- Epicor Software Corporation v. Protegrity CorporationSome claims unpatentablePTAB · Apr 20, 2016 · CBM2015-00002 · APJ Kevin F Turner · CBM · Final written decision
Claims 1, 5, 19, and 20 are unpatentable under § 101; claims 27–31 were not shown unpatentable under that ground.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“e. Broadest Reasonable Construction of “Database” We determine that the broadest reasonable construction, in light of the specification of the ’201 Patent, and the proffered evidence, of “database” is “an organized collection of structured data.” As discussed above, this construction is consistent with the words of the claims, the disclosure of the ’201 Patent, the testimony of Mr. Schneier and Dr. Shamos and the position taken by Patent Owner in the related district court proceeding. We are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s arguments, Patent Owner’s declarants’ testimony, database manual, or technical encyclopedia that this construction is unreasonably broad.” slip op. at 13
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“Mr. Mattsson’s and Dr. Direen’s testimony is unpersuasive because it is inconsistent with the ’201 Patent. As discussed above, the ’201 Patent describes the O-DB as one database in a larger database management system. Ex. 1001, 5:49–6:12. The ’201 Patent describes the O-DB database as containing data and describes the modules of the larger database management system as performing data processing. Id. at 5:53–58, 6:13–45. The ’201 Patent does not describe the O-DB database as producing the compelling calling. See Ex. 1001, 10:44–58 (“is first collected by the system”); see id. at Abstract, 2:54–61, 3:51–65, 4:16–22, 7:57–61 (disclosing a compelling calling to a data protection catalogue, but failing to describe the compelling calling being produced by the O-DB database). The assertion that the compelling calling is produced by the O-DB database is only found in Patent Owner’s arguments, Mr. Mattsson’s testimony, and Dr. Direen’s testimony, and not the ’201 Patent. See, e.g., Ex. 2045 ¶¶ 12– 16, 22, 29; Ex. 2046 ¶ 57. Extraneous features should not be read into the claim. Renishaw PLC v. Marposs Societa’ per Azioni, 158 F.3d 1243, 1249 (Fed. Cir. 1998); E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 849 F.2d 1430, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 1988). In that regard, “extrinsic evidence may be used only to assist in the proper understanding of the disputed limitation; it may not be used to vary, contradict, expand, or limit the claim language from how it is defined, even by implication, in the specification or file history.” Bell Atl. Network Servs. v. Covad Commc'ns Grp., 262 F.3d 1258, 1269 (Fed. Cir. 2001); see Vitronics, 90 F.3d at 1584 (“expert testimony, which was inconsistent with the specification and file history, should have been accorded no weight”). Further, we give little weight to Mr. Mattsson’s testimony because Mr. Mattsson is not a disinterested witness. Mr. Mattsson is Patent Owner’s Chief Technology Officer (Ex. 2045 ¶ 1) and has an interest in the outcome of this proceeding.” slip op. at 11
- ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied
“We are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument that Mr. Schneier’s declaration should be excluded under FRE Rule 702 or 403. Patent Owner’s arguments attack the sufficiency and credibility of Mr. Schneier’s testimony. As the Board has noted in numerous cases, “the Board, sitting as a non-jury tribunal with administrative expertise, is well-positioned to determine and assign appropriate weight to the evidence presented in this trial, without resorting to formal exclusion that might later be held reversible error.” See, e.g., Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. v. Progressive Casualty Insurance Co., CBM2012-00002, Paper 66 at 70 (PTAB Jan. 23, 2014); Gnosis S.P.A., et al. v. S. Alabama Medical Science Foundation, IPR2013-00118, Paper 64 at 43 (PTAB June 20, 2014); S.E.C. v. Guenthner, 395 F. Supp. 2d 835, 842 n.3 (D. Neb. 2005); Opp. to Mot. Exclude 4. We, thus, are not persuaded by Patent Owner to exclude Exhibit 1002 and Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude is denied.” slip op. at 35
- Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedGranted
“The scheduling order authorizes the filing of such a motion for observations regarding cross-examination of a reply witness by Due Date 4. Mr. Schneier cross-examination testimony was given on June 12, 2015, prior to Patent Owner filing its Patent Owner’s Response, on June 24, 2105. The cross-examination did not occur after Patent Owner filed its last substantive paper. Patent Owner’s Motion for Observation, thus, is improper. The Scheduling Order did not authorize Patent Owner to file a Motion for Observation of cross-examination that occurred prior to Patent Owner filing its last substantive paper on an issue, the Patent Owner’s Response and Patent Owner did not seek other authorization for such. The improper observations are akin to an unauthorized sur-reply to argument made in Petitioner’s Reply. We, thus, expunge Patent Owner’s unauthorized observations from the record. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.7(a). Additionally, we expunge Petitioner’s Opposition to that Observation (Paper 40) as being unnecessary.” slip op. at 37
Patent outcomesUS 6,321,201 mixedClaim construction§ 101 eligibility§ 103 obviousnesscites Alice · Mayo · BilskiPatents in suitUS 6,321,201 - Boku, Inc. / Boku Account Services, Inc. v. Xilidev, Inc.Some claims unpatentablePTAB · Nov 2, 2015 · CBM2014-00148 · APJ Justin T Arbes · CBM · Final written decision
Claims 1–18 and 20–23 are unpatentable; claim 19 was not shown unpatentable because Gerson does not disclose its product identification code and quantity limitations.
RulingsFinal written decision- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Definiteness (Nautilus)IndefiniteUnpatentable
“the particular function of the limitation and then identifying the corresponding structure for that function in the specification. Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2015). A structure is corresponding “only if the specification or prosecution history clearly links or associates that structure to the function recited in the claim.” Medtronic, Inc. v. Advanced Cardiovascular Sys., Inc., 248 F.3d 1303, 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (quotation omitted). Additionally, the corresponding structure of a means-plus-function limitation must be “more than simply a general purpose computer or microprocessor” to avoid pure functional claiming. Williamson, 792 F.3d at 1352 (citing Aristocrat Techs. Austl. Pty Ltd. v. Int’l Game Tech., 521 F.3d 1328, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2008)). If a special purpose computer is required to carry out the recited function, the specification must disclose an “algorithm for performing the claimed function,” id., which may be expressed “in any understandable terms including as a mathematical formula, in prose, or as a flow chart, or in any other manner that provides sufficient structure,” Finisar Corp. v. DirecTV Group, Inc., 523 F.3d 1323, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (citation omitted). “[I]f a person of ordinary skill in the art would be unable to recognize the structure in the specification and associate it with the corresponding function in the claim, a means-plus-function clause is indefinite” under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph. Williamson, 792 F.3d at 1352.” slip op. at 8
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableNot shown unpatentableMixed
“discloses every limitation of claims 12–16 and 18. For example, with respect to claim 12, Petitioner asserts, with supporting testimony from Dr. Shamos, that Gerson discloses (1) a “payment authorization source” (i.e., bank or other financial institution) configured to authorize payment for a transaction; (2) a “payment resolution module” (i.e., central processing computer) in communication with the bank or other financial institution; (3) a “hand-held device” (i.e., user’s mobile phone) in communication with the central processing computer that transmits an authorization request (i.e., payment transaction) to the central processing computer; and (4) a “confirmation device” (i.e., POST) that receives an “authorization code” (i.e., transaction-specific authorization code) from the user and authorizes the transaction in response to validating the authorization code. -140 Pet. 69–73; see Ex. 1003, 83–90. Petitioner further argues that Gerson necessarily includes an “I/O interface” because the central processing computer transmits (i.e., outputs) the transaction-specific authorization code to the mobile phone via a “wireless telecommunications link,” and such transmission requires an I/O interface between the mobile phone and central processing computer. -140 Pet. 71–72 (citing Ex. 1005, 6 (ll. 8–14)). We also have reviewed Petitioner’s arguments and evidence for the other challenged claims, and are persuaded that Petitioner has met its burden of demonstrating anticipation by a preponderance of the evidence. Based on all of the evidence of record, we determine that Petitioner has shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claims 12–16 and 18 are anticipated by Gerson under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).” slip op. at 13
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundUnpatentable
“It would have been obvious to combine Gerson’s system storing the authorization code in a processor with Wronski’s database additionally storing an indication of the transaction request because in both cases the information relates to the transaction being authorized and therefore Wronski merely stores additional information about the same transaction that Gerson does. Furthermore, a user in Gerson would be motivated to combine the processor database with Wronski’s database including an indication of the transaction request because such a combination would facilitate the later retrieval of transaction specific information (such as when Gerson’s processor database is accessed by the point-of-sale system).” slip op. at 20
- Skill levelSkill level board ownOther
“between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains.’” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 405 (2007) (quoting 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)). Dr. Shamos testifies that he believes a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had “an undergraduate degree in computer science, or equivalent work experience, and, in addition, at least two years of experience with electronic payment systems, including familiarity with databases and integration with interactive voice response software.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 14; see -140 Pet. 11. Based on the record presented, including our review of the ’168 patent and the types of problems and solutions described in the ’168 patent and cited prior art, we determine that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had an undergraduate degree in computer science (or equivalent work experience) and at least two years of experience with electronic payment systems, including familiarity with databases. We apply this level of ordinary skill in the art for purposes of this Decision. Although a person of ordinary skill in the art may have had experience with interactive voice response software, we do not see why such experience should be required, as the ’168 patent discloses that “various communication mediums and protocols [for interacting with users were] known in the art,” of which interactive voice response is merely one example. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, col. 5, ll. 4–52.” slip op. at 18
Patent outcomesUS 7,273,168 mixedClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites KSRPatents in suitUS 7,273,168 - Boku, Inc. / Boku Account Services, Inc. v. Xilidev, Inc.Some claims unpatentablePTAB · Nov 2, 2015 · CBM2014-00140 · APJ Justin T Arbes · CBM · Final written decision
Claims 1–18 and 20–23 are unpatentable: claim 17 is indefinite, claims 12–16 and 18 are anticipated by Gerson, claims 1–11 and 20–23 are obvious over Gerson and Wronski, and claims 1–5, 7–16, 18, and 20–23 …
RulingsFinal written decision- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Definiteness (Nautilus)IndefiniteUnpatentable
“the particular function of the limitation and then identifying the corresponding structure for that function in the specification. Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2015). A structure is corresponding “only if the specification or prosecution history clearly links or associates that structure to the function recited in the claim.” Medtronic, Inc. v. Advanced Cardiovascular Sys., Inc., 248 F.3d 1303, 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (quotation omitted). Additionally, the corresponding structure of a means-plus-function limitation must be “more than simply a general purpose computer or microprocessor” to avoid pure functional claiming. Williamson, 792 F.3d at 1352 (citing Aristocrat Techs. Austl. Pty Ltd. v. Int’l Game Tech., 521 F.3d 1328, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2008)). If a special purpose computer is required to carry out the recited function, the specification must disclose an “algorithm for performing the claimed function,” id., which may be expressed “in any understandable terms including as a mathematical formula, in prose, or as a flow chart, or in any other manner that provides sufficient structure,” Finisar Corp. v. DirecTV Group, Inc., 523 F.3d 1323, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (citation omitted). “[I]f a person of ordinary skill in the art would be unable to recognize the structure in the specification and associate it with the corresponding function in the claim, a means-plus-function clause is indefinite” under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph. Williamson, 792 F.3d at 1352.” slip op. at 8
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableNot shown unpatentableMixed
“Petitioner has not shown that Gerson discloses, expressly or inherently, a hand-held device providing a product identification code and product quantity (in addition to the transaction amount), and we do not find any such disclosure in the reference. The mobile phone in Gerson only provides the purchase amount. See Ex. 1005, 3 (ll. 22–23), 7 (ll. 6–13). Further, Petitioner’s assertion that it “would have been obvious” to also provide a product identification code and product quantity is insufficient to prove anticipation. See -140 Pet. 79–80; Corning Glass Works v. Sumitomo Elec. U.S.A., Inc., 868 F.2d 1251, 1255–56 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (“Anticipation requires that every limitation of the claim in issue be disclosed, either expressly or under principles of inherency, in a single prior art reference.”). Based on all of the evidence of record, we determine that Petitioner has not shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claim 19 is anticipated by Gerson under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).” slip op. at 15
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundUnpatentableUnpatentable
“It would have been obvious to combine Gerson’s system storing the authorization code in a processor with Wronski’s database additionally storing an indication of the transaction request because in both cases the information relates to the transaction being authorized and therefore Wronski merely stores additional information about the same transaction that Gerson does. Furthermore, a user in Gerson would be motivated to combine the processor database with Wronski’s database including an indication of the transaction request because such a combination would facilitate the later retrieval of transaction specific information (such as when Gerson’s processor database is accessed by the point-of-sale system).” slip op. at 20
- Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner
“between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains.’” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 405 (2007) (quoting 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)). Dr. Shamos testifies that he believes a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had “an undergraduate degree in computer science, or equivalent work experience, and, in addition, at least two years of experience with electronic payment systems, including familiarity with databases and integration with interactive voice response software.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 14; see -140 Pet. 11. Based on the record presented, including our review of the ’168 patent and the types of problems and solutions described in the ’168 patent and cited prior art, we determine that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had an undergraduate degree in computer science (or equivalent work experience) and at least two years of experience with electronic payment systems, including familiarity with databases. We apply this level of ordinary skill in the art for purposes of this Decision. Although a person of ordinary skill in the art may have had experience with interactive voice response software, we do not see why such experience should be required, as the ’168 patent discloses that “various communication mediums and protocols [for interacting with users were] known in the art,” of which interactive voice response is merely one example. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, col. 5, ll. 4–52.” slip op. at 18
Patent outcomesUS 7,273,168 mixed§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites KSRPatents in suitUS 7,273,168 - Jack Henry And Associates, Inc. v. Datatreasury Corp.Some claims unpatentablePTAB · Jul 8, 2015 · CBM2014-00057 · APJ William V Saindon · CBM · Final written decision
Claims 1, 2, 16, 18, 26, 27, 42, and 46 are unpatentable: Campbell anticipates five claims, and Campbell with Blackwell renders five claims obvious.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“stamp . . . , an identification number to identify the merchant originating the scan and any additional useful information.” Ex. 1001, 8:14–17 (emphasis added). The DAT_TERMINAL_ID, which is part of the unencrypted tag, “uniquely identifies the DAT 200 which is used by the customer.” Id. at 10:27–33. The DAT 200, also known as the remote data access terminal (id. at 4:62–63) is shown in Figure 2 and is a collection of components found at the merchant (e.g., bank). Id. at 5:20–38. Thus, in this particular example, the SSID (which is not encrypted) identifies the remote data access terminal, for example, the subsystem that scans and sends images at a bank. Nothing about the term “subsystem identification information,” as set forth in the claims or specification, indicates that only the remote data access subsystems can have an SSID; this is merely an example. Accordingly, we construed SSID in a manner that encompassed a preferred embodiment but, because the specification provided no indication that the term should be read more narrowly, we did not limit SSID to the particular embodiment identified by Patent Owner. See Superguide Corp. v. DirecTV Enter., Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment.); In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“Absent claim language carrying a narrow meaning, the PTO should only limit the claim based on the specification or prosecution history when those sources expressly disclaim the broader definition.”).” slip op. at 10
- ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied
“Regarding Petitioner’s improper use of sub-exhibits within an exhibit, we note that, although parties are not permitted to file combined documents as Petitioner has done in Exhibit 1026, see 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3), exclusion would be too extreme a remedy in this instance, where there is insufficient prejudice to Patent Owner. A more reasonable remedy would be to have Petitioner re-file the documents, but at this late stage of the proceeding, where briefing has closed, there is no compelling reason to have Petitioner re-file the documents.” slip op. at 13
- BurdenMixed
“We agree with Petitioner that Campbell discloses a plurality of sending and receiving banks. Ex. 1018, 6:9–14 (describing subscribing and non-subscribing banks using the system). Petitioner, however, relied on the node in Campbell to show the central location limitation of independent claim 26, not the remote bank. Pet. 31. Petitioner does not explain how Campbell describes a plurality of nodes (or, conversely, how the receiving bank describes each feature of the central location). Accordingly, Patent Owner’s observation that Petitioner has failed to address the claim limitations is persuasive. We determine that Petitioner has failed to show by a preponderance of the evidence that Campbell anticipates the subject matter of claim 29.” slip op. at 20
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableNot shown unpatentableMixed
“With a full record, we find that the preponderance of the evidence supports Petitioner’s position. Campbell does not state that only the image is encrypted. Instead, Campbell states that “information [is] encrypted . . . to provide security for the images transported.” Ex. 1018, 5:55–58 (emphasis added). Thus, Campbell uses the terms information and image for different things. Earlier in that column, Campbell also explains what it means by “information,” and it is clear that this information is not just images but rather includes “information that accompan[ies] those images.” Id. at 5:25– 26 (emphasis added). For example, the information identifies the “sending institution,” “receiving institution,” and “the disposition of the check.” Id. at 5:26–31. As we discussed above in our claim construction section, we are persuaded that information that identifies the sending institution is an SSID. Thus, when this information is encrypted, it is an encrypted SSID, as required by claim 1. See also Ex. 1026, 14 (Petitioner’s expert, Dr. Michalson, testifying that the encrypted information in Campbell identifies the receiving institution). Reviewing the record before us, we are persuaded that Campbell discloses transmitting an encrypted SSID.” slip op. at 17
Patent outcomesUS 5,910,988 mixedClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 5,910,988
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.