• Apple Inc. v. Paul PoniatowskiInstituted
  PTAB · Oct 7, 2024 · IPR2024-00731 · APJ Jennifer S Bisk · IPR · Institution

  The Board instituted review of claims 1–6, 8–13, 15–20, and 22–27 based on a reasonable likelihood that Wang, Dua, and Yong render them obvious.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), the Director may not authorize an inter partes review unless the information in the petition and preliminary response “shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” For the reasons that follow, we institute an inter partes review as to claims 1–6, 8–13, 15–20, and 22–27 of the ’578 patent on the sole ground of unpatentability asserted in the Petition.” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “understanding of a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17 (1966). For purposes of this proceeding, Petitioner argues a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have had “a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, or equivalent with one to two years of experience in the field of mobile transactions.” Pet. 8 (citing Bederson Decl. ¶¶ 35–37). Petitioner adds that “[a]dditional education or experience might substitute for the above requirements.” Id. To the extent necessary, and for purposes of this Decision, we accept this assessment offered by Petitioner, as it is supported by Dr. Bederson’s testimony and appears consistent with the ’578 patent and the asserted prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (explaining that specific findings regarding ordinary skill level are not required “where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level and a need” slip op. at 7

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

    “scanner, reader, or camera” that is aimed at a barcode or special code of a product, the price of which is then added to the retail bill. Pet. 10–11 (quoting Ex. 1001, 7:45–49, 9:5–11). According to Petitioner, the Specification does not elaborate further on the meaning of the term “information concerning prices of goods.” Id. at 11. Petitioner, thus, interprets the term to encompass scenarios in which price information is received directly or indirectly. Id. Petitioner notes that during prosecution of the ’578 patent, the Examiner rejected this limitation over prior art, stating that prior art “sends the scanned bar code information to the server,” which “then preferably returns a description of the item and information,” and “[t]his item description and price information is displayed on the telephone’s display.” Id. at 12 (quoting Ex. 1002, 231). According to Petitioner, this is an example of indirectly receiving information concerning the prices of goods as it comes from a queried server, not from the item itself. Id. Petitioner notes that Patent Owner never disputed, and in fact, made statements supporting that these actions were encompassed by the claim limitation. Id. (citing Ex. 1002, 214). We agree with Petitioner that nothing in the claim language or the Specification requires that the claimed optical input receive information concerning the prices of goods directly from the goods themselves. Thus, on this record, we preliminarily construe the term “receiving information concerning the prices of goods” to encompass receiving pricing information from a server.” slip op. at 9

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Not entitled to earlier dateDecided for petitioner

    “In an inter partes review, the burden is on the petitioner to show a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail on a ground of unpatentability. 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). With respect to entitlement to any earlier effective filing date, however, a patent owner is not presumed to be entitled to the earlier filing dates of ancestral applications that do not share the same disclosure, such as in a continuation-in-part situation. See PowerOasis, Inc. v. T–Mobile USA, Inc., 522 F.3d 1299, 1305–06 (Fed.Cir.2008) (stating that once a defendant establishes that a reference is § 102(b) prior art, burden is on patent owner to come forward with evidence proving priority to an earlier filing date).” slip op. at 12

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,270,578
• Satco Products, Inc. v. The Regents Of The University Of CaliforniaInstitution denied
  PTAB · Nov 8, 2021 · IPR2021-00661 · APJ Steven M Amundson · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution of review for claims 1 and 2 under § 314(a), finding the Fintiv factors weighed against review because of the advanced, overlapping ITC investigation.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Institution denied fintivDenied

    “The Fintiv factors “relate to whether efficiency, fairness, and the merits support the exercise of authority to deny institution in view of an earlier trial date in the parallel proceeding.” Fintiv, IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 at 6. A stay of parallel litigation pending resolution of a Board proceeding “allays concerns about inefficiency and duplication of efforts.” Id. That the E.D.N.Y. case was stayed “at its earliest stage,” however, does not “allay[] concerns about inefficiency and duplication of efforts” in view of the 1220 investigation. Additionally, the E.D.N.Y. case was stayed “pending completion” of the 1220 investigation, not because of any Board proceeding. Ex. 3002, 1. With dates set in the 1220 investigation for the ALJ’s initial determination and the ITC’s final determination, a stay seems highly unlikely, especially with the initial determination date about a week away. Hence, factor (1) weighs against institution. See Fitbit, Inc. v. Koninklijke Philips N.V., IPR2020-00771, Paper 14 at 16–17 (PTAB Oct. 19, 2020).” slip op. at 18

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

    “to institute an inter partes review. We may institute an inter partes review only if “the information presented in the petition filed under section 311 and any response filed under section 313 shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) (2018). But we have discretion to deny a petition even when a petitioner satisfies the “reasonable likelihood” threshold standard for instituting trial. See, e.g., Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2140 (2016) (“[T]he agency’s decision to deny a petition is a matter committed to the Patent Office’s discretion.”). Based on the current record and for the reasons explained below, we exercise our discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) to deny institution of an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Not reached

    “essentially the same argument about the ’557 patent’s effective filing date for its challenge based on Nakamura-959 and Nakamura-949 as for its invalidity defense based on insufficient written-description support for claim 1. See Pet. 7, 12–21, 37; Ex. 2004, 29–33; Ex. 2005, 245–48; Ex. 2014, 64–65, 70. As we understand the arguments, resolving the ’557 patent’s effective filing date does not require interpreting any part of § 1.57. See Pet. 12–21; Prelim. Resp. 29–31. Instead, the issue turns on whether the ’154 application supports claim 1 according to § 112’s first paragraph. See Pet. 12–21; Prelim. Resp. 29–31. Also, the challenges based on Tanda present a similar issue whether the ’447 provisional supports claim 1 according to § 112’s first paragraph. See Pet. 12–21, 61; Prelim. Resp. 29–31, 36–37. “[T]he test for sufficiency is whether the disclosure of the application relied upon reasonably conveys to those skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date.” Ariad Pharm., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc). Under the circumstances here, the ITC can apply the test for sufficiency of disclosure to the ’154 application and the ’447 provisional just as well as the Board.” slip op. at 27

  § 112 disclosureDiscretionary denial
  Patents in suitUS 10,658,557
• SAP America, Inc. v. Lakshmi ArunachalamAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 21, 2017 · CBM2016-00081 · APJ Kevin F Turner · CBM · Final written decision

  Claims 20 and 21 are unpatentable under § 101 and § 103; the motion to amend proposing claims 22–49 is denied.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner argues that “[b]ased on the technologies disclosed in the ’506 patent, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention would have had the equivalent of a Bachelor’s degree or higher in computer science or computer engineering, as well as at least 3–5 years of academic or industry experience in the relevant field.” Pet. 10 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 22). Although Patent Owner does not address the level of ordinary skill in its Patent Owner’s Response, Patent Owner does opine about the same in its Motion to Amend. Therein, Patent Owner argues that: a person of ordinary skill in the art in 1995 would have been a person who had a degree in computer science, or the equivalent of that degree, and some substantive experience with Web technologies then being developed and considered by persons then working on internet systems. [Ex. 2006, 23] It would have been very rare to find anyone to have had a computer degree and as much as three to five years of experience in the area of Web technology as of November 1995. (Id.) Mot. Amend 5–6. Based on the positions of Petitioner and Patent Owner, we find mostly agreement as to the level of skill of such ordinarily skilled artisans and we are persuaded that one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have had the equivalent of a degree in computer science or computer engineering, as well as some substantive experience 29 with Web technologies then being developed and considered by persons then working on Internet systems. This level of skill is considered and applied in the grounds below.” slip op. at 29

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

    “networked object,” and that we “willfully left out ‘Individual’ and only construed ‘Network Object.’” PO Resp. 36. Patent Owner is correct that we did not construe “individual networked object.” The reason is that it is not a term recited in the challenged claims, nor claim 14, from which the challenged claims depend. We construed “networked object,” i.e., without “individual,” because it is a term recited in the claims. Patent Owner also argues that the proper construction of “networked object” is “the information entries and attributes in a DOLSIB [distributed on-line service information base].” Id. (citing Ex. 1001, 8:50–54). We do not agree. Although the specification of the ’506 Patent details that “[t]he networked object identity 11 identifies the information entries and attributes in the DOLSIB as individual networked objects,” that is not a definition of “network objects.” We continue to find that the broadest reasonable construction, in view of the specification, of “networked object” is “an object that operates within a network or transmitted over a network.” We are not persuaded that “individual networked object” need be construed because it is not a claim term, and we are not persuaded that every recitation of “networked object” must refer to an “individual networked object.” Patent Owner argues that we did not construe the claim term “attributes,” which should be understood as “characteristics of an object.” Id. at 36–37 (citing Ex. 1001, 4:45–58, 23:19–25). Petitioner counters that the passages cited by Patent Owner do not support the proffered definition, because those passages do not contain the word “attribute.” Pet. Reply 4. Although Patent Owner’s construction is not unreasonable, claim 14 already recites that the step of “associating an object identity with information entries and attributes,” so that “attributes” need not be referred to as “characteristics of an object,” since such an association is already directly recited in the claims. As such, we are not persuaded that the claim term “attributes” needs explicit construction. Similarly, Patent Owner argues that “information entries” should be construed as “values of the characteristics of an object.” PO Resp. 37 (citing Ex. 1001, 4:45–58, 23:19–25). Again, we find it unnecessary to tie “information entries” to an object, since the association is already provided 12 in claim 14. Therefore, we are not persuaded that the claim term “information entries” needs explicit construction. With respect to the claim term “virtual information store,” we construed that term as “an information store in which information entries and attributes are associated with a networked object identity,” as discussed above. Patent Owner argues that we have not given proper effect to the word “virtual,” arguing that the proper construction is “a transient information store that is temporarily created and which contains information entries and attributes associated with a networked object identity.” PO Resp. 39–41. Patent Owner cites to the specification of the ’506 Patent (Ex. 1001, 3:1–5, 8:47–54), and “[t]he IBM Computer Dictionary” (id.), but, as Petitioner points out, Patent Owner has not “submitted this dictionary as an exhibit or provided any further information to locate the dictionary.” Further, the sections of the ’506 Patent cited by Patent Owner are not explicit about the store being “transient” or “temporarily created;” this is an inference drawn by Patent Owner. See PO Resp. 40. The introduction of the terms “transient” and “temporarily” to the construction adds more ambiguity to the claim term because the specification of the ’506 Patent does not discuss how long any “virtual information store” would be stored or maintained. In addition, we are not persuaded that Patent Owner’s provision of affirmatively containing the information entries and attributes is necessary because having a store in which the information entries and attributes are associated with a networked object identity would have been understood by ordinarily skilled artisans as being a store containing those elements. 13 Therefore, we are not persuaded that the claim term “virtual information store” requires a different construction and we maintain the construction provided in the Institution Decision, which is reproduced above.” slip op. at 11

  • BurdenUnpatentable

    “not have been obvious to make any changes to Lawlor’s system,” and that “the whole purpose of Lawlor is to establish a system built upon an existing software and infrastructure that would require no changes.” PO Resp. 80–81 (emphasis in original). We do not agree. We agree with Petitioner that Patent Owner misinterprets Lawlor’s teachings, “improperly concluding that Lawlor teaches away from any combination or modification.” Pet. Reply 24 (emphasis in original). Lawlor explains that “[b]ecause the central computer interacts with the user's bank as a standard POS or ATM network node, no significant software changes are required at the banks’ computers,” demonstrating that Lawlor makes use of a standard ATM network and existing external systems without significant modification. Ex. 1004, Abstr. As explained by Dr. Sirbu, incorporation of techniques described in CORBA into Lawlor’s system would not require modification to the external systems of Lawlor or additional processing at the central computer of Lawlor. Ex. 1002 ¶ 72. Lawlor system does not restrict or disparage modification, and Patent Owner has not pointed out any portion that purportedly restricts or disparages modification. Patent Owner also argues that Lawlor does not disclose “an OSI Layer 7 application layer switch as is the VAN Switch in FIG. 5B.” PO Resp. 79. As discussed above, however, challenged claims 20 and 21 do not recite a VAN switch, and the only consideration of such a switch comes from Patent Owner’s claims constructions that we do not adopt. As such, we are persuaded that Petitioner has shown by a 45 preponderance of the evidence that claim 20 is unpatentable over the combination of Lawlor and CORBA, and that the subject matter of claim 21 is unpatentable over the combination of Lawlor, CORBA and Billings.” slip op. at 45

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

    “2. 37 C.F.R. § 42.221(a)(2)(i) Rule 221(a)(2)(i) requires that the amendments in a motion to amend must respond to a ground of unpatentability involved in the trial. Patent Owner’s new claims do not respond to any ground of unpatentability in the trial. Those grounds are based on 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 103 and directed at claims 20 and 21. Pet. 28–73. Both claims 20 and 21 depend on claim 14 and the grounds of unpatentability consider all of the elements of claim 14. Thus, for example, new claim 25, which recites “[t]he apparatus of claim 14, wherein the user device is a multi-media device,” does not purport to demonstrate that such a claim brings the subject matter into the scope of § 101, nor that such a multi-media device would not be obvious over Lawlor, CORBA, and Billings. See Mot. Amend 9–17. Patent Owner’s analysis addresses claims 22–49 as a group and does not address all of the elements of the new claims. Id. Patent Owner also fails to indicate if any of the new claims include any feature of the challenged claims. For at least these reasons, we find that Patent Owner has not complied with the substantive requirements of 37 C.F.R. § 42.221(a)(2)(i). 3. 37 C.F.R. § 42.221(a)(2)(ii) and 35 U.S.C. § 326(d)(3) Rule 221(a)(2)(i) requires that the amendment may not seek to enlarge the scope of the claims of the patent. We also note that this rule is fully supported by 35 U.S.C. § 326(d)(3), which details that “[a]n amendment under this subsection may not enlarge the scope of the claims of the patent.” Patent Owner appears to take this rule as merely requiring that “the new claims do not enlarge the scope of any of the old claims.” Mot. Amend 3. 52 The “old claims,” however, are the only two claims existing in the ’506 Patent, namely claims 20 and 21. They are the “scope of the claims of the patent,” and the scope cannot refer to any claim that might have existed during the prosecution of the ’506 Patent. See Arlington Industries, Inc. v. Bridgeport Fittings, Inc., 345 F.3d 1318, 1329–30 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Therefore, we look to the scope of claims 20 and 21 to determine the scope of the claims of a patent. Proposed new claims in the Motion to Amend improperly enlarge the scope of claims 20 and 21. For example, new claim 27 recites “[t]he apparatus of claim 14, wherein the service is configurable specific to the context of a Web merchant.” This proposed claim is broader, in at least one aspect, than claims 20 and 21, which also depend from claim 14, because it contains none of the elements of claims 20 and 21, although it adds an additional element, i.e., “the service is configurable specific to the context of a Web merchant.” For at least these reasons, we find that Patent Owner has not complied with the substantive requirements of 37 C.F.R. § 42.221(a)(2)(ii) or 35 U.S.C. § 326(d)(3). 4. § 42.221(a)(3) and 35 U.S.C. § 326(d)(1)(B) Section (a)(3) of Rule 221 discusses that a patent owner must propose a reasonable number of substitute claims, and goes on to discuss that “[t]he presumption is that only one substitute claim would be needed to replace each challenged claim, and it may be rebutted by a demonstration of need.” The claims subject to the instant proceeding are claims 20 and 21, such that the normal presumption would be for the inclusion of two substitute claims. 53 Patent Owner does not address why the proposed 28 claims are a reasonable number of substitutes for the 2 challenged claims, so Patent Owner cannot be said to have rebutted the one for one presumption by any demonstration of need. We also note that this rule is fully supported by 35 U.S.C. § 326(d)(1)(B), which details that for the amendment of a patent, for each challenged claim, “a reasonable number of substitute claims” must be proposed. Petitioner points out that the meaning of “reasonable number of substitute claims” has been previously addressed by the Board, providing “in the absence of special circumstance, a challenged claim can be replaced by only one claim, and a motion to amend should, for each proposed substitute claim, specifically identify the challenged claim which it is intended to replace.” Opp. 1–2 (citing Idle Free at 5). Furthermore, as Petitioner addresses, Patent Owner has failed to identify which of the challenged claims are intended to be replaced by the new claims. Id. Patent Owner’s response appears to be that “PO does not propose a reasonable number of substitute claims, because it is not necessary.” PO Reply 2. This, however, is not responsive. For at least these reasons, we find that Patent Owner has not complied with the substantive requirements of 37 C.F.R. § 42.221(a)(3) or the statutory requirements of § 326(d)(1)(B). 5. 37 C.F.R. § 42.221(b)(1) Rule 221(b)(1) requires that a motion to amend must show the changes clearly and set for the support in the original disclosure of the patent for claim that is added. In the case of new claims 22–49, Patent Owner does 54 not indicate any changes from the claims subject to the present proceeding. The claims are indicated as being new, so that no changes from the pending claims are discussed at all. See Claim App’x. In addition, Patent Owner argues that written description support for the new claims can be found in a chart provided in a reexamination of the patent. Mot. Amend 3 (citing inter partes Reexamination Control No. 95/001,129). We note that such incorporation by reference is not permitted under our rules. 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3). As well, as Petitioner points out, Patent Owner has not demonstrated that the claims provided in the chart are the same as the new claims. Opp. 4. Given this deficit, Patent Owner cannot successfully meet the regulatory requirements under 37 C.F.R. § 42.221(a) or (b)(1) regarding written description support, based on the present record. Additionally, Patent Owner has failed to provide any mapping of the new claims to those old claims, and, as Petitioner points out, the Board determined during the cited inter partes reexamination that no written description support was provided for a number of limitations identical to those recited in the new claims. Id. (citing Ex. 1007, 32–36). For at least these reasons, we find that Patent Owner has not complied with the substantive requirements of 37 C.F.R. § 42.221(b)(1). 6. Conclusion As discussed above, Patent Owner has not demonstrated compliance with 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.221(a), 42.221(a)(2)(i), 42.221(a)(2)(i), 42.221(a)(3), or 42.221(b)(1) or 35 U.S.C. § 326(d)(1)(B) and (3). As such, Patent Owner has failed to meet the substantive requirements for a motion to amend.” slip op. at 52

  Patent outcomesUS 7,340,506 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 101 eligibility§ 103 obviousnesscites Alice · Mayo · Enfish · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,340,506
• Autodesk, Inc. v. Uniloc USA, Inc. And Uniloc Luxembourg, S.A.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 11, 2017 · CBM2016-00043 · APJ Christopher M Kaiser · CBM · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 2, 4–7, and 12–19 are unpatentable under § 101; claims 3, 8–11, and 20 are subject to adverse judgment after disclaimer.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentGranted

    “B. Statutory Disclaimer During the pendency of this proceeding, Patent Owner filed a disclaimer pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 253(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 1.321(a). Ex. 2014. According to this disclaimer, Patent Owner disclaims claims 3, 8–11, and 20 of the ’820 patent. Id.; see also Resp. 1 (“Contemporaneously with the filing of this Response, Patent Owner is disclaiming claims 3, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 20 of the ’820 Patent.”). Our rules provide for entry of adverse judgment against a Patent Owner who disclaims “a claim such that the party has no remaining claim in the trial.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b)(2). Although Patent Owner does not disclaim all the challenged claims, and although Patent Owner therefore has some claims remaining in this trial, we construe the disclaimer of claims 3, 8–11, and 20 as a request for the entry of adverse judgment solely with respect to those claims. We grant the request and enter adverse judgment with respect to claims 3, 8–11, and 20.” slip op. at 11

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Term construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner

    “1. Add-On Computer Software Code Both parties propose construing “add-on computer software code,” a term that appears in every challenged claim. Ex. 1001, 78:43–82:36. Petitioner argues that this term should be interpreted as a “set of computer code that cannot be run independently from a parent program.” Pet. 22. Patent Owner argues that the term should be interpreted as “set of computer code that is designed to run within a parent computer software application or code, particularly architectural CAD software (or another architectural, civil, industrial, or other software design tool), as an internal component.” Resp. 42–43. We agree with Patent Owner. Patent Owner’s construction is taken directly from the written description of the ’820 patent, which provides a reasonably clear, deliberate, and precise definition of the term. See Paulsen, 30 F.3d at 1480; Ex. 1001, 61:42–51 (“The plug-in (add-on) computer software code is . . . .”). To the extent that Petitioner’s proposed construction seeks to limit add-on software code further by requiring that the software code be incapable of running independently from a parent program, as opposed merely to being designed to run within the parent program as an internal component, this further limitation is inconsistent with the lexicography undertaken by the patentee of the ’820 patent. Accordingly, we construe “add-on computer software code” as a “set of computer code that is designed to run within a parent computer software application or code, particularly architectural CAD software (or another architectural, civil, industrial, or other software design tool), as an internal component.”” slip op. at 6

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

    “As discussed above, the ’820 patent describes solving problems with the generation of cost estimates of construction projects, including that the process takes significant time and effort, that the estimates produced are difficult to revise, and that the estimates can be inaccurate, leading to cost overruns and difficulties obtaining construction loans. Ex. 1001, 1:15–62. The claims recite a computer readable medium or system for automating the process of generating a price schedule, which is used to develop the overall project cost estimate. Id. at 78:43–82:36. In so doing, the claims do not recite any “specific asserted improvement in computer capabilities,” such as the “self-referential table for a computer database” in Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1336. Instead, the claims of the ’820 patent “invoke[]” known aspects of computer technology, including “[a] non-transitory computer readable medium,” “a computer that includes a processor and a memory,” “an add-on computer software code,” “a software design tool,” and “a database,” “merely as a tool” for solving the problem of improving the known process of generating construction project cost estimates. Id.; Ex. 1001, 78:43–60. Accordingly, the claims of the ’820 patent are not like those considered in Enfish, where the claims were determined at the first step of the Alice framework not to be directed to abstract ideas because they were directed to “[a] specific asserted improvement in computer capabilities.” 822 F.3d at 1336. Instead, Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the challenged claims of the ’820 patent are focused “on a process that qualifies as an ‘abstract idea.’” Id. The ’820 patent makes clear that the heart of the claimed subject matter is generating prices for construction projects, a process that can be accomplished without automation technology. Ex. 1001, 1:15–62. The claims themselves recite “[a] non-transitory computer readable medium [that] causes [a] computer to generate a price schedule” and “[a] system for creating a pricing schedule.” Id. at 78:43–51, 82:4. As discussed above, the computer technology recited in the claims is used merely as a tool to automate the process of determining the price of a construction project. Determining a price is an abstract idea. See Versata Dev. Grp., 793 F.3d at 1333–34 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Thus, on the current record, Petitioner has made a sufficient showing that the claims of the ’820 patent are directed to an abstract idea under the first step of the Alice analysis.” slip op. at 20

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

    “application of an abstract idea. Mayo, 566 U.S. at 78. Petitioner argues that the challenged claims have no such elements, because “the challenged claims add nothing more than well-understood, routine, conventional activity to the abstract idea of calculating a price.” Pet. 32–48. Patent Owner argues that the presence of the add-on computer software code limitations in the challenged claims transforms those claims into patent-eligible applications. Resp. 49–50. We are persuaded that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the challenged claims of the ’820 patent do not add an inventive concept sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent on the abstract idea itself. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355.” slip op. at 23

  Patent outcomesUS 8,515,820 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 101 eligibilitycites Alice · Mayo · Enfish
  Patents in suitUS 8,515,820
• Wombat Security Technologies v. Phishme, Inc.Rehearing denied
  PTAB · Jul 20, 2017 · PGR2017-00009 · APJ Jennifer S Bisk · PGR · Rehearing

  The Board denied Wombat’s rehearing request, leaving institution of PGR denied because the petition did not show the patent was eligible for PGR.

  RulingsRehearing decision

  • RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied

    “DISCUSSION The applicable standard for granting a request for rehearing is abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). The requirements of a request for rehearing are set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d), which provides in relevant part: A party dissatisfied with a decision may file a single request for rehearing without prior authorization from the Board. The burden of showing a decision should be modified lies with the party challenging the decision. The request must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, or a reply.” slip op. at 3

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

    “sufficiently shown that the ’038 patent was eligible for post-grant review. Inst. Dec. 8–13. Specifically, we found deficient Petitioner’s contention that the challenged claims were not entitled to the benefit of the filing date of Application No. 13/785,252 (“the ’252 application”) to which the ’038 patent claims priority as a continuation-in-part. Inst. Dec. 8–13. This finding was based on the following deficiencies of the Petition: (1) the Petition did not discuss the relevant disclosure of the application to which the ’038 patent claims priority—Application No. 13/785,282 (“the ’252 application”)—as originally filed, citing instead to the ’940 patent, which issued from the ’252 application; (2) the Petition did not address the Examiner’s statements in the Notice of Allowability that “[t]he present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions”; and (3) Petitioner did not satisfy its burden to show that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have understood the inventor to have possession of “providing feedback to the individual confirming that the identified email was a simulated phishing attack” (“the feedback limitation”). Id. For the third deficiency, we found the feedback limitation supported by at least paragraphs 5 and 18 of the ’252 application, which discuss training individuals who receive simulated phishing attacks such that users are better able to recognize and thwart a real phishing attack. Id. at 11–12.” slip op. at 2

  • BurdenDecided for patent owner

    “being recited expressly in the ’252 application it “satisf[ied] its burden to establish that it was more likely than not that the ’038 patent was not entitled to the filing date of the [’252 application].” Reh’g Req. 3. In Blue Calypso, LLC v. Groupon, Inc., however, the Federal Circuit explicitly found that identifying a limitation as not being recited expressly in the specification at issue was not enough to support a finding of lack of written description. 815 F.3d 1331, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The Federal Circuit explained that it was “troubled by the fact that the Board did not cite any evidence other than the fact that the terms were not present in the specification to support its finding,” concluding this placed “undue weight on the absence of the [exact] terms appearing in the specification.” Id. at 1345–46. Petitioner’s burden, therefore, is not established simply by pointing out that the ’252 application does not explicitly state the feedback limitation.” slip op. at 4

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Not reached

    “being recited expressly in the ’252 application it “satisf[ied] its burden to establish that it was more likely than not that the ’038 patent was not entitled to the filing date of the [’252 application].” Reh’g Req. 3. In Blue Calypso, LLC v. Groupon, Inc., however, the Federal Circuit explicitly found that identifying a limitation as not being recited expressly in the specification at issue was not enough to support a finding of lack of written description. 815 F.3d 1331, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The Federal Circuit explained that it was “troubled by the fact that the Board did not cite any evidence other than the fact that the terms were not present in the specification to support its finding,” concluding this placed “undue weight on the absence of the [exact] terms appearing in the specification.” Id. at 1345–46. Petitioner’s burden, therefore, is not established simply by pointing out that the ’252 application does not explicitly state the feedback limitation.” slip op. at 4

  § 112 disclosure
  Patents in suitUS 9,398,038
• Varian Medical Systems, Inc. v. William Beaumont HospitalNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 4, 2017 · IPR2016-00160 · APJ Matthew R Clements · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–14, 16–29, 33, and 35–38 were not held unpatentable because Petitioner failed to show the Jaffray references were prior art or that the asserted combination rendered the claims obvious.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Entitled to earlier dateDecided for patent owner

    “Having considered the arguments and evidence, we agree with Patent Owner that the ’590 Application provides sufficient written description support for “said computer receives said image of said object and based on said image sends a signal to said radiation source that controls said path of said radiation source.” In particular, we credit the testimony of Dr. Hashemi that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood from the ’590 Application that components of the disclosed system were computer-controlled based upon, e.g., the depiction of an Elekta SL-20 in 9 Both the burden of production and the burden of persuasion. Figure 3 of the ’590 Application and from the depiction of an electronic portal imaging device. (Ex. 2080 ¶¶ 109–116, 125–132). Petitioner’s arguments are not persuasive because they are based upon a construction of the disputed limitation that excludes human intervention. We have construed that limitation, however, to encompass a person or user operating the computer to perform the recited control functions. In post-hearing briefing, both parties agree that this is the proper construction. Papers 80, 81. As a result, even if we assume, as Petitioner contends in Reply, that a person of ordinary skill in the art reading the ’590 Application would have understood that “the step of controlling the path of the beam based on image data was performed by a human operator, not a computer acting autonomously” (Pet. Reply 9) and that “[t]he computer elements connected to table control . . . are all operated in response to commands received from a human operator, and none are tied to table movements specifically based on image data” (id.), it would not show a lack of support for the disputed limitation, because the disputed limitation does not exclude human intervention. Accordingly, we determine that Petitioner has not shown sufficiently,” slip op. at 18

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportPriority date awardedNot shown unpatentable

    “Having considered the arguments and evidence, we agree with Patent Owner that the ’590 Application provides sufficient written description support for “said computer receives said image of said object and based on said image sends a signal to said radiation source that controls said path of said radiation source.” In particular, we credit the testimony of Dr. Hashemi that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood from the ’590 Application that components of the disclosed system were computer-controlled based upon, e.g., the depiction of an Elekta SL-20 in 9 Both the burden of production and the burden of persuasion. Figure 3 of the ’590 Application and from the depiction of an electronic portal imaging device. (Ex. 2080 ¶¶ 109–116, 125–132). Petitioner’s arguments are not persuasive because they are based upon a construction of the disputed limitation that excludes human intervention. We have construed that limitation, however, to encompass a person or user operating the computer to perform the recited control functions. In post-hearing briefing, both parties agree that this is the proper construction. Papers 80, 81. As a result, even if we assume, as Petitioner contends in Reply, that a person of ordinary skill in the art reading the ’590 Application would have understood that “the step of controlling the path of the beam based on image data was performed by a human operator, not a computer acting autonomously” (Pet. Reply 9) and that “[t]he computer elements connected to table control . . . are all operated in response to commands received from a human operator, and none are tied to table movements specifically based on image data” (id.), it would not show a lack of support for the disputed limitation, because the disputed limitation does not exclude human intervention. Accordingly, we determine that Petitioner has not shown sufficiently, on this record, that both Jaffray 1999 SPIE and Jaffray 1999 JRO are prior art to independent claim 1, and the challenged claims that depend therefrom, under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).” slip op. at 18

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Patents / published applications (effective date, provisional support)Reference not prior artNot shown unpatentable

    “Having considered the parties arguments and evidence regarding “[t]he content and nature of the printed publication, as well as the circumstances surrounding its publication” (Katz, 687 F.2d at 455), we are not persuaded that Petitioner has met its burden of persuasion by showing sufficiently that the portions of Jaffray 1999 SPIE and Jaffray 1999 JRO on which it relies are the work “others.” Unlike in Katz, where the question was “the sufficiency of applicant’s showing to establish that the subject disclosure was his original work, and his alone” (687 F.2d at 455), the question before us is the sufficiency of Petitioner’s showing to establish that the subject disclosure was the work of the non-inventor coauthors of Jaffray 1999 SPIE and Jaffray 1999 JRO. See Dynamic Drinkware, 800 F.3d at 1378 (“In an inter partes review, the burden of persuasion is on the 10 Both the burden of production and the burden of persuasion. 11 At oral argument, counsel for Petitioner indicated that, in his view, it does not matter who has the burden of production. Tr. 20:9, 20:16–17. petitioner to prove ‘unpatentability by a preponderance of the evidence,’ 35 U.S.C. § 316(e), and that burden never shifts to the patentee.”); In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“In the context of the present case, however, the notion of burden-shifting is inapposite because the patentee’s position is that the patent challenger failed to meet its burden of proving obviousness.”); see also Duncan Parking Techs., Inc. v. IPS Group Inc., Case IPR2016-00067, slip op. at 8–13 (PTAB Mar. 27, 2017) (Paper 29). Patent Owner presents testimony of Dr. Jaffray and Mr. Drake that the subject matter relied upon by Petitioner was not the work of the non-inventor coauthors, and after considering all relevant arguments and evidence, we are unpersuaded by Petitioner’s assertions that this testimony is unreliable. Dr. Jaffray testifies, for example, that “[t]he JRO article and the SPIE article disclose work done at the direction of me and Dr. Wong in support of the joint research conducted by the two of us.” Ex. 2077 ¶ 2. Dr. Jaffray further testifies that “with the exception of Dr. Siewerdsen coming up with the pre-reconstruction image processing for the SPIE article, the [non-inventor] co-authors did not come up with the ideas for the systems described in those articles.” Id. ¶ 6. Dr. Jaffray describes the contributions of the co-authors as follows:” slip op. at 22

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “D. The Challenged Claims – Obviousness over Jaffray 1999 SPIE, Jaffray 1999 JRO, Adler, and Depp Petitioner asserts that a combination of Jaffray 1999 SPIE, Jaffray 1999 JRO, Adler, and Depp renders obvious claims 1–14, 16–29, 33, and 35–38. Pet. 18–58. Petitioner relies solely upon Jaffray 1999 SPIE and Jaffray 1999 JRO for several limitations of claim 1, including, for example, “a cone-beam computed tomography system comprising: an x-ray source that emits an x-ray beam in a cone-beam form towards said object,” and “a flat-panel imager receiving x-rays after they pass through the object, said imager providing an image of said object.” Pet. 29–31. As discussed above, however, we not persuaded that Jaffray 1999 SPIE and Jaffray 1999 JRO are prior art to claims 1–14, 16–29, 33, and 35–38. Moreover, Petitioner does not contend that Adler or Depp teach these limitations. As a result, we are not persuaded that Petitioner has met its burden of showing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claims 1–14, 16–29, 33, and 35–38 are obvious over a combination of Jaffray 1999 SPIE, Jaffray 1999 JRO, Adler, and Depp.” slip op. at 31

  Patent outcomesUS 6,842,502 not shown unpatentable
  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,842,502
• Varian Medical Systems, Inc. v. William Beaumont HospitalNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 4, 2017 · IPR2016-00163 · APJ Matthew R Clements · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 43–46, 48–55, 57, 59–66, and 68 were not held unpatentable because Petitioner did not establish that the Jaffray references were prior art.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “ordinary skill in the art, with respect to and at the time of the’502 patent, would have the following qualifications: “a medical physicist with a Ph.D. (or similar advanced degree) in physics, medical physics, or a related field, and two or more years of experience in radiation oncology physics and image processing/computer programming related to radiation oncology applications.” Ex. 1202 ¶ 13. Dr. Hashemi, Patent Owner’s expert, essentially agrees, with the only major differences to the above being that an M.S. is acceptable in lieu of a Ph.D., and that three years of experience is preferred. Ex. 2080 ¶ 17. Nominally, we accept Petitioner’s proffered level because it is based on Dr. Balter’s more complete explanation. We note, however, that neither party has explained substantively any significance that the difference in the proffered levels of ordinary skill in the art would play in the obviousness analysis. See Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966); Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“[T]he level of skill in the art is a prism or lens through which a judge, jury, or the Board views the prior art and the claimed invention.”); Ryko Mfg. Co. v. Nu- Star, Inc., 950 F.2d 714, 718 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (“The importance of resolving the level of ordinary skill in the art lies in the necessity of maintaining objectivity in the obviousness inquiry.”). To that end, we note that the prior art itself often reflects an appropriate skill level. See Okajima, 261 F.3d at 1355.” slip op. at 12

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description adequateDecided for patent owner

    “Owner that the ’590 Application provides sufficient written description support for “controlling [said path of / a radiation therapy treatment plan involving] said radiation source based on said image.” In particular, we credit the testimony of Dr. Hashemi that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood from the ’590 Application that components of the disclosed system were computer-controlled based upon, e.g., the depiction of an Elekta SL-20 in Figure 3 of the ’590 Application and from the depiction of an electronic portal imaging device. (Ex. 2080 ¶¶ 109–116, 125–132). Petitioner’s arguments are not persuasive because, even assuming that controlling the source path and controlling a radiation therapy treatment plan are “an entirely different class of control step” from controlling patient position (Pet. Reply 8–9), Petitioner has not explained why the portions of the ’590 Application relied upon by Patent Owner do not disclose controlling the source path or controlling a radiation therapy treatment plan.” slip op. at 19

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportPriority date awardedNot shown unpatentable

    “Owner that the ’590 Application provides sufficient written description support for “controlling [said path of / a radiation therapy treatment plan involving] said radiation source based on said image.” In particular, we credit the testimony of Dr. Hashemi that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood from the ’590 Application that components of the disclosed system were computer-controlled based upon, e.g., the depiction of an Elekta SL-20 in Figure 3 of the ’590 Application and from the depiction of an electronic portal imaging device. (Ex. 2080 ¶¶ 109–116, 125–132). Petitioner’s arguments are not persuasive because, even assuming that controlling the source path and controlling a radiation therapy treatment plan are “an entirely different class of control step” from controlling patient position (Pet. Reply 8–9), Petitioner has not explained why the portions of the ’590 Application relied upon by Patent Owner do not disclose controlling the source path or controlling a radiation therapy treatment plan.” slip op. at 19

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Applicant-admitted prior artReference not prior artNot shown unpatentable

    “[t]he content and nature of the printed publication, as well as the circumstances surrounding its publication” (Katz, 687 F.2d at 455), we are not persuaded that Petitioner has met its burden of persuasion by showing sufficiently that the portions of Jaffray 1999 SPIE and Jaffray 1999 JRO on which it relies are the work “others.” Unlike in Katz, where the question was “the sufficiency of applicant’s showing to establish that the subject disclosure was his original work, and his alone” (687 F.2d at 455), the question before us is the sufficiency of Petitioner’s showing to establish that the subject disclosure was the work of the non-inventor coauthors of Jaffray 13 Both the burden of production and the burden of persuasion. 14 At oral argument, counsel for Petitioner indicated that, in his view, it does not matter who has the burden. Tr. 20:9, 20:16–17. 1999 SPIE and Jaffray 1999 JRO. See Dynamic Drinkware, 800 F.3d at 1378 (“In an inter partes review, the burden of persuasion is on the petitioner to prove ‘unpatentability by a preponderance of the evidence,’ 35 U.S.C. § 316(e), and that burden never shifts to the patentee.”); In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“In the context of the present case, however, the notion of burden-shifting is inapposite because the patentee’s position is that the patent challenger failed to meet its burden of proving obviousness.”); see also Duncan Parking Techs., Inc. v. IPS Group Inc., Case IPR2016-00067, slip op. at 8–13 (PTAB Mar. 27, 2017) (Paper 29). slip op. at 23

  Patent outcomesUS 6,842,502 not shown unpatentable
  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,842,502
• Varian Medical Systems, Inc. v. William Beaumont HospitalNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 4, 2017 · IPR2016-00169 · APJ Kalyan K Deshpande · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–13 and 20–31 were not held unpatentable under § 103 because the petitioner did not establish that Jaffray 1999 SPIE and Jaffray 1999 JRO were prior art.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Entitled to earlier dateDecided for patent owner

    “Having considered the arguments and evidence, we agree with Patent Owner that the ’590 Application provides sufficient written description support for “wherein said receiving said x-rays by said flat panel imager is performed substantially at a time of occurrence of said controlling said path of said beam of radiation through said object.” As an initial matter, we understand that Petitioner acknowledges that the ’590 Application supports the limitation “substantially at a time,” and arguments raised towards this limitation were originally presented as arguments towards indefiniteness.” slip op. at 19

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportPriority date awardedNot shown unpatentable

    “1. Principles of Law Petitioner has the burden of persuasion to prove unpatentability by a preponderance of the evidence. Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Petitioner also has the initial burden of production to show that a reference is prior art to certain claims under a relevant section of 35 U.S.C. § 102. Id. Once Petitioner has met that initial burden, the burden of production shifts to Patent Owner to argue or produce evidence that the asserted reference is not prior art to certain claims, for example, because those claims are entitled to the benefit of priority of an earlier-filed application. Id. at 1380. Once Patent Owner has met that burden of production, the burden is on Petitioner to show that the claims at issue are not entitled to the benefit of priority of the earlier filed application. Id.” slip op. at 14

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityReference not prior artNot shown unpatentable

    “Having considered the parties arguments and evidence regarding, we are not persuaded that Petitioner has met its burden of persuasion by showing sufficiently that the portions of Jaffray 1999 SPIE and Jaffray 1999 JRO on which it relies are the work “others.” Unlike in Katz, where the 10 Both the burden of production and the burden of persuasion. 11 At oral argument, counsel for Petitioner indicated that, in his view, it does not matter who has the burden of production. Tr. 20:9, 20:16–17. question was “the sufficiency of applicant’s showing to establish that the subject disclosure was his original work, and his alone” (687 F.2d at 455), the question before us is the sufficiency of Petitioner’s showing to establish that the subject disclosure was the work of the non-inventor coauthors of Jaffray 1999 SPIE and Jaffray 1999 JRO. See Dynamic Drinkware, 800 F.3d at 1378 (“In an inter partes review, the burden of persuasion is on the petitioner to prove ‘unpatentability by a preponderance of the evidence,’ 35 U.S.C. § 316(e), and that burden never shifts to the patentee.”); In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“In the context of the present case, however, the notion of burden-shifting is inapposite because the patentee’s position is that the patent challenger failed to meet its burden of proving obviousness.”); see also Duncan Parking Techs., Inc. v. IPS Group Inc., Case IPR2016-00067, slip op. at 8–13 (PTAB Mar. 27, 2017) (Paper 29). Patent Owner presents testimony of Dr. Jaffray and Mr. Drake that the subject matter relied upon by Petitioner was not the work of the non-inventor coauthors, and after considering all relevant arguments and evidence, we are unpersuaded by Petitioner’s assertions that this testimony is unreliable. Dr. Jaffray testifies, for example, that “[t]he JRO article and the SPIE article disclose work done at the direction of me and Dr. Wong in support of the joint research conducted by the two of us.” Ex. 2077 ¶ 2. Dr. Jaffray further testifies that “with the exception of Dr. Siewerdsen coming up with the pre-reconstruction image processing for the SPIE article, the [non-inventor] co-authors did not come up with the ideas for the systems described in those articles.” Id. ¶ 6. Dr. Jaffray describes the contributions of the co-authors as follows:” slip op. at 23

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “1999 JRO, Adler, and Depp renders obvious claims 1–13 and 20‒31. Pet. 28–59. Petitioner relies solely upon Jaffray 1999 SPIE and Jaffray 1999 JRO for several limitations of independent claims 1, 7, 20 and 26. For example, claim 1 recites “a cone-beam computed tomography system comprising: an x-ray source that moves about said object and emits toward said object from multiple positions around said object x-ray beams in a cone-beam form” and “a flat-panel imager positioned to receive x-rays after at least a portion of said x-ray beams pass through said object, said imager providing an image that contains three-dimensional information concerning said object based on a plurality of two-dimensional projection images.” Petitioner relies solely on Jaffray 1999 SPIE and Jaffray 1999 JRO to meet these claim limitations. See Pet. 36‒38 (citing Ex. 1005, 17, 25; Ex. 1006, 9; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 82‒84). Independent claims 7, 20, and 26 recite substantially similar limitations that Petitioner again solely relies on Jaffray 1999 SPIE and Jaffray 1999 JRO as disclosing these limitations. As discussed above, however, we not persuaded that Jaffray 1999 SPIE and Jaffray 1999 JRO are prior art to claims 1–13 and 20‒31. Moreover, Petitioner does not contend that Adler or Depp teach these limitations. As a result, we are not persuaded that Petitioner has met its burden of showing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claims 1–13 and 20–31 are obvious over a combination of Jaffray 1999 SPIE, Jaffray 1999 JRO, Adler, and Depp.” slip op. at 32

  Patent outcomesUS 7,471,765 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,471,765
• The Kroger Company / Brookshire Grocery Company v. Nexuscard, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 27, 2017 · CBM2015-00183 · APJ Minn Chung · CBM · Final written decision

  Claims 1–11 are unpatentable under § 101 because they claim the abstract idea of collecting, storing, and processing membership discount information without an inventive concept.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Burden

    “Upon considering all of the evidence of record, we are persuaded Petitioner has demonstrated by a preponderance of evidence that claims 1 and 11 fail to recite any elements that individually or as an ordered combination transform the claimed abstract idea into a patent-eligible application.” slip op. at 34

  • Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)§112(f) appliesOther

    “communication means” Claimed Function: “providing real time (1, 8, 11) 2, 3 communication between [a point of purchase] member merchant’s computer terminal and [a centralized] provider’s computer” Corresponding Structure: a cash register with a communication capability, a credit card verification machine, a terminal, or a scanner, and equivalents “memory storage means” Claimed Function: “containing at least . . . (1, 11) consumer identification code” Corresponding Structure: a magnetic stripe on a card, and equivalents slip op. at 8

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

    “real time “communication without intentional delay, communication” (1, 7, 11) given the processing limitations of the system and the time required to effect the communication” See Dec. on Inst. 8–11. The parties do not dispute these interpretations in their Patent Owner Response and Reply. For this Final Written Decision, after considering the complete record, we see no reason to deviate from those constructions and, therefore, maintain our constructions as set forth above. slip op. at 9

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

    “Under the approach described in Alice and further explained in Enfish, Internet Patents, and Electric Power Group, we are persuaded by Petitioner’s argument and evidence that claims 1 and 11 are directed to an abstract idea. As discussed above, Petitioner has shown that the claims recite a process to “collect, store, and process information about consumer memberships, merchants, manufacturers, and sales transactions” (Pet. 34), a process that qualifies as an “abstract idea” (id. at 71) of “conventional information processing” in the retail industry (id. at 72), for which conventional components, such as a magnetic stripe scanner, computers, and databases, are merely invoked as tools used in their ordinary and conventional manner (Pet. Reply 8–11). In Electric Power Group, the Federal Circuit explained that the “the realm of abstract ideas” includes “collecting information, including when limited to particular content.” Elec. Power Grp., 830 F.3d at 1353. The court determined, therefore, that the claims at issue were directed to an abstract idea because “the focus of the asserted claims” is “on collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis.” Id. We are persuaded that claims 1 and 11 in this case are similarly directed to an abstract idea because Petitioner’s argument and evidence shows that the focus of the claims, the claims’ “character as a whole,” is on conventional information processing in the context of membership discount programs that use generic computers and conventional devices as tools to provide discounts without coupons.” slip op. at 18

  Patent outcomesUS 5,924,080 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 101 eligibilitycites Alice · Mayo · Bilski · Enfish · Electric Power
  Patents in suitUS 5,924,080
• Google, Inc. / Apple Inc. v. Smartflash LLCRehearing denied
  PTAB · Jan 27, 2017 · CBM2015-00130 · APJ Jennifer S Bisk · CBM · Rehearing

  The Board denied Smartflash’s rehearing request, leaving in place its determination that claims 3–10, 15–31, and 33 are patent-ineligible under § 101.

  RulingsRehearing decision

  • RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied

    “The burden of showing a decision should be modified lies with the party challenging the decision. The request must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, or a reply.” slip op. at 3

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

    “Id. at 13–14 (citing Ex. 1001, 25:59–61 (claim 1), 26:42–67 (claim 15), 27:36–55). But McRO does not stand for the general proposition that use of rules or conditions to achieve an improved technological result, alone, removes claims from the realm of abstract ideas. In McRO, the Court explained that “the claimed improvement [was] allowing computers to produce ‘accurate and realistic lip synchronization and facial expressions in animated characters’ that previously could only be produced by human animators.” Id. at 1313 (citation omitted). The Court explained that the claimed rules in McRO transformed a traditionally subjective process performed by human artists into a mathematically automated process executed on computers (i.e., the processes were fundamentally different). Id. at 1314. The Court explained that “it [was] the incorporation of the claimed rules, not the use of the computer, that ‘improved [the] existing technological process’ by allowing the automation of further tasks.” Id. at 1314 (alteration in original) (quoting Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l., 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2358 (2014)). The Court distinguished this from situations “where the claimed computer-automated process and the prior method were carried out in the same way.” Id. (citing Parker v. Flook, 437” slip op. at 6

  • Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step two — inventive conceptDecided for petitioner

    “In Amdocs, the Court held that “[claim 1] is eligible under step two because it contains a sufficient ‘inventive concept.’” Amdocs, 841 F.3d at 1300. The claim at issue recited “computer code for using the accounting information with which the first network accounting record is correlated to enhance the first network accounting record.” Id. The Court explained that the “claim entails an unconventional technological solution (enhancing data in a distributed fashion) to a technological problem (massive record flows which previously required massive databases).” Id. The Court noted that, although the solution requires generic computer components, “the claim’s enhancing limitation necessarily requires that these generic components operate in an unconventional manner to achieve an improvement in computer functionality.” Id. at 1300–1301. When determining that the claim was patent-eligible, the Court explained that the “enhancing limitation necessarily involves the arguably generic gatherers, network devices, and other components working in an unconventional distributed fashion to solve a particular technological problem.” Id. at 1301. The Court distinguished the claim from the claim held unpatentable in Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n, 776 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2014) on the grounds that the “enhancing limitation . . . necessarily incorporates the invention’s distributed architecture—an architecture providing a technological solution to a technological problem,” which “provides the requisite ‘something more’ than the performance of ‘well-” slip op. at 8

  § 101 eligibilitycites Alice · Bilski · Enfish
  Patents in suitUS 8,118,221

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.