• 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
• Google Inc. v. Patrick ZuiliAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Apr 24, 2017 · CBM2016-00008 · APJ Stacey G White · CBM · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 5, 9, and 11 are unpatentable under § 101 and obvious over IAB 1 and IAB 2; claims 5 and 11 are also obvious over IAB 1, IAB 2, and Laurent.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “a first code on the server side computing device . . . sending said first code to said at least one device over a communication network. PO Resp. 144. According to Patent Owner, Petitioner “inconsistently pointed [] to cookies as constituting a first code,” and Patent Owner alleges that this is insufficient because claim 1 does not discuss cookies. Id. at 146. Patent Owner contends that Petitioner has equated code generation with cookies and that is improper because cookies are used only to store the code after it has been generated. Id. We do not agree with Patent Owner’s analysis. Petitioner’s declarant, Stephen Gray, asserts that “[c]ookies are set by servers that store the cookie in the client. That cookie is then transmitted back from the client to the server upon subsequent accesses by the user to the origin server that set the cookie.” Ex. 1006 ¶ 60. Gray opines that one of ordinary skill in the art would have known that “when a user clicks a cookie-enabled website, a cookie is generated on the server and this cookie is stored on the client computer along with all of the information.” Ex. 1006 ¶ 105. We find that this comports with IAB 1’s description of measuring the number of visits to a web site by using a “Unique Cookie with Heuristic.” Ex. 1004, 5. IAB 1’s server stores “a small piece of information with a browser.” Id. IAB 2 notes that “[t]he web server responds to the user browser by checking for an existing cookie and creating one if one does not exist.” Ex. 1005, 27 (emphasis added). As described in the IAB references, cookies are designed to be unique to each browser, or if possible, the cookies should be unique to each user. Ex. 1004, 5, Ex. 1005, 21–22, 27. We find that these disclosures from IAB 1 and IAB 2 would have taught one of ordinary skill in the art the claimed first code.” slip op. at 32

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

    “analyze patentability using the broadest reasonable construction of the claims in light of the specification. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2144–46 (2016) (upholding the use of the broadest reasonable interpretation standard under 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b)). Neither party makes an explicit claim construction argument in the proceeding. See generally PO Resp., Reply. For purposes of this Final Written Decision, we determine that no claim terms require express construction. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“[O]nly those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.”).” slip op. at 17

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

    “Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (citation omitted). Thus, we must determine whether the claims are directed to “longstanding conduct that existed well before the advent of computers and the Internet.” Id. at 1327. What we are presented with is a system for marking the occurrence of two events and making a determination about the validity of the second occurrence based on the time elapsed between occurrences. We find that this is a longstanding business practice as exemplified by Petitioner’s pharmacy example. See Pet. 47. Patent Owner asserts that the ’057 patent is different from the sort of fraud detection that may be performed by a pharmacist because the challenged claims are “able to handle millions of clicks in real time whether from the same or different users.” PO Resp. 90. We do not agree. The claims recite only two data points, a time associated with click one and a time associated with click two. Thus, a pharmacist comparing the dates or times for two prescription requests is performing the same comparison as the one recited in the claims. There is no requirement in the claims that the system be able to handle millions of data points. Further, there is no discussion of the determination being made in real time and to the contrary the specification states that “by observing a metric like the number of clicks for a given period of time, be it a short time or a longer period, such as a day or a week, the system can automatically determine if certain clicks are illegitimate.” Ex. 1001, 2:64‒3:2. In addition, while the claims recite the creation of codes and encoded codes none of this is used by the claimed method to perform its determination. That data merely is sent from one place to another while the system marks the time associated with a click. The only information used in the determination is the time of the two clicks. The claims are not directed to improving the function of the computer or its associated software; instead, they are directed to using a computer to perform a well-known business task. See Bancorp Servs., LLC v. Sun Life Assurance Co., 687 F.3d 1266, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“[T]he fact that the required calculations could be performed more efficiently via a computer does not materially alter the patent eligibility of the claimed subject matter.”). Therefore, we are persuaded that the challenged claims are directed to a longstanding economic task and not to an improvement to the computer functionality itself. Cf. Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2016). For all of the foregoing reasons, we find that Petitioner has established that claims 1, 5, 9, and 11 are directed to an abstract idea.” slip op. at 23

  Patent outcomesUS 8,671,057 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 101 eligibility§ 103 obviousnesscites Alice · Mayo · Enfish
  Patents in suitUS 8,671,057
• Amazon.Com, Inc. / Amazon Web Services, LLC v. Personalized Media Communications, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 24, 2016 · IPR2014-01530 · APJ Trenton A Ward · IPR · Final written decision

  Claim 6 is unpatentable under § 103 over Higgins and Metcalfe and over Furukawa; the contingent motion to amend with substitute claim 30 is denied.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “implementation of communications systems and controlling these systems (or similar types of systems) through the use of computer technology.” Ex. 1001 ¶ 33. Patent Owner’s declarant, Dr. Samuel H. Russ (“Dr. Russ”) stated that, a person of ordinary skill in the art relevant to the ’956 patent would have had a bachelor’s degree in digital electronics, electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, and two to five years of post-degree experience in a similar field. Ex. 2018 ¶ 27. Thus, the parties’ assessments of the level of ordinary skill in the art are roughly equivalent. Based on our review of the ’956 patent, the types of problems and solutions described in the ’956 patent and cited prior art, and the testimony of Petitioner’s declarant and Patent Owner’s declarant, we adopt Patent Owner’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention. We note that the applied prior art also reflects the appropriate level of skill at the time of the claimed invention. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). slip op. at 13

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

    “instructed that “claims should always be read in light of the specification and teachings in the underlying patent.” PO Resp. 12 (emphasis omitted) (quoting Microsoft Corp. v. Proxyconn, Inc., 789 F.3d 1292, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2015)). Furthermore, the specification “is the single best guide to the meaning of a disputed term.” Translogic Tech., 504 F.3d at 1257 (quoting Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1315). Accordingly, we must construe the term “module” for claim 6 of the ’956 patent in light of the disclosure in the ’956 patent specification regarding “modules.” In accordance with the ’956 patent specification, there are various types of modules, such as program modules, object modules, and data modules; thus, the general term “module” cannot be construed to be limited to one of these types of modules. Patent Owner acknowledges that the ’956 patent specification discloses a “data module” as a type of “module.” PO Resp. 15 (citing Ex. 1003, 248:58–249:30). Patent Owner fails, however, to persuasively explain how the disclosed “data module” would meet its proposed definition of a “module” being “a discrete unit of a larger computer program . . . .” For example, it is unclear how a “data module” containing the “particular cost-of-a-trimmed-pork-belly-unit” (Ex. 1003, 189:4–9) constitutes a discrete unit of larger computer program. Patent Owner fails to cite any disclosure in the specification of the ’956 patent that restricts a “module” to be “a discrete unit of a larger computer program.” Although the specification of the ’956 patent does not limit modules to be a discrete unit of a larger computer program, the specification does disclose that each type of module, including program modules, object modules, and data modules, is executed by a computer to perform a specific function. See Ex. 1003, 186:10–17, 188:35–37, 188:59–61. For example, with respect to one embodiment of the data module, the ’956 patent specification discloses that “[e]xecuting the information of said intermediate generation set causes computer, 73, also to generate a particular associated data module.” Id. at 188:59–61. Similarly, with respect to one embodiment of the object module, the ’956 patent specification discloses that “computer, 73, compiles the information of said instance and places the resulting so-called ‘object module’ at particular memory.” Id. at 188:35–37. Likewise, with respect to one embodiment of the program module, the ’956 patent specification discloses that computer 73 compiles “formula-and-item-of-this-transmission information into a machine language program module; and . . . link[s] said module to other program modules.” Id. at 186:10–17. Accordingly, we are persuaded to modify our initial construction of “module” in the Decision on Institution as “a discrete unit of digital data” (Dec. to Inst. 8) to incorporate being executed by a computer to perform a specific function. Therefore, we construe the term “module,” in view of the specification of the ’956 patent, as “a discrete unit of digital data that is executed and/or processed to perform a specific function.” We note that a discrete unit of digital data can be a set of commands or instructions that can be executed and/or processed to perform a specific function.” slip op. at 8

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

    “subscriber specific action in respect to said problem or interest.” Petitioner argues that the “recommending” limitation not be assigned patentable weight as printed matter. Pet. 6 (citing In re Huai-Hung Kao, 639 F.3d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 2011) and MPEP § 2111.05). In Kao, the Federal Circuit determined that the printed matter doctrine applied because there was “no functional relationship” between the disputed limitations (Kao, 630 F.3d 1073), but here the “recommending” step in claim 6 requires outputting the “subscriber specific action” in “video, audio, or print.” Therefore, we are not persuaded by Petitioner that the printed matter doctrine is applicable to the “recommending” step in claim 6. Patent Owner argues, regarding this “recommending” step, the term “recommend” should be construed to mean “to suggest a choice or a course of action.” PO Resp. 19.4 In support of its proposal, Patent Owner cites two dictionary definitions of the term “recommend.” PO Resp. 20 (citing Exs. 2006, 2007). The first definition, from Cambridge Dictionaries, defines “recommend” as “to suggest that someone or something would be good or suitable for a particular job or purpose, or to suggest that a particular action should be done.” Ex. 2006, 1. The second definition, from the American College Dictionary, defines “recommend” as “to advise a person, etc. to do something.” Ex. 2007, 3. The specification of the ’956 patent uses the term “recommended” to describe a proposed planting plan for minimum cost and maximum revenue: When accessed, the instructions of said module cause a microcomputer, 205, to analyze any given crop planting plan and generate information of a recommended planting plan and growing method that minimizes the expense of insect and other crop pest damage given maximum revenue. Ex. 1003, 275:11–16. We determine the dictionary definitions of “recommend” comport with the use of that term in the specification ’956 patent and with the ordinary and customary meaning, as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. See In re Translogic Tech, 504 F.3d at 1257. Therefore, we are persuaded by Patent Owner’s proposed definition. Accordingly, we construe the claim 6 limitation of “recommending in outputted video, audio, or print subscriber specific action in respect to said problem or interest” to mean “suggesting a 4 We note that claim 6 does not include the term “recommend” but recites “recommending.” choice or a course of action in outputted video, audio, or print subscriber specific action in respect to said problem or interest.”” slip op. at 10

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable

    “teach the claim 6 step of “generating at least a portion of a module including said selected generally applicable information.” PO Resp. 33. Specifically, Patent Owner argues that the proposed combination fails to teach generating a module that is a “discrete unit of a larger computer program that is executed and/or processed to perform a specific function,” in accordance with Patent Owner’s proposed construction of “module.” Id. As discussed above, we do not adopt Patent Owner’s construction of “module” but construe “module” as “a discrete unit of digital data that is executed and/or processed to perform a specific function.” Petitioner proposes that the generation of an Ethernet packet according to Metcalfe would result in a “module including said selected generally applicable information” to communicate the trade information disclosed in Higgins from a branch computer to a work station. Pet. 28–29 (citing Ex. 1001 ¶¶ 75–78, 89, 95– 96; Ex. 1007, 3:1–3; Ex. 1009, 395). Petitioner argues that this packet is generated at the branch computer before it is transmitted to the work stations. Ex. 1001 ¶¶ 94, 96. In view of Higgins’s disclosure of regarding the processing of the trade information, including the stock symbol, prices of the stock, and volume traded (Ex. 1007, 4:45–49, 2:24–47), to generate a price limit alert to be displayed on the work station CRT in Higgins (Ex. 1007, Fig. 2), we determine that Higgins in view of Metcalfe teaches or suggests “generating at least a portion of a module including said selected generally applicable information,” wherein a “module” is construed to mean “a discrete unit of digital data that is executed and/or processed to perform a specific function.”” slip op. at 21

  Patent outcomesUS 7,864,956 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 101 eligibility§ 103 obviousnesscites Alice · Mayo · Bilski · Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,864,956
• Amazon.Com, Inc. / Amazon Web Services, LLC v. Personalized Media Communications, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 22, 2016 · IPR2014-01534 · APJ Georgianna W Braden · IPR · Final written decision

  Claim 9 is unpatentable as obvious over either Monat or Calo; the motion to amend with substitute claim 22 is denied because Patent Owner did not establish its patentability under § 101.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownOther

    “Based on our review of the ’587 patent, the types of problems and solutions described in the ’587 patent and cited prior art, the testimony of Petitioner’s declarant, and the testimony of Patent Owner’s declarant, we find that a person of skill in the art relevant to the ’587 patent would have had a Bachelor of Science in Electrical Engineering or a closely related field and at least two to five years of post-degree experience in a similar field. We note that the applied prior art reflects the appropriate level of skill at the time of the claimed invention. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 23

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

    “explicitly the term “incomplete processor instructions,” and the embodiments in Examples Nos. 93 and 10, as discussed by Patent Owner, do not use or recite the term “incomplete processor instructions.” See Ex. 1002, 183:1–220:21. In fact, the term is not used in the specification except in claims 9 and 10. Although, the embodiments in Examples Nos. 9 and 10 as cited by Patent Owner are instructive, we are unpersuaded by Patent Owner’s argument that claim construction should only be guided by those examples and not by the specification in its entirety, especially in light of the patent applicant’s statements during the prosecution the ’587 patent discussed above. Rather, the disclosure in the ’587 patent teaches embodiments that use the word “incomplete” to refer to commands, signals or other instructions that are not yet in the form in which they will be transmitted to a subscriber station. See id. at 28:34–49. Specifically, the specification discloses that “[i]n a system that communicates information only in words that are multiples of eight, a signal whose information is represented in twenty-one” slip op. at 17

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable

    “claimed invention and any commercial success or industry praise. Patent Owner also failed to demonstrate a long-felt but unmet need for the claimed invention. We, thus, find that the evidence of objective indicia of nonobviousness is insufficient to overcome the evidence of obviousness over Monat. f. Conclusion of Analysis Regarding Monat For the foregoing reasons, and weighing the evidence as a whole, Petitioner has proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Monat teaches all elements of challenged claim 9 of the ’587 patent. We determine the record supports Petitioner’s contentions as summarized above and adopt the supported contentions as our own. Furthermore, we conclude that understanding Monat’s teachings as it applies to claim 9 would have been within the level of ordinary skill in the art, as evidenced by the prior art of record. We, therefore, determine that claim 9 would have been obvious at the time of the invention, and thus, is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103.” slip op. at 45

  • Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › NexusObjective indicia no nexusDecided for petitioner

    “Media, Patent Owner has done little more than cite to the declaration of Mr. Gerald Holtzman, which lists licenses and their respective sales revenue. See PO Resp. 50–51 (citing Ex. 2008). The cited testimony of Mr. Holtzman only details the revenues for each license and does not establish whether the licensing program was successful because of the merits of the claimed invention, the merits of other patented inventions, or for other economic reasons, such as to avoid litigation or because of prior business relationships. See Ex. 2008 ¶¶ 8–27; see also Antor Media, 689 F.3d at 1294 (affirming Board’s finding that evidence of existence of licenses was insufficient to overcome prima facie case of obviousness). Additionally, Mr. Holtzman’s testimony lists patent family licenses and revenue, but does not discuss the merits of any of the challenged claims as they relate to any particular license for the ’587 patent in the portfolio of licenses. See PO Resp. 50 (citing Ex. 2008). We, therefore, find that the evidence provided by Patent Owner does not establish a sufficient link between the merits of the invention claimed in the ’587 patent and the taking of the noted licenses. Although, Mr. Holtzman notes that some of the provided licenses were taken in situations where there was pending litigation against the licensee (Ex. 2008 ¶ 14), he does not address whether litigation had been threatened against other licensing parties. Furthermore, evidence of $350M in licensing revenue alone is not enough to show commercial success, because Patent Owner must relate that figure to the overall market. In re Baxter Travenol Labs, 952 F.2d 388, 392 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (“Information solely on numbers of units sold is insufficient to establish commercial success.”); see also In re Huang, 100 F.3d 135, 140 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (“Declining to find evidence of commercial success because ‘[a]though [the inventor’s] affidavit certainly indicates that many units have been sold, it provides no indication of whether this represents a substantial quantity in this market.’”). We, therefore, cannot determine whether the licenses reflect the commercial value of the invention claimed in the ’587 patent, or whether they were taken merely to avoid the cost of litigation, either pending or threatened. Absent a persuasive showing of nexus, Patent Owner’s evidence of licensing fails to establish commercial success. Accordingly, we give little weight to Patent Owner’s argument that its licensing program is evidence that the claims are not obvious.” slip op. at 41

  Patent outcomesUS 7,827,587 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 101 eligibility§ 103 obviousnesscites Alice · Mayo · Bilski · Phillips · Markman · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,827,587
• 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
• 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

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.