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

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

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  Claim construction§ 101 eligibility§ 103 obviousnesscites Alice · Mayo · Enfish · KSR
  Patents in suitUS 9,197,745
• HP Inc. / SAP America, Inc. v. Big Baboon, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Jun 28, 2016 · CBM2016-00020 · APJ Trenton A Ward · CBM · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show that claims 15 and 20–34 were more likely than not unpatentable under § 101 or any of the three § 103 grounds.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “For the reasons that follow, Petitioner failed to establish that it is more likely than not that at least one of the challenged claims is unpatentable. Therefore, we deny the Petition.” slip op. at 2

  • BurdenDenied

    “We believe the same is true in this matter. Petitioner fails to identify specific documentary evidence indicating that the claim element “via Web administration, producing a software configuration in which selected ones of the modules are enabled or disabled” would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the ’275 patent. At best, Petitioner provides a string cite to nine different documents, without pointing to any particular page or disclosure in any of those documents, as allegedly illustrating an “industry-wide push to Web-enable,” and provides a string cite to eight different paragraphs of testimony from Dr. Greenspun, as allegedly indicating why a skilled artisan “would have seen a strong need to provide Web-enabled system administration capabilities for the R/3 system described in R/3 Online and R/3 Book.” See Pet. 63–64 (citing Exs. 1017– 1021, 1023, 1026, 1027, 1030; Ex. 1032 ¶¶ 58–60, 85–86, 110–112). Petitioner, however, fails to identify with specificity which documentary evidence indicates that it would have been common knowledge to provide a Web interface for system administration of the system described by R/3 Online and the R/3 Book and, thus, that claim 15 would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan based on combining this alleged common knowledge with the system described by R/3 Online and R/3 Book. The Board, and Patent Owner, are left to speculate as to which particular evidence Petitioner is relying on. See Pet. 12, 42; 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.304(b)(4)–(5) (a petition must “specify where each element of the claim is found in the prior art” and identify “specific portions of the evidence that support the challenge”), 42.22(a)(2) (a petition must include a “full statement of the reasons for the relief requested, including a detailed explanation of the significance of the evidence”). In view of this deficiency, we determine that Petitioner fails to articulate sufficient reasoning to support its assertion of obviousness. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 418 (citing In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)). Accordingly, based on the record before us, we determine that Petitioner fails to demonstrate that it is more likely than not that independent claim 15, and claims 20–34 dependent therefrom, would have been obvious over R/3 Online and R/3 Book.” slip op. at 29

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

    “Petitioner urges the Board to construe two claim phrases. First, Petitioner urges us to construe the claimed “end-to-end, business-to-business, e-commerce business automation software for automation business functions across multiple business domains” to mean “[s]oftware that, using a computer network, at least partially automates business functions relating to two or more businesses and from two or more business domains (such as products, payments, and financial performance).” Pet. 19. Second, Petitioner urges us to construe the claimed “via Web administration, producing a software configuration in which selected ones of the modules are enabled or disabled” to mean “producing a software configuration in which modules can be enabled or disabled by (1) changing the configuration parameters of a web server program or (2) using a Web browser to change configuration parameters of software running on a server.” Pet. 21. Patent Owner does not offer any proposed constructions of claim terms in its Preliminary Response. For the reasons explained below, in this case determining the scope of the terms proffered by Petitioner is not necessary to determine whether Petitioner has met the standard for institution of a covered business method patent review, and we decline to adopt the constructions sought by Petitioner. See, e.g., Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chem. Co., 642 F.3d 1355, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[C]laim terms need only be construed ‘to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).” slip op. at 9

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

    “Claim 15 (the only claim substantively addressed by Petitioner), however, does not recite any “gathering” steps, and Petitioner does not explain sufficiently how the limitations of claim 15 are directed to the concept of “gathering” information. For example, claim 15 merely recites “providing . . . business automation software, “identifying multiple modules of the software,” and producing a “software configuration.” Additionally, claim 15 requires producing a “workscope/workflow structured display of complex database records,” which constitutes “an integrated decision-making environment for a particular business function.” Thus, the method of claim 15 does not expressly require that information be gathered across “multiple business domains.” Rather, claim 15 requires providing “business automation software” to produce a “structured display” of “records” pertaining to a “business transaction,” such that the display constitutes an “integrated decision-making environment for a particular business function.” Thus, even if Petitioner is correct that “gathering information from across a business and using the information to make decisions” by itself is an abstract idea, Petitioner’s analysis does not address sufficiently the specific language of claim 15 and explain why claim 15 is directed to that idea. See Pet. 27. Similarly, dependent claims 20–34 are not directed to “gathering information,” and Petitioner provides no analysis of the language of the dependent claims. In light of the above, we determine that Petitioner has failed to establish the first step of the Mayo framework; i.e., Petitioner fails to identify sufficiently an abstract idea to which claim 15 is directed.8 Petitioner combines its arguments under § 101 against dependent claims 20– 34 with its arguments against claim 15 and fails to provide any additional arguments for these dependent claims. See Pet. 25 (arguing that the “sixteen challenged claims of the ’275 patent are likewise unpatentable under §101”). Therefore, we similarly determine that Petitioner fails to establish the first step of the Mayo framework with respect to dependent claims 20–34. Based on the foregoing, we determine Petitioner has failed to establish, based on the record presented, that claims 15 and 20–34 are more likely than not directed to patent ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. 8 We need not decide whether claim 15 is directed to a different abstract idea, and only determine that Petitioner has not shown sufficiently that claim 15 is directed to the alleged abstract idea that Petitioner proposes in the Petition.” slip op. at 19

  Claim construction§ 101 eligibility§ 103 obviousnesscites Alice · Mayo
  Patents in suitUS 6,343,275
• 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
• Amazon.Com, Inc. / Amazon Web Services, LLC v. Personalized Media Communications, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 8, 2016 · IPR2014-01533 · APJ Georgianna W Braden · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 2, 3, 9–13, 18, 24, 49, 52, and 53 are unpatentable as obvious over Powell and Guillou; the motion to amend substitute claims 56–67 is denied.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “We agree with Petitioner’s position. Particularly, we credit the testimony of Petitioner’s witness, Mr. Anthony J. Wechselberger, who explains that Campbell, Block, and Furukawa teach “force” or “automatic” tuning of a receiver, i.e., “sending a signal that forces a receiver to tune to a particular channel” and that such technology was well-known in 1981. Ex. 1035 ¶¶ 122–125. Patent Owner and Patent Owner’s expert, Dr. Weaver, also acknowledged that Furukawa teaches that a television system in which a signal is received from a central facility that causes the television to tune to a different channel. Mot. 15 (stating that “Furukawa describes the operation of a spot channel wherein a television set receiving any channel may be forced by a central facility to receive a spot channel”); PO Reply to Opp. 3 (discussing prior art “disclosure of the ‘automatic channel tuning’ feature which [Patent Owner] has already acknowledged in Furukawa”); Ex. 1038, 137:11–24, 140:16–21, 145:1–11. Patent Owner’s witness testified that “[a] person of ordinary skill in the art before 1981 would have known that you could send a signal to a properly equipped and responsive television and make it change channels.” Ex. 1038, 136:19–24. Additionally, other references (i.e., Hartung and Cogswell) that disclose “automatic channel tuning” are cited in the prosecution history of the ’749 patent. PO Reply to Opp. 3 (citing Exs. 1045, 1046). According to Patent Owner, these references describe “the state of the art.” Id. Thus, we are satisfied that “automatic channel tuning,” as taught by Campbell, Block, and Furukawa, was known to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention of the ’749 patent. Although Patent Owner argues that applying such “automatic channel tuning” to digital television systems (rather than using analog television systems) would have been difficult and that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to use such technology to change channels and to send encrypted digital data (Mot. 20–23; PO Reply to Opp. 10–11), we are not persuaded given the state of the art as shown by Guillou, discussed in detail previously. Guillou discloses the decryption of digital data (Ex. 2014 ¶ 85) and explains that such technology “could be applied to other systems without difficulty for the man skilled in the art, and notably to the CEEFAX or ORACLE systems or the VIEWDATA or PRESTEL systems” (Ex. 1022, 21:23–28). The Ceefax, Oracle, Viewdata, and Prestel systems are analog systems that send signals over television channels or telephone lines. Therefore, we are satisfied that a person of skill in the art would have had reason to use “automatic channel tuning” and apply digital encryption technology in order to “transmit messages to a receiver station on a first communication channel that, when processed by the receiver station, causes the receiver station to connect [to] a communication channel different from the first channel to receive encrypted programming or data.” Accordingly, we find that Patent Owner has not demonstrated the patentability of proposed substitute claims 56–62.” slip op. at 37

  • BurdenUnpatentable

    “We disagree with Patent Owner’s contentions, because (1) we agree with Petitioner’s explanation of why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the teachings of Powell and Guillou, and (2) we agree with Petitioner’s arguments regarding the collective teachings of Powell and Guillou from the perspective of one of ordinary skill in the art. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 420 (“[F]amiliar items may have obvious uses beyond their primary purpose, and in many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle.”). To the contrary, we agree with Petitioner’s contentions with respect to claim 2 and adopt them as our own. We specifically credit the testimony of Mr. Slinn that a skilled artisan would have looked to the teachings of Guillou in combination with Powell in an attempt to solve the problem of controlling access to content and providing billing opportunities for content (even advertising content) accessible via a videotext system and address the same problem–control and management of those communications. See Ex. 1004 ¶ 100. We also are satisfied that Petitioner has shown that one of skill in the art would have had the ability to apply the teachings of Guillou to Powell, because Guillou specifically states that its methods are applicable to the Prestel system discussed in Powell “without any difficulty for the man skilled in the art.” Ex. 1022, 21:23–28. Such points weigh in favor of finding that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have “fit the teachings” of Guillou and Powell together to render the challenged claims obvious. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 420 (“Under the correct analysis, any need or problem known in the field of endeavor at the time of invention and addressed by the patent can provide a reason for combining the elements in the manner claimed.”).” slip op. at 16

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

    “We disagree with Patent Owner’s contentions, because (1) we agree with Petitioner’s explanation of why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the teachings of Powell and Guillou, and (2) we agree with Petitioner’s arguments regarding the collective teachings of Powell and Guillou from the perspective of one of ordinary skill in the art. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 420 (“[F]amiliar items may have obvious uses beyond their primary purpose, and in many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle.”). To the contrary, we agree with Petitioner’s contentions with respect to claim 2 and adopt them as our own. We specifically credit the testimony of Mr. Slinn that a skilled artisan would have looked to the teachings of Guillou in combination with Powell in an attempt to solve the problem of controlling access to content and providing billing opportunities for content (even advertising content) accessible via a videotext system and address the same problem–control and management of those communications. See Ex. 1004 ¶ 100. We also are satisfied that Petitioner has shown that one of skill in the art would have had the ability to apply the teachings of Guillou to Powell, because Guillou specifically states that its methods are applicable to the Prestel system discussed in Powell “without any difficulty for the man skilled in the art.” Ex. 1022, 21:23–28. Such points weigh in favor of finding that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have “fit the teachings” of Guillou and Powell together to render the challenged claims obvious. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 420 (“Under the correct analysis, any need or problem known in the field of endeavor at the time of invention and addressed by the patent can provide a reason for combining the elements in the manner claimed.”). Moreover, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference. In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Rather, “the test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those having ordinary skill in the art.” See id. (citing In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981)). Thus, Patent Owner’s contentions regarding backward compatibility are not persuasive and fail to show that a skilled artisan would have been discouraged from combining the teachings of the cited references in the manner claimed.” slip op. at 16

  • Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › NexusObjective indicia no nexusNot shown unpatentable

    “We are not persuaded. In cases in which the proffered evidence of commercial success is licenses, rather than sales of products embodying the invention, there is a danger that the licenses may have been taken only because they were a less costly alternative to defending an infringement suit. See EWP Corp. v. Reliance Universal Inc., 755 F.2d 898, 908 (Fed. Cir. 1985). In such situations, nexus between the commercial success and the patent cannot be inferred; rather, “affirmative evidence of nexus” is required. Iron Grip Barbell Co. v. USA Sports, Inc., 392 F.3d 1317, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2004). In other words, a patent owner must demonstrate “a nexus between the merits of the invention and the licenses of record”; otherwise the licenses are to be accorded little weight. In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d at 1580 (emphasis added) (citation omitted). Moreover, our reviewing court has held that “without a showing of [a] nexus, ‘the mere existence of . . . licenses is insufficient to overcome the conclusion of obviousness.’” In re Antor Media Corp., 689 F.3d 1282, 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting Iron Grip Barbell, 392 F.3d at 1324). Like the applicant in Antor 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. 52 (citing Ex. 2018). 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. 2018 ¶¶ 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). We find that the evidence provided by Patent Owner does not establish a sufficient link between the merits of the invention claimed in the ’749 patent and the taking of the licenses. Although Mr. Holtzman notes that some of the provided licenses were taken in situations where there was pending litigation against the licensee (Ex. 2018 ¶ 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 at 140 (“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 ’749 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 26

  Patent outcomesUS 7,805,749 unpatentable
  § 101 eligibility§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,805,749
• The United States Postal Service (Usps) / The United States Of America, As Represented By The Postmaster General v. Return Mail, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 15, 2015 · CBM2014-00116 · APJ Kevin F Turner · CBM · Final written decision

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

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  Patent outcomesUS 6,826,548 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 101 eligibility§ 102 anticipationcites Alice · Mayo
  Patents in suitUS 6,826,548
• Regions Financial Corporation / Advance America, Cash Advance Centers, Inc. et al. v. Retirement Capital Access Management Company LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 23, 2015 · CBM2014-00012 · APJ Trenton A Ward · CBM · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 13, 14, 18, 30, and 31 are unpatentable under § 101 because they claim the abstract idea of advancing funds based on future retirement payments without meaningful additional limitations.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Corresponding structure / algorithm (indefinite if none)Term construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner

    “To construe means-plus-function language in a claim, one “must look to the specification and interpret that language in light of the corresponding structure, material, or acts described therein, and equivalents thereof, to the extent that the specification provides such disclosure.” In re Donaldson Co., 16 F.3d 1189, 1193 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (en banc). More particularly, to construe properly the limitations in claims 13 and 30 reciting “means for causing said . . . payments . . . to be deposited into said account,” the limitations “shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.” 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6.5 As noted by Patent Owner (PO Resp. 34–35), the corresponding structure within the specification supporting the means-plus-function limitation is described as follows: “[b]enefits source 12 of system 10 5 Section 4(c) of the AIA re-designated 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6, as 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). Because the ’582 patent has a filing date before September 16, 2012 (effective date), we will refer to the pre-AIA version of § 112. disburses retirement payments directly to an individual direct deposit account 14 in a designated depository 16. Preferably, this is accomplished utilizing the well-known technique of electronic funds transfer.” PO Resp. 34–35 (quoting Ex. 1003, col. 5, ll. 18–22). Accordingly, we construe “means for causing . . . to be deposited into said account,” recited in claims 13 and 30, to require “disbursing directly to said account utilizing an electronic funds transfer.”” slip op. at 8

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Plain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner

    “For method claims 1 and 18, however, we are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument that the term “deposited” should similarly be interpreted to mean “deposited via direct deposit.” PO Resp. 35–39. More particularly, claims 1 and 18 do not contain means-plus-function limitations, like claims 13 and 30, that must be construed according to the corresponding structure within the specification. Furthermore, Patent Owner fails to point to any support in the specification of the ’582 patent that would require the construction of the term “deposited” to mean a direct deposit or electronic funds transfer. If an inventor acts as his or her own lexicographer, the definition must be set forth in the specification “with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision.” Renishaw PLC v. Marposs Societa’ per Azioni, 158 F.3d 1243, 1249 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (citations omitted). The specification of the ’582 patent does not set forth expressly a definition of “deposited.” In fact, as noted above, the ’582 patent states that deposits are “[p]referably” conducted with the “well-known technique of electronic funds transfer.” The specification does not limit the term “deposited” to this implementation. Ex. 1003, col. 5, ll. 20–22 (emphasis added). Even in cases where the specification describes only a single embodiment, the claims are not necessarily limited to that embodiment. Thorner v. Sony Computer Entm’t Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (It is not enough that the only embodiment, or all of the embodiments, contain a particular limitation to limit a claim to that particular limitation.). Here, the specification itself indicates that electronic deposits are preferable, but not required. Therefore, we do not adopt Patent Owner’s proposed construction of “deposited” recited in claims 1 and 18 as limited to “deposited via direct deposit.”” slip op. at 9

  • BurdenDecided for petitioner

    “We agree with Petitioner and determine that it has made a sufficient showing to support its §101 challenge. Neither the claims nor the specification of the ʼ582 patent describes particularly complex technological implementations or modifications of these technologies requiring the explanation of an expert. 35 U.S.C. § 6(a). In fact, the ’582 patent itself states that it describes implementing electronic funds transfer and direct deposit by “utiliz[ing] existing computer capabilities” and “utilizing the well-known technique of electronic funds transfer.” Ex. 1003, col. 5, l. 2; col. 5, ll. 21–22 (emphasis added). Furthermore, the “without encumbering” limitation discussed above expresses an easily understood concept and recites no specific technological mechanism for achieving its result.” slip op. at 21

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

    “In accordance with the Supreme Court’s “framework for distinguishing patents that claim . . . abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible applications of those concepts,” we must first “determine whether the claims at issue are directed to one of those patent-ineligible concepts.” Alice, 134 S.Ct. at 2355. In Alice, the Supreme Court determined that the claims at issue were “drawn to the concept of intermediated settlement,” i.e., the use of a third party to mitigate settlement risk. Id. Furthermore, the Supreme Court determined that “[l]ike the risk hedging in Bilski [v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593 (2010)], the concept of intermediated settlement is ‘a fundamental economic practice long prevalent in our system of commerce.’” Alice, 134 S.Ct. at 2356 (citations omitted). With respect to the first step of the “Mayo framework,” the Supreme Court concluded in Alice that “there is no meaningful distinction between the concept of risk hedging in Bilski and the concept of intermediated settlement” in Alice and that “[b]oth are squarely within the realm of ‘abstract ideas’ as we have used that term.” Alice, 134 S.Ct. at 2357. Here, Petitioner argues that Patent Owner’s claims are directed to the abstract concept of advancing funds based on future retirement payments. Reply 4. Patent Owner does not dispute this. In the related case, CBM2013-00014, Patent Owner’s counsel stated at the oral hearing that Patent Owner is “happy to accept what they claim is the abstract concept” with respect to the challenged claims of the ’582 patent. CBM2013-00014, Paper 32 (Oral Hearing Transcript), 40; see CBM2013-00014 Final Decision, 13. Similar to the concept of intermediated settlement in Alice and the concept of risk hedging in Bilski, we find that the concept of advancing funds based on future retirement payments is an economic practice long prevalent in our system of commerce and squarely within the realm of abstract ideas.” slip op. at 14

  Patent outcomesUS 6,625,582 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 101 eligibilitycites Alice · Mayo · Bilski · Phillips · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,625,582
• 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
• U.S. Bancorp v. Retirement Capital Access Management CompanyAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Aug 22, 2014 · CBM2013-00014 · APJ Trenton A Ward · CBM · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 13, 14, 18, 30, and 31 are unpatentable under § 101 because they claim an abstract economic concept without meaningful additional limitations.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Corresponding structure / algorithm (indefinite if none)Decided for patent owner

    “To construe means-plus-function language in a claim, one “must look to the specification and interpret that language in light of the corresponding structure, material, or acts described therein, and equivalents thereof, to the extent that the specification provides such disclosure.” In re Donaldson Co., Inc., 16 F.3d 1189, 1193 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (en banc). More particularly, to construe properly the limitations in claims 13 and 30 reciting a “means for causing said future retirement payments . . . to be deposited into said account,” the limitations “shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.” 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6.3 As noted by Patent Owner (PO Resp. 29), the corresponding structure within the specification supporting the means-plus-function limitation states the following: “[b]enefits source 12 of system 10 disburses retirement payments directly to an individual direct deposit account 14 in a designated depository 16. Preferably, this is accomplished utilizing the well-known technique of electronic funds transfer.” Ex. 1003, col. 5, ll. 18–22. Accordingly, we construe “means for causing . . . to be deposited into said account,” recited in claims 13 and 30, to mean “disbursing directly to said account utilizing an electronic funds transfer.”” slip op. at 7

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Plain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner

    “Unlike the means-plus function claims, we are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument that the term “deposited” in method claims 1 and 18 should similarly be interpreted to mean “deposited via direct deposit.” PO Resp. 30–33. Patent Owner fails to point to any support in the specification of the ’582 patent that would require the construction of the term “deposited” to mean a direct deposit or electronic funds transfer. If an inventor acts as his or her own lexicographer, the definition must be set forth in the specification with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision. Renishaw PLC v. Marposs Societa’ per Azioni, 158 F.3d 1243, 1249 (Fed. Cir. 1998). The specification of the ’582 patent does not set forth expressly a definition of “deposited.” In fact, as cited above, the ’582 patent states that deposits are “[p]referably” conducted with the “well-known technique of electronic funds transfer,” but the specification does not limit the term “deposited” to this implementation. Ex. 1003, col. 5, ll. 20–22 (emphasis added). Even in cases where the specification describes only a single embodiment, the claims are not necessarily limited to that embodiment. Thorner v. Sony Computer Entm’t Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (It is not enough that the only embodiment, or all of the embodiments, contain a particular limitation to limit a claim to that particular limitation.). Here, the specification itself indicates that electronic deposits are preferable, but not required. Therefore, we do not adopt Patent Owner’s proposed construction of “deposited” recited in claims 1 and 18 as limited to “deposited via direct deposit.”” slip op. at 8

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

    “In accordance with the Supreme Court’s “framework for distinguishing patents that claim . . . abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible applications of those concepts,” we must first “determine whether the claims at issue are directed to one of those patent-ineligible concepts.” Alice Corp., 132 S.Ct. at 2355. In Alice Corp., the Supreme Court determined that the claims at issue were “drawn to the concept of intermediated settlement,” i.e., the use of a third party to mitigate settlement risk. Id. Furthermore, the Supreme Court determined that “[l]ike the risk hedging in Bilski [v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593 (2010)], the concept of intermediated settlement is ‘a fundamental economic practice long prevalent in our system of commerce.’” Alice Corp., 132 S.Ct. at 2356 (citations omitted). With respect to the first step of the “Mayo framework,” the Supreme Court concluded in Alice Corp. that “there is no meaningful distinction between the concept of risk hedging in Bilski and the concept of intermediated settlement” in Alice Corp. and that “[b]oth are squarely within the realm of ‘abstract ideas’ as we have used that term.” Alice Corp., 132 S.Ct. at 2357. Here, Petitioner argues that Patent Owner’s claims are directed to the abstract concept of advancing funds based on future retirement payments. Reply 4. Patent Owner does not disagree. Tr. 40 (Patent Owner’s counsel stated at the oral hearing that Patent Owner is “happy to accept what [Petitioner] claim[s] is the abstract concept.”). Similar to the concept of intermediated settlement in Alice Corp. and the concept of risk hedging in Bilski, we find that the concept of advancing funds based on future retirement payments is an economic practice long prevalent in our system of commerce and squarely within the realm of abstract ideas.” slip op. at 12

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

  Patent outcomesUS 6,625,582 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 101 eligibilitycites Alice · Mayo · Bilski · Phillips · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,625,582

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.