec. to Inst.”), of U.S. Patent No. 7,853,524 B2 (“the ’524 Patent”) on the grounds that claims 1–21 do not recite patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.” slip op. at 2

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

    “terms “electronic bill” and “EBP” do not even appear in the specification, Petitioner argues that Patent Owner is attempting to recast abstract ideas recited in the ’524 Patent claims in a manner that requires machines or transformations. Pet. Reply 2, 6. We agree with Petitioner that Patent Owner’s construction arguments attempt to read into the claims features that are not recited in them. For example, although there is no EBP system mentioned in the claims, citing the testimony of its expert, Dr. John Kelly, Patent Owner argues that a payment request is captured through an automated interaction with a user over a telephone or is conveyed by transferring data to the EBP system over a data network from a computer. PO Resp. 21–22. As discussed below, we decline to alter any of the constructions we applied in our Decision to Institute.” slip op. at 4

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

    “Merchant credit limit associated with a payee Patent Owner contends that our construction of the “merchant credit limit associated with a payee” as the maximum amount of credit a merchant extends to a payer is contrary to the plain language of the claims because the limit is associated with the payee. PO Resp. 51. Our construction is consistent with the limit being associated with the payee, i.e., the party to whom the payment is made. Patent Owner’s proposed construction, “a value reflecting the credit limit used by the EBP system which is associated with a particular payee,” PO Resp. 52, reads into the claim an extrinsic EBP system not discussed in the specification. In addition, the value reflecting the credit limit is the amount of credit a payee, i.e., a merchant, extends to a payer. Claims 1, 11, and 21 each recite comparing a payment amount associated with the received request, i.e., the request received on behalf of the payer, to a merchant credit limit associated with the payee. The only credit limits described in the specification are limits on the amount of credit extended to a payer. Although the specification describes a merchant credit limit, it does not describe specifically such a limit associated with the payee. The specification describes comparing the payment amount to a merchant credit limit, and making the payment as an electronic payment or a service provider check, if the payment amount is under a specified amount. Ex. 1001, col. 5, l. 65–col. 6, l. 5. Any amount within the merchant’s (i.e., the payee’s) credit limit is added to the consumer’s (i.e., payer’s) monthly ACH balance, and any transaction can be compared to the consumer’s credit limit parameters stored in a database. Id. at col. 6, ll. 5–10. The specification also describes releasing the payment as a draft written on the consumer’s account, rather than the service provider’s account, if the payment amount exceeds the consumer’s, i.e., the payer’s, credit limit. Id. at col. 6, ll. 10– 16. Because the consumer’s credit limit described in the specification protects the service provider, id. at col. 5, ll. 35–37, 65–66, it is a limit associated with the service provider rather than the payee. Claims 1, 11, and 21, however, recite the merchant credit limit associated with the payee. Because each merchant may extend a different amount of credit to each customer, the merchant credit limit associated with the payee limitation appears to require the service provider computer to select a payment means based on comparing the requested payment amount to the amount of credit the merchant, i.e., the payee, extends to the payer. That is, the amount of the payment is compared to the payer’s credit limit with the payee. In any case, as discussed below, this limitation is not material to our determination of the issues under 35 U.S.C. § 101.” slip op. at 8

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

    “and 21 of the ’524 Patent recites a method or apparatus in which a service provider receives a request to pay a payee, selects a form of crediting the payee based on comparing the payer’s account number to the payee’s merchant account scheme and the payment amount to a merchant credit limit associated with the payee, and directs the payment to the payee in the selected form. Thus, each of the independent claims is drawn to a computer-implemented process or apparatus in which a third party intermediary, i.e., the payment service provider, receives a request to make payment, applies certain criteria to determine what form of payment to use, and then directs the payment to the payee in that form. In Alice, the Supreme Court considered claims that, on their face, were drawn to the fundamental economic concept of exchanging financial obligations between two parties using a third-party intermediary to mitigate settlement risk. The Court, concluded that, like the hedging in Bilski, the claims were drawn to an “abstract idea” beyond the scope of § 101. Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2355–57.1 In the ’524 Patent, the service provider intermediates payment between the payer and the payee, acting much like the third party intermediary in Alice. The payment service provider mitigates settlement risk by crediting the payee or issuing a check to the payee drawn on the service provider’s funds, or in other circumstances, issuing a draft drawn on the payer’s funds, i.e., determining the form of payments based on the comparisons recited in the claims. Ex. 1001, col. 5, l. 25–col. 6, l. 15. The computer implementation associated with comparing the account number and 1 In Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593 (2010) the Court found upatentable, as abstract ideas, claims drawn to hedging against the financial risk of commodity price fluctuations where the claims recited the steps of initiating a series of financial transactions between commodity providers and consumers, identifying market participants with a counterrisk for the same commodity and initiating a series of risk balancing transactions between those market participants and the commodity provider. the credit limit are incidental to the fundamental economic concept of having a third party intermediate a settlement either by crediting the payee from the third party’s funds (as in a credit transaction) or from the payer’s funds (as when the amounts exceed the payer’s credit limit with the service provider). Thus, we conclude that each of independent claims 1, 11, and 21 is directed to an abstract concept.” slip op. at 12

  Patent outcomesUS 7,853,524 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 101 eligibilitycites Alice · Mayo · Bilski
  Patents in suitUS 7,853,524
• Fidelity National Information Services, Inc. v. Checkfree CorporationAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 22, 2014 · CBM2013-00031 · APJ Brian J Mcnamara · CBM · Final written decision

  Claims 1–20 are unpatentable under § 101 because they claim the abstract concept of modifying account numbers to match a payee’s format using generic computer implementation.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “Claims 1 and 15 of the ’311 Patent are drawn to executing instructions on a computer. In response to receiving an account number in a format not expected by a payee, the instructions act to retrieve from a database a rule that causes the received account number to be altered into the expected format before transmitting the account number to the payee. Thus, claims 1 and 15 are directed to the abstract concept of comparing a received account number to a payee’s format, applying a rule, and modifying the account number in accordance with that rule to the expected format before transmitting it to the payee. As evidence that the computer is not a meaningful limitation and that the claims are drawn to an abstract concept, Petitioner cites testimony of inventor David Garrison demonstrating that the steps of the claimed invention could be performed manually. Pet. 12–16. (citing Ex. 1008, 175:25–180:14, 185:11– 189:25; Ex. 1009; Ex. 1010. Patent Owner’s argument that the claimed automatically performed method precludes the need for human intervention, PO Resp. 68, essentially concedes that the process could be performed manually. We conclude that the recitation of a computer in the method or system claims is not a meaningful limitation and does not change the abstract nature of the claimed subject matter. The limitations recited in claims 2–14, which depend from claim 1, and claims 16–20, which depend from claim 15, relate to the abstract concept recited in claims 1 and 15 and are not meaningful limitations that provide patent-eligible subject matter. See, e.g., claims 2 and 16, which recite receiving the consumer account number in association with the payment request. Thus, the method and system claims of the ’311 Patent are drawn to the abstract concept of establishing compatibility between account numbers by applying appropriate rules to modify an account number.” slip op. at 7

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

    “We also agree with Petitioner that, by transforming a consumer account number into a modified account number, the claims of the ’311 Patent do not cause a physical transformation of a data structure, as argued by Patent Owner. PO Resp. 48–49. As previously discussed, the claims of the ’311 Patent do not recite data structures that are physically transformed. In addition, Petitioner points out that Patent Owner’s expert, Mr. McEntee, testified that the claims of the ’311 Patent do not require any physical transformation. Pet. Reply 11 (citing Ex. 2028, 472:19– 428:2). We further note that satisfying the machine-or-transformation test, by itself, is not sufficient to render a claim patent-eligible, as not all transformations or machine implementations infuse an otherwise ineligible claim with an inventive concept. DDR Holdings, LLC, 2014 WL 6845152, at *9. We conclude that altering an account number to be compatible with the requirements of a payee’s system, as recited in the claims of the ’311 Patent, is not the type of transformation that rises to the level of patent-eligible subject matter. Patent Owner contends that in our Decision to Institute we did not evaluate the claims as a whole to determine whether they contain additional substantive limitations that narrow, confine, or otherwise tie down the claims so that, in practical terms, they do not cover the full abstract idea itself. PO Resp. 61. According to Patent Owner, the claims include several concrete and tangible limitations that limit the use of the “putative abstract idea” to a specific application within an electronic bill payment system. Id.  As discussed above, relying on intrinsic and extrinsic evidence, Patent Owner attempts to read into the claims structures that they do not recite. Independent claims 1 and 15 recite only executing instructions to receive an account number, applying a rule to alter the account number to an expected form, and transmitting the altered account number. The specification notes that the claimed steps can be implemented using a general purpose computer, or other processing device capable of executing programmed instructions. Ex. 1001, col. 3. ll. 58–65. Thus, the limitations recited in claims concerning the payment processor and the payment processor computer are generic computer limitations. Generic computer limitations do not make an otherwise ineligible claim patent-eligible. DDR Holdings, 2014 WL 6845152, at *9.” slip op. at 12

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedOther

    “of the rebuttal testimony of Petitioner’s expert Michael Shamos, Ex. 1021 (“Shamos Decl.”), as beyond the scope of the testimony of Patent Owner’s experts. Paper 40 (“Mot. to Exclude”). Petitioner identifies subject matter the challenged paragraphs of the Shamos Declaration rebut. Paper 41 (“Opp. to Mot. to Exclude”). In reaching our decisions in this proceeding, we do not cite or rely on the portions of the testimony in the Shamos Declaration that Patent Owner moves to exclude. Therefore, Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude is dismissed.” slip op. at 16

  Patent outcomesUS 7,996,311 unpatentable
  § 101 eligibilitycites Alice · Mayo · Bilski
  Patents in suitUS 7,996,311
• Metavante Corporation / Fidelity National Information Services, Inc. v. Checkfree CorporationAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 22, 2014 · CBM2013-00032 · APJ Brian J Mcnamara · CBM · Final written decision

  Claims 1–60 are unpatentable under § 101 because they claim an abstract intermediary function implemented with routine computer activity.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied

    “Petitioner’s expert Michael Shamos. Paper 41 (“Mot. to Exclude”). Petitioner opposes Patent Owner's Motion to Exclude on the basis that these statements Patent Owner moves to exclude are proper rebuttal to Patent Owner's experts. Paper 42 (“Opp. to Mot. to Exclude”). Our Final Written Decision does not cite or rely on any of the subject matter Patent Owner seeks to exclude. Therefore, we dismiss Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude.” slip op. at 23

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

    “We agree with Petitioner. Claim 1 recites the single step of executing computer implemented instructions with one or more processors. Claim 1 recites that those instructions include ones in which the clearinghouse receives a payment request (or a request to add a payee to a payer’s pick list), accesses billing information stored in a database, identifies payee bill presentment information from the accessed information, and generates and transmits to the payer a notification of the bill presentment information.1 Although the one or more processors may also execute instructions to perform routine ancillary functions for the central clearinghouse to receive the request, access the database and transmit the information, there are no such instructions or structures recited in claim 1. Claim 1 of the ’749 Patent does not recite any structure for the bill presentment and payment central clearinghouse—nor does claim 1 recite any particular software instructions, any particular processors, any particular configuration or interconnection of the recited “one or more processors,” or any other structure to execute the claimed functions called for in the instructions. Thus, the bill presentment and payment central clearinghouse in claim 1 must be construed without structural limitations, other than being programmed to carry out the recited functions.” slip op. at 5

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

    “The ’749 Patent describes the payee-pick-list as a list of payees the user may plan to pay electronically and states that each user’s individual list is stored in the form of a database in a memory associated with the central clearinghouse station. Ex. 1001, col. 16, ll. 49–54. We disagree with Patent Owner’s characterization of the payee-pick-list as a data structure merely because it is used directly by the programmed central clearinghouse computer system. PO Resp. 40. Claim 1 recites receiving a request to add a payee to a pick-list associated with the payer, but does not recite any limitations concerning the pick-list. The specification refers to a database known as a payee-pick-list that includes certain information such as payee identifiers, street addresses, cities, states, zip codes, phone numbers and consumer account numbers. Ex. 1001, col. 16, 61–65. Nothing in this list of common information associated with the payee requires any particular data structure. Thus, we do not import a data structure limitation into the construction of "payee-pick-list” or "pick-list."” slip op. at 7

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

    “patentable subject matter. First, we determine whether the claims at issue are directed to one or more patent-ineligible concepts, i.e., laws of nature, natural phenomenon and abstract ideas. Id. at 2355 (citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289, 1296–96 (2012)). If so, we then consider whether the elements of each claim, both individually and as an ordered combination, transform the nature of the claim into a patent-eligible application to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the ineligible concept itself. Id. Thus, the first step in our analysis is to consider whether the claims of the ’749 Patent recite a patent-ineligible concept. Patent Owner describes the central clearinghouse as a necessary intermediary between payers and payees interacting with each user station and handling EBPP interactions between thousands, if not millions, of such stations, which themselves are computers. Id. at 22. In Alice, the Supreme Court considered claims drawn to a method of exchanging financial obligations between two parties using a third-party intermediary to mitigate settlement risk and concluded that on their face, claims drawn to the concept of an intermediated settlement, like the hedging in Bilski, is an “abstract idea” beyond the scope of § 101. Id. at 2355–57.2 We conclude that the claims of the ’749 Patent, which are directed to a clearinghouse that acts as an intermediary between a payer and the payee by notifying the payer about payee bill presentment information, are not directed to patent-eligible subject matter. The steps recited in claim 1, and in each 2 In Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593 (2010), the Supreme Court found unpatentable, as abstract ideas, claims drawn to hedging against the financial risk of commodity price fluctuations where the claims recited the steps of initiating a series of financial transactions between commodity providers and consumers, identifying market participants with a counter-risk for the same commodity and initiating a series of risk balancing transactions between those market participants and the commodity provider. of independent claims 20, 40, 59, and 60, are carried out by a clearinghouse that receives a request from a payer to provide payee information or add a payee to the payer’s pick-list. The claims recite receiving a request and are not limited to any particular number of such requests. The clearinghouse retrieves the payee information from a database and generates and transmits a responsive notification message to the payer. Thus, independent claims 1, 20, 40, 59, and 60 are drawn to the patent-ineligible concept of executing instructions in which an intermediary receives a request, retrieves information from a database, and transmits the information to the requester.” slip op. at 9

  Patent outcomesUS 7,792,749 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 101 eligibilitycites Alice · Mayo · Bilski
  Patents in suitUS 7,792,749

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.