• Apple Inc. v. Smartflash LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 29, 2016 · CBM2015-00016 · APJ Jeremy M Plenzler · CBM · Final written decision

  Claims 6, 8, and 10 are unpatentable under § 101; claim 11 is unpatentable under § 112 ¶ 2; the proceeding is terminated as to claim 1.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › §315(e) estoppelEstoppel appliesDecided for petitioner

    “B. Related Matters and Termination In a previous covered business method patent review, CBM2014- 00106, we issued a Final Written Decision determining claim 1 unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103. CBM2014-00106, Paper 52. Because Apple was the petitioner in that proceeding, we found that § 325(e)(1) estops Apple from filing or maintaining a proceeding before the Office with respect to claim 1, i.e., the same claim, in this case. Paper 50 (“Estoppel Order”), 4. We, therefore, ordered Apple not to present argument with respect to the patentability of that claim at the oral hearing on November 9, 2015. Id. at 8.” slip op. at 3

  • Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentGranted

    “We are persuaded that the particular facts of this proceeding now counsel in favor of termination with respect to claim 1. 37 C.F.R. § 42.72. Claim 1 of the ’458 patent has been finally cancelled and any decision we might reach in this proceeding regarding the patentability of this claim would be moot and purely advisory. We do not see how the just, speedy, and inexpensive resolution of every proceeding (37 C.F.R. § 42.1(b)) would be secured by rendering a final written decision with respect to claim 1.” slip op. at 3

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

    “We agree that the challenged claims are drawn to a patent-ineligible abstract idea. Specifically, the challenged claims are directed to performing the fundamental economic practice of controlling access to content. For example, claim 6 recites “code to evaluate the use status data using the use rules data to determine whether access is permitted to the stored data” and “code to access the stored data when access is permitted.” As discussed above, the ’458 patent discusses addressing recording industry concerns of data pirates offering unauthorized access to widely available compressed audio recordings. Ex. 1201, 1:20–55. The ’458 patent proposes to solve this problem by restricting access to data on a device based upon satisfaction of use rules linked to payment data. Id. at 9:7–25. As Petitioner notes (Pet. 26), the ’458 patent makes clear that the claimed subject matter is directed to paying for data and providing access to data. See Ex. 1201 at 2:20–23 (“This invention is . . . particularly . . . relate[d] to a portable data carrier for storing and paying for data and to computer systems for providing access to data.”). Although the specification discusses data piracy on the Internet (see id. at 1:29–39), the challenged claims are not limited to the Internet. The underlying concept of the challenged claims, particularly when viewed in light of the ’458 patent specification, is controlling access to content, as Petitioner contends. As discussed further below, this is a fundamental economic practice long in existence in commerce. See Bilski, 561 U.S. at 611. We are, thus, persuaded, based on the ’458 patent specification and the language of the challenged claims, that claims 6, 8, and 10 are directed to an abstract idea. See Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2356 (holding that the concept of intermediated settlement at issue in Alice was an abstract idea); Accenture Global Servs., GmbH v. Guidewire Software, Inc., 728 F.3d 1336, 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (holding the abstract idea at the heart of a system claim to be “generating tasks [based on] rules . . . to be completed upon the occurrence of an event”).” slip op. at 8

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

    “The specification of the ’458 patent treats as well-known all potentially technical aspects of the claims, which simply require generic computer components (e.g., interfaces, program store, and processor). The linkage of existing hardware devices to supplier-defined access rules appear to be “‘well-understood, routine, conventional activit[ies]’ previously known to the industry.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2359; Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294. Further, the claimed computer code simply performs generic computer functions, such as accessing, retrieving, and evaluating data. See Pet. 29–30. The recitation of these generic computer functions is insufficient to confer specificity. See Content Extraction and Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, 776 F.3d 1343, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“The concept of data collection, recognition, and storage is undisputedly well-known. Indeed, humans have always performed these functions.”). Moreover, we are not persuaded that claims 6, 8, and 10 “recite specific ways of using distinct memories, data types, and use rules that amount to significantly more than” conditioning and controlling access to content based on payment. See PO Resp. 18. The challenged claims do not recite any particular or “distinct memories.” To the extent Patent Owner argues that the claimed “program store” is a memory, Patent Owner does not provide any argument as to how it is constructed or implemented in an unconventional manner. Moreover, the claims recite several generic data types, such as “code,” “use status data,” and “use rules data.” We are not persuaded that the recitation of these data types, by itself, amounts to significantly more than the underlying abstract idea. Patent Owner does not point to any inventive concept in the ’458 patent related to the way these data types are constructed or used. The recitation of generic data types, being used in the conventional manner, is insufficient to confer the specificity required to elevate the nature of the claims into a patent-eligible application. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355 (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294) (“We have described step two of this analysis as a 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 on the [ineligible concept] itself.’”) (brackets in original). In addition, the ’458 patent simply recites data types with no description of the underlying implementation or programming that results in these data types. See Content Extraction and Transmission LLC, 776 F.3d at 1347 (“The concept of data collection, recognition, and storage is undisputedly well-known. Indeed, humans have always performed these functions.”). In addition, because the recited elements can be implemented on a general purpose computer, the challenged claims do not cover a “particular machine.” Pet. 36; see Bilski, 561 U.S. at 604–05 (stating that machine-or-transformation test remains “a useful and important clue” for determining whether an invention is patent eligible). And the challenged claims do not transform an article into a different state or thing. Pet. 36.” slip op. at 10

  Patent outcomesUS 8,033,458 unpatentable
  § 101 eligibility§ 112 disclosurecites Alice · Mayo · Bilski · Nautilus
  Patents in suitUS 8,033,458
• Square, Inc. v. Protegrity CorporationAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 2, 2016 · CBM2014-00182 · APJ Meredith C Petravick · CBM · Final written decision

  Claims 33–60 are unpatentable under § 101; the motion to add substitute claims 61–68 is denied because it broadens claims and lacks written-description support.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “claim, and “it is the single best guide to the meaning of a disputed term.” Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996). The written description of the ’281 patent does not contain a definition of “database.” The claimed database for storing a plurality of data portions corresponds to the O-DB database disclosed in the ’281 patent. The O-DB database is part of a larger “database management system” that includes multiple databases. Id. at 5:53–6:22; Fig. 3. Similar to the other databases, the O-DB database is described as containing data and, in particular, data to be protected. Id. at 6:62–67. Contrary to Patent Owner’s argument (PO Resp. 17–18), the ’281 patent does not describe the O-DB database, or any other database, as performing any other data processing or managing functions. In particular, the ’281 patent does not describe that the O-DB database produces the compelling calling to the data protection catalogue. See Ex. 1001, 10:48–60 (“is first collected by the system”); see id. at Abstract, 2:65–3:5, 3:59–4:2, 4:26–31, 7:63–67, 8:53–61 (describing a compelling calling to a data protection catalogue, but failing to describe the compelling calling being produced by the O-DB database).” slip op. at 10

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

    “We are persuaded by Petitioner that the broadest reasonable construction, in light of the specification of the ’281 patent, of “data portion” is “a part or share of the database.” The ’281 patent contains no lexicographic definition of “data portion” and, therefore, “data portion” is given its plain and ordinary meaning, as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art in the context of the entire disclosure. Petitioner’s construction is consistent with the plain and ordinary meaning of “portion,” which is an individual’s part or share of something. See Ex. 3001 (MERRIAM-WEBSTER’S COLLEGIATE DICTIONARY 908 (10TH ED. 1998)). Petitioner’s proposed construction is also consistent with the words of independent claims 33 and 47, which require that the data portions are part of a database. E.g., see Ex. 1001, 11:18–19 (claim 1 recites “maintaining a database comprising a plurality of data portions”). Petitioner’s proposed construction is further consistent with dependent claims 37, 38, 51, and 52, which further define the claimed data portions to be “a column of data in the database” or “a field of data in the database.” Patent Owner’s proposed construction is overly narrow and improperly attempts to import the limitations from the specification of the ’281 patent into the claim. Limitations appearing in the specification but not recited in the claim are not read into the claim. E-Pass Techs., Inc. v. 3Com Corp., 343 F.3d 1364, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (claims must be interpreted “in view of the specification” without importing limitations from the specification into the claims unnecessarily) (internal quotations and citation omitted). Although the ’281 patent describes the invention as working on the cell or data element level (see Ex. 1001, 3:52–59), we see nothing in the claims, themselves, that require the data portions to be data element values. Dependent claims 37 and 51 are inconsistent with Patent Owner’s proposed construction, because they define the data portion as a column of data, which is a larger portion of data than a data element value.” slip op. at 15

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner

    “Mr. Mattsson’s and Dr. Direen’s testimony is unpersuasive because it is inconsistent with the ’281 patent. As discussed above, the ’281 patent describes the O-DB as one database in a larger database management system. Ex. 1001, 5:52–6:22. The ’281 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 5:62–67, 6:23–56. The ’281 patent does not describe the O-DB database as producing the compelling calling. See Ex. 1001, 10:48–60 (“is first collected by the system”); see id. at Abstract, 2:65–3:5, 3:59–4:2, 4:26–31; 7:63–67; 8:53–61 (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 ’281 patent. E.g., see Ex. 2045 ¶¶ 12–16, 22, 29; Ex. 2046 ¶ 19; Ex. 2078 ¶¶ 11–12; Ex. 2079 ¶¶ 7–8. 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 Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1584 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (“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 and Co-founder (Ex. 2019, 2) and has an interest in the outcome of this proceeding. Contrary to Mr. Mattsson’s and Dr. Direen’s testimony, Petitioner’s declarant Dr. Shamos testifies that one of ordinary skill in the art would know, based upon the ’281 patent, that the compelling calling is produced not by the O-DB, but by control module 20, Ex. 1014 ¶¶ 15–21. Dr. Shamos’ testimony is persuasive because it is consistent with the written description of the ’281 patent, discussed above. Patent Owner argues that we should give no weight to Dr. Shamos’ testimony. PO Resp. 61–64. According to Patent Owner, Dr. Shamos is not a person of ordinary skill in the art because Dr. Shamos lacks knowledge and expertise in database administration and security. Id. at 63. Patent Owner’s argument is unpersuasive because Dr. Shamos is testifying as an expert whose knowledge and experience qualify him to opine on what a hypothetical person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood at the time of the invention. See Ex. 1014 ¶¶ 1–2 (testimony concerning his knowledge of encryption and database technology); Ex. 1003 (Resume of Dr. Shamos). We are not persuaded by Patent Owner that Dr. Shamos is not qualified to opine as to the knowledge of person of ordinary skill at the time of the filing. We, thus, are not persuaded by Patent Owner that we should give no weight to Dr. Shamos’ testimony.” slip op. at 12

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

    “Independent claim 33 recites a data processing method that grants access to a requested data portion if the rules associated with a data category that is associated with the requested data portion is satisfied. Ex. 1001, 13:38–54. Claim 33 requires a database that comprises the data portions and requires a separate data protection table comprising data processing rules that must be satisfied before the data portion can be accessed. Id. The data processing rules are associated with the data category. Id. Independent claim 47 recites a corresponding computer system. Id. at 14:47–63. Independent claims 33 and 47, thus, recite a method or system that grants access to a requested data portion if the rules associated with a data category that is associated with the requested data portion are satisfied. Ex. 1001, 13:38–54. Given the above, we are persuaded by Petitioner that the claims are directed to the abstract idea of determining whether access to data should be granted based on whether one or more rules are satisfied. We are not persuaded by Patent Owner that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea, because Patent Owner’s argument is based upon elements not required by the claims. See PO Resp. 21–28, 35–38. Given our construction of “data portion” and “database” in section II (A) above, the claims do not require protection on the data element level based on rules stored in a separate database, where the first database calls out to the second database. Patent Owner’s argument is not commensurate with the scope of the claims.” slip op. at 30

  Patent outcomesUS 8,402,281 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 101 eligibility§ 112 disclosurecites Alice · Mayo
  Patents in suitUS 8,402,281
• Boku, Inc. / Boku Account Services, Inc. v. Xilidev, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · 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 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites KSR
  Patents in suitUS 7,273,168
• Boku, Inc. / Boku Account Services, Inc. v. Xilidev, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · 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 KSR
  Patents in suitUS 7,273,168
• PNC Bank, N.A. / U.S. Bank, N. A. et al. v. Secure Axcess, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 8, 2015 · CBM2015-00009 · APJ Barbara A Benoit · CBM · Final written decision

  Claims 1–32 are unpatentable as obvious over the SHTTP document and Arent.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • BurdenFwd all claims unpatentableUnpatentable

    “For the foregoing reasons, we determine that Petitioner has established by a preponderance of the evidence that the subject matter recited in claims 1–32 of the ’191 patent as a whole would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in view of the teachings of the SHTTP document and Arent. See 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).” slip op. at 71

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedNot reached

    “Information Prepared by Paul C. Clark” (Ex. 1018). Petitioner opposes, arguing that Exhibit 1018 is Dr. Clark’s notes used during his deposition. We did not refer to or rely on Exhibit 1018 in this Final Written Decision. As such, we need not reach the merits as to Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude. Accordingly, Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude certain evidence (Ex. 1018) is dismissed as moot.” slip op. at 71

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownOther

    “Petitioner’s expert adopted the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention used by Patent Owner’s expert. See Ex. 2006 ¶ 8 (testimony by Patent Owner’s declarant identifying the level of ordinary skill); Ex. 1002 ¶ 29 (testimony by Petitioner’s declarant). We do not 31 disagree with the parties. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, or an equivalent field and least two years of work experience in the area of information technology.” slip op. at 31

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

    “We agree with Petitioner and its declarant that the provisional application does not disclose the claimed authenticity key or preferences file or the claimed use thereof, as recited in each of independent claims 1, 17, 29, 31, and 32. The provisional application describes the invention in a few sentences. The scarcity of detail fails to provide sufficient disclosure of the claimed steps. For example, we see no disclosure of inserting any data in the provisional application, much less inserting something that could be identified as an authenticity key. Although a shared secret is disclosed, the shared secret is not described as being inserted into the web page or any other data. See id. at 5–6 (“The invention proposes to utilize the shared secret data created as part of being” a credit card holder of a particular credit 33 card company.). Moreover, the record evidence indicates that the provisional application does not disclose the recited “authenticity key.” Pet. 20 (citing Ex. 1002 at 18, ¶ 37). Thus, we agree with Petitioner that the provisional application lacks written description support for “authenticity key,” which is recited by all claims in the ’191 patent. Accordingly, we determine Arent is prior art under 102(a) to the ’191 patent and is available for consideration in this covered business method patent review.” slip op. at 33

  Patent outcomesUS 7,631,191 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,631,191
• PNC Bank, N.A. / U.S. Bank, N. A. et al. v. Secure Axcess, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 8, 2015 · CBM2014-00100 · APJ Barbara A Benoit · CBM · Final written decision

  Claims 1–32 are unpatentable as obvious over SHTTP and Arent; the Board found the combined teachings and reason to combine established by a preponderance of the evidence.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner’s expert adopted the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention used by Patent Owner’s expert. See Ex. 2006 ¶ 8 (testimony by Patent Owner’s declarant identifying the level of ordinary skill); Ex. 1002 ¶ 29 (testimony by Petitioner’s declarant). We do not 31 disagree with the parties. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, or an equivalent field and least two years of work experience in the area of information technology.” slip op. at 31

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

    “We agree with Petitioner and its declarant that the provisional application does not disclose the claimed authenticity key or preferences file or the claimed use thereof, as recited in each of independent claims 1, 17, 29, 31, and 32. The provisional application describes the invention in a few sentences. The scarcity of detail fails to provide sufficient disclosure of the claimed steps. For example, we see no disclosure of inserting any data in the provisional application, much less inserting something that could be identified as an authenticity key. Although a shared secret is disclosed, the shared secret is not described as being inserted into the web page or any other data. See id. at 5–6 (“The invention proposes to utilize the shared secret data created as part of being” a credit card holder of a particular credit 33 card company.). Moreover, the record evidence indicates that the provisional application does not disclose the recited “authenticity key.” Pet. 20 (citing Ex. 1002 at 18, ¶ 37). Thus, we agree with Petitioner that the provisional application lacks written description support for “authenticity key,” which is recited by all claims in the ’191 patent. Accordingly, we determine Arent is prior art under 102(a) to the ’191 patent and is available for consideration in this covered business method patent review.” slip op. at 33

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable

    “10. Conclusion Regarding Obviousness We have resolved the question of obviousness based on factual determinations of (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) differences between the subject matter of challenged claims and the teachings of the prior art; and (3) the level of ordinary skill in the art. Graham, 383 U.S. at 17–18. Patent Owner did not put forth any objective evidence of nonobviousness. For the foregoing reasons, we determine that Petitioner has established by a preponderance of the evidence that the subject matter recited in claims 1–32 of the ’191 patent as a whole would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in view of the teachings of the SHTTP document and Arent. See 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).” slip op. at 71

  Patent outcomesUS 7,631,191 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,631,191
• Motionpoint Corporation v. Transperfect Global, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jul 15, 2015 · CBM2014-00060 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · CBM · Final written decision

  Claims 1–28 are unpatentable for lack of adequate written description under § 112, first paragraph.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “that “hyperlink” is a well-understood term that the ’022 patent uses in accordance with its ordinary meaning. As explained above, the Microsoft Computer User’s Dictionary makes clear that a hyperlink includes a connection to another element or document. Patent Owner points to no persuasive evidence that the ’022 patent describes a hyperlink as separate from this connection such that the connection can be changed with the hyperlink remaining the same. Indeed, the ’022 patent describes “replac[ing] all links in the translated web page 7 with links that point to the translation manager 4” as part of the translation process. Ex. 1001, 3:37–38. Thus, as described in the patent, changing the connection to point to the translation manager requires a new link. This is consistent with the ordinary meaning of a hyperlink as including a specific connection from one document to another element or document. Our preliminary construction of “hyperlink” included “a link or connection” but did not include a recitation of the element or document linked. To resolve the parties’ dispute, consistent with the ordinary meaning and the specification, we conclude, on the full record before us, that one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have understood “hyperlink” to mean “a connection between an element in a hypertext document, such as a word, phrase, symbol, or image, and a different element in the document, another hypertext document, a file, or a script.”” slip op. at 10

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied

    “First, the inter partes reexamination of the ’022 patent is relevant to our consideration of the claim construction issues presented here because claim construction was at issue in the reexamination. Second, we see no risk of undue prejudice that would outweigh the probative value of the documents and evidence submitted in the reexamination. Of note, is that this proceeding is not a jury trial and, thus, the risk of prejudice in this forum is less than what may otherwise exist before a jury. Third, we agree with Petitioner that Exhibit 1013 is not hearsay at least under Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2)(B) because the testimony in Dr. Nakhimovsky’s Declaration was submitted by, and on behalf of, Patent Owner to the Patent Office, thus evidencing that Patent Owner manifested a belief that the statements contained therein were true. Accordingly, Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude as applied to Exhibit 1013 is denied.” slip op. at 22

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description inadequateUnpatentable

    “Patent Owner’s first argument is contrary to our constructions of the term “hyperlink” and the phrase “said hyperlink.” As reflected in our construction, “said hyperlink” in each of independent claims 1, 17, and 26, refers back to the original recitation of “one or more hyperlinks” in the original (untranslated) electronic communication. The portion of the specification relied upon by Patent Owner does not disclose providing translation of said further electronic communications when the original one or more hyperlink is activated. Rather, this disclosure indicates that the translation manager may replace all of the links (i.e., hyperlinks) in the translated web page with links that point to the translation manager. These replaced links are in the translated electronic communication (e.g., web page 7), and not in the original untranslated electronic communication (e.g., web page 2). Thus, this disclosure does not reasonably convey to one of ordinary skill in the art that the inventors had possession of a translation manager that provides translation of further electronic communications when the one or more hyperlinks in the original untranslated electronic communication is activated (i.e., one or more hyperlinks with unmodified destination addresses). See Ariad Pharm., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc).” slip op. at 25

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Definiteness (Nautilus)Not reached

    “E. Indefiniteness of Claims 23 and 25–28 Under 35 U.S.C. § 112, Second Paragraph Our determination that each challenged claim is unpatentable for lack of an adequate written description renders it unnecessary to reach Petitioner’s contentions that claims 23 and 25–28 of the ’022 patent are indefinite.” slip op. at 31

  Patent outcomesUS 6,857,022 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 6,857,022
• Fidelity National Information Services, Inc. v. Datatreasury Corp.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Apr 29, 2015 · CBM2014-00021 · APJ Michael P Tierney · CBM · Final written decision

  Claims 1–123 are unpatentable under § 101; claims 1–41 and 51–69 are also unpatentable for lack of written description under § 112.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “Based on the evidence of record, we credit the testimony of Dr. Alexander and agree with Petitioner that: (1) the specification fails to describe encrypting the DAT_TERMINAL_ID; (2) generic “identification information” does not constitute the claimed subsystem identification information; and (3) subsystem identification information is not included in the “paper transaction data” of the disclosed receipt. Reply 12–13. We find that Petitioner has demonstrated that claims 1–41 and 51–69 are unpatentable for lack of sufficient written description for encrypting subsystem identification information.” slip op. at 22

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for patent owner

    “reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which [they] appear[].” 37 C.F.R. § 42.300(b); see Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,766 (Aug. 14, 2012) (“Trial Practice Guide”); In re Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC, 778 F.3d 1271, 1281 (Fed. Cir. 2015); In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007); In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Claim terms are given their plain and ordinary meaning as would be understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention and in the context of the entire patent disclosure. “There are only two exceptions to this general rule: 1) when a patentee sets out a definition and acts as his own lexicographer, or 2) when the patentee disavows the full scope of a claim term either in the specification or during prosecution.” Thorner v. Sony Computer Entm’t Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012).” slip op. at 7

  • Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step one — 'directed to'Step1 directed to exceptionUnpatentable
  • Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step two — inventive conceptStep2 no inventive conceptUnpatentable

    “We credit Dr. Alexander’s testimony and determine that the ’988 patent simply arranges old well-known elements with each performing the same function it had been known to perform. E.g., Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 26–28, 31, 85. Based on the record presented, we do not see how the limitations in claim 46 are significant meaningful limitations that transform the abstract 4 Petitioner contends that the challenged claims do not recite a “three-tiered” architecture. Reply 8. For purposes of this decision, we assume the Patent Owner is correct in stating that its claims require such architecture. idea into patent-eligible applications of these abstractions. Patent Owner’s contentions focused on the alleged meaningful limitations appearing in claim 46 or the challenged claims in general. We have reviewed the remaining challenged claims and likewise are persuaded, based on the evidence presented, that the remaining claims also lack limitations that meaningfully limit the abstract idea and avoid unacceptable preemption. Reply, 1. We hold that the challenged claims recite nothing more than conventional equipment and steps, specified at a high level of generality on top of the underlying abstract concept. Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1300.” slip op. at 18

  Patent outcomesUS 5,910,988 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 101 eligibility§ 112 disclosurecites Alice · Bilski
  Patents in suitUS 5,910,988
• Google Inc. v. Unwired Planet, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Apr 6, 2015 · CBM2014-00004 · APJ Jennifer S Bisk · CBM · Final written decision

  Claims 21 and 22 are unpatentable under § 101 because they claim an abstract idea implemented using generic, conventional technology.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “term “SRC.” The ’151 patent does, however, give some context from which to discern the meaning of the term. For example, the ’151 patent states that “[t]he term ‘SRC technology,’ as used herein, may include any short-range radio communications technology now existing or yet to be developed, including, for example, radio frequency identification (‘RFID’), IEEE 802.15 (‘Bluetooth’), and IEEE 802.11 (‘WiFi’), among others.” Id. at 2:60–65; see also id. at 2:9–18 (describing “SRC device[s]” and “SRC-enabled mobile terminals” as including RFID, Bluetooth, and WiFi related devices). Moreover, the ’151 patent describes several embodiments of the invention. The first embodiment involves an RFID system. Id. at 3:7–8. The second embodiment is described as a “hybrid system” using “Bluetooth, WiFi, WiMAX, or any other wireless protocol” to connect with an RFID reader. Id. at 4:19–34. Based on this disclosure, it is clear that “SRC,” as used in the ’151 patent, encompasses communications at a range used by the technologies named in the specification—RFID, Bluetooth, and WiFi—and other short-range radio communication technologies. The question is whether the” slip op. at 7

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner

    “extrinsic evidence, including testimony from Dr. Georgios B. Giannakis. Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 21–25. Dr. Giannakis testifies that SRC has a well-understood meaning in the art of “a nominal range of 100 meters or less, such as used by practical systems performing typical applications of RFID, Bluetooth, and Wi-Fi communications.” Id. ¶ 22. Moreover, Dr. Giannakis testifies that all three examples of SRC technologies listed by the ’151 patent have “a practical upper range in a typical deployment that is nominally 100 meters or less.” Id. ¶ 24. An expert’s opinion, however, is only as good as the facts upon which it is based. Dr. Giannakis points to no factual support for his specific numeric conclusions on this issue. See id. ¶¶ 22–24. We, therefore, give very little weight to Dr. Giannakis’s testimony concluding that the term SRC, as used in the ’151 patent, includes a specific upper bound of 100 meters. See Ashland Oil, Inc. v. Delta Resins & Refractories, Inc., 776 F.2d 281, 294 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (“Lack of factual support for expert opinion going to factual determinations . . . may render the testimony of little probative value in a validity determination.”).” slip op. at 8

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Definiteness (Nautilus)DefiniteNot shown unpatentable

    “Although a term may be relative, it is not necessarily indefinite. Seattle Box Co., Inc. v. Indus. Crating & Packing, Inc., 731 F.2d 818, 826 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (“That some claim language may not be precise, however, does not automatically render a claim invalid.”). We are persuaded a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that short-range communication covers a communication range “shorter” than the range covered by mobile networks. See Commil USA, LLC v. Cisco Sys., Inc., 720 F.3d 1361, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (affirming the district court’s finding not indefinite the term “short-range communication protocol,” which was construed to mean “a set of procedures required to initiate and maintain short-range communication between two or more devices” where short-range communications similarly included Bluetooth and WiFi technologies, but did not include a numeric upper bound on range), cert. granted in-part on other grounds, 135 S.Ct. 752 (U.S. Dec. 5, 2014) (No. 13-896). The ’151 patent expressly describes mobile networks as including “cellular networks such as Global System for Mobile Communications (‘GSM’), Time Division Multiple Access (‘TDMA’), Code Division Multiple Access (‘CDMA’), and Personal Communications Service (‘PCS’) networks.” Ex. 1001, 2:53–58; see PO Resp. 19. It also describes interoperability between the various systems, contrasting them by size. For example, in describing the problems encountered when locating mobile terminals, the Specification describes “cell sizes [that] have grown to cover up to 20 km in diameter or even wider.” Ex. 1001, 1:67–2:4. A solution to this problem is employing “at least one SRC device.” Id. at 2:9–11. The ’151 patent also describes employing the “at least one SRC device . . . within a mobile network.” Id. at 2:11–17 (emphasis added). Thus, the specification makes reasonably clear to the person of ordinary skill the range of SRC in comparison to the range of mobile networks—and in turn the scope of SRC as used in claims 21 and 22. See Young v. Lumenis, Inc., 492 F.3d 1336, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (holding the term “near” not indefinite where the specification makes reasonably clear that the term means “very close to or at the edge of”).” slip op. at 12

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

    “We agree with Petitioner that the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea, specifically, the abstract idea of receiving information and providing services or advertisements based on that information. The preambles and all claim limitations of both claims support this abstract idea, and the ’151 patent repeatedly discloses that the invention is directed to providing services or advertisements. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 1:7–15, 25–27. Patent Owner has not identified any portion of the ’151 patent inconsistent with this abstract idea, and we are persuaded that the identified abstract idea is a fundamental building block of economics, similar in nature to the abstract idea of hedging claimed in Bilski and intermediated settlement claimed in Alice. Patent Owner does not direct us to any authority for its assertion that an idea is not abstract if it includes specific recitation regarding the type of information transmitted, how that information is acquired, and whether it is used for authentication. Here, the claims are generally directed to a method of (i) receiving information over a network, (ii) authenticating that information, and (iii) providing a service to a mobile terminal or receiving an advertisement over the network, all of which inform the aforementioned abstract idea. See Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Assoc., 776 F.3d 1343, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (characterizing the claimed abstract idea as “1) collecting data, 2) recognizing certain data within the collected data set, and 3) storing that recognized data in a memory” despite claim’s recitation of specific limitations, like scanner). This combination of steps recites an abstraction because it has “no particular concrete or tangible form” and is “devoid of a concrete or tangible application.” Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 715 (Fed. Cir. 2014). The details emphasized by Patent Owner do not remove the claimed methods from the realm of the abstract. These details are characteristic of the invention’s implementation, rather than its general idea. See buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1354–55 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (describing the claim’s abstract idea without including the claim’s “computer network” limitation); see also Ultramercial 772 F.3d at 715 (stating that more detailed limitations may “add a degree of particularity,” but do not convert the concept embodied by the majority of the limitations into something concrete).” slip op. at 16

  Patent outcomesUS 7,463,151 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 101 eligibility§ 112 disclosurecites Alice · Nautilus
  Patents in suitUS 7,463,151
• Google Inc. v. Unwired Planet, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Apr 6, 2015 · CBM2014-00006 · APJ Jennifer S Bisk · CBM · Final written decision

  Claims 25–29 are unpatentable under § 101; claim 25 is also unpatentable as obvious over Havinis ’931 and Leonhardt, and Landgren and Leonhardt.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “reasoning with rational underpinning to combine Havinis ’931 and Leonhardt. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). For instance, Petitioner states: [a] person of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to modify the system of Havinis ’931 to include Leonhardt’s location access policies, in order to further Havinis ’931’s goals of managing positioning requests sent by Location Applications such that location services can be tailored individually to meet the needs of the mobile device user. Pet. 59 (citing Ex. 1004, 3:33–40). Relying on Dr. Cox, Petitioner adds that this modification “would have been nothing more than the application of a known method of privacy management to achieve a predictable result.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 76. As explained in our Decision to Institute, we are persuaded the rationale set forth by Petitioner and Dr. Cox is reasonable. See Dec. 24–25. Subsequent to our preliminary finding, Patent Owner has provided no evidence or argument to the contrary. Thus, after once again evaluating Petitioner’s arguments and supporting evidence, we conclude that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that it would have been obvious to combine the relied upon teachings of Havinis ’931 and Leonhardt. We conclude that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 25 of the ’752 Patent would have been obvious over Havinis ’931 and Leonhardt.” slip op. at 13

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description adequateNot shown unpatentable

    “We are not persuaded that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the ’752 patent fails to provide sufficient written description support for the notifying limitation. Petitioner’s only evidence that the notifying limitation is not sufficiently supported is its argument that the ’752 patent fails to explicitly describe notifying the wireless device that access to the location information was denied. Pet. 44–45. Petitioner proffers testimony from Dr. Cox parroting, almost word for word, the argument in Petitioner’s brief. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 24–36. This argument and testimony, however, does not speak to the correct standard—whether the ’752 specification “reasonably conveys to those skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date.” Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly and Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc). Moreover, “the disclosure as originally filed does not . . . have to provide in haec verba support for the claimed subject matter at issue,” nor must it describe “every conceivable and possible future embodiment of [the] invention.” Cordis Corp. v. Medtronic AVE, Inc., 339 F.3d 1352, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (internal quotation marks omitted). We agree with Patent Owner, that the ’752 patent broadly describes notifying the wireless device at any time during the described process. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 9:26–29 (“the system described herein is for a subscriber to receive a notification on their wireless communications device whenever a location request is made by any client application”). Moreover, as pointed out by Petitioner, the ’752 patent describes sending “denied access” messages to client applications. See Pet. 44 (citing Ex. 1001, 11:40–42). Based on these disclosures, we are persuaded that the ’752 patent provides broad support for providing notifications of various messages to different elements of the system at multiple points in the described process. Petitioner has not pointed to anything in the ’752 patent specification that clearly limits what messages can be sent to the various elements or when they can be sent. In fact, as Patent Owner points out, the Provisional Application explicitly contemplates “initiat[ing] a dialogue with the subscriber regarding permission for a location request.” Ex. 1020, 22. Although Petitioner complains that this disclosure does not describe how a dialogue would occur or how messages are relayed (Reply 5), we are not persuaded that a person of ordinary skill in the art would disbelieve, based on the entirety of the ’752 patent disclosure, that the inventor had possession of sending an access denied message to the wireless device at the appropriate time during the process. Thus, we are persuaded that the ’752 patent “provides ample support for the breadth” of the notifying limitation and does not “unambiguously limit” its meaning to a narrower embodiment (e.g., notifying the wireless device only when a request has been made). Cordis, 339 F.3d at 1365. Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the ’752 patent fails to support the notifying limitation.” slip op. at 20

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

    “We agree with Petitioner that the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea, specifically, the abstract idea of controlling access to location information using a subscriber profile. The preambles and all claim limitations of both claims support this abstract idea, and the ’752 patent repeatedly discloses that the invention is directed to controlling access to location information. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 1:14–19, 1:60–2:7. Patent Owner has not identified any portion of the ’752 patent inconsistent with this abstract idea, and we are persuaded that the identified abstract idea is similar to the kind of “organizing human activity” at issue in Bilski and Alice. See, e.g., Planet Bingo, LLC v. VKGS LLC, 576 F. App’x 1005, 1008 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (comparing “methods and systems for managing a game of Bingo” to the kind of “organizing human activity” at issue in Bilski and Alice).” slip op. at 24

  Patent outcomesUS 7,203,752 unpatentable
  § 101 eligibility§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Alice · KSR
  Patents in suitUS 7,203,752

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.