- SAP America, Inc. v. Lakshmi ArunachalamRehearing deniedPTAB · May 22, 2015 · CBM2014-00018 · APJ Brian J Mcnamara · CBM · Rehearing
The Board denied Patent Owner’s rehearing request, leaving claims 4–6 and 9–10 unpatentable based on the prior final written decision.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“§ 42.6(a)(3). We consider only those arguments advanced in Patent Owner’s Request for Rehearing concerning subject matter Patent Owner contends we overlooked or misapprehended in our Final Written Decision. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). We are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument that we misapprehended or overlooked that the subject matter of the ’158 Patent is drawn to a technical solution to a technical problem because Patent Owner coined terms such as POSvc application, VAN service, object routing, service network, and VAN switch. Req. Rh’g. 3–4. We addressed these issues extensively in our Final Written Decision, noting that claim 1, from which claim 4 depends, is directed to a method of performing a transaction that includes providing a webpage for display, providing an application the user can select to access checking and savings accounts, accepting signals from an input device, and transferring funds. Final Dec. 14. We also addressed the terminology used in the claims and determined that none of these features changes the non-technological nature of the claim. Id. at 13–15. Patent Owner has not identified any matter that we overlooked or failed to apprehend on this issue.” slip op. at 5
- Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step one — 'directed to'Not reached
“In a conclusory fashion, Patent Owner states that we have erroneously applied the Supreme Court’s Decision in Alice Corp. Pty, Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014). Req. Rh’g. 15. However Patent Owner does not otherwise address our conclusion that claims 9 and 10 are unpatentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and does not explain how we misapplied the Court’s decision in Alice.” slip op. at 7
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached
“Patent Owner takes a similar approach to our analysis of the prior art, stating that SFCU and Computerworld did not conduct real-time transactions and that Lawlor operates over phone lines. Id. at 15. However, the Request for Rehearing does not address our combinations of the art, i.e., Lawlor and Computerworld, Final Dec. 20–23, and EB and SFCU, id. at 23–26, along with CORBA 1 and CORBA 2, id. at 26–36. Patent Owner does not address the further combination with respect to claims 5 and 6 with SNMP.” slip op. at 7
§ 101 eligibility§ 103 obviousnesscites AlicePatents in suitUS 8,037,158 - Bank Of America, N.A. / PNC Financial Services Group, Inc. et al. v. Intellectual Ventures I LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · May 19, 2015 · CBM2014-00029 · APJ Hyun J Jung · CBM · Final written decision
Claims 1–18 are unpatentable under § 101 because they claim the abstract idea of protecting billing data with substitute billing data using only generic, routine computer activity.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“Petitioner replies, and we agree, that the claims of the ’701 patent do not require that “substitute billing data” be tied to an actual financial account or be tested by an existing payment system. Also, we determine that the Specification does not describe how billing data becomes valid. The portion of Patent Owner’s expert declaration cited in Patent Owner’s Response does not refer to any portion of the Specification. PO Resp. 11; Martin Decl. ¶¶ 35–37. Thus, Patent Owner’s arguments regarding “valid billing data” do not persuade us that “substitute billing data” applies only to electronic transactions. Based on our conclusions from the Specification of the ’701 patent regarding “client” and the lack of any disclosure for validating billing data and the complete record before us, we are not persuaded that the broadest, reasonable interpretation of “substitute billing data” requires only electronic transactions. We determine that the broadest, reasonable interpretation of “substitute billing data” in view of the Specification is “valid billing data that is owned and/or controlled by a billing service, where billing data is temporarily or permanently distributed to clients to replace personal and/or private billing data of the client.” See Ex. 1001, 3:11–16. Also, Patent Owner’s arguments for “substitute billing data” do not persuade us to modify our interpretation of “a substitute for said personal billing data” and “substitutes for personal billing data.”” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“The Specification of the ’701 patent also states that, “[f]or the purposes of this description, the phrase ‘web site’ is intended to be a general reference to a network ‘presence’ maintained by a business as well [as] a logical presence maintained on behalf of a business.” Ex. 1001, 2:66–3:2. When this statement is considered together with Patent Owner’s asserted definition of “businesses”—that “each of the network locations to which a client may communicate provide[s] a ‘web site’ for engaging in commercial transactions”—the ’701 patent uses “businesses” or “business” to refer to the network locations, web sites, network presences or logical presences maintained by or on behalf of a business. Thus, we interpret “business” or “businesses” to mean the “network locations, web sites, network presences or logical presences maintained by or on behalf of a business.” In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d at 1480.” slip op. at 11
- Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step one — 'directed to'Step1 directed to exceptionUnpatentable
“C. Are the ’701 Patent Claims Directed to Abstract Ideas? Petitioner argues that “the claims are directed to the basic idea of protecting personal billing data from thieves and hackers by providing ‘substitute billing data’ to a consumer for making online purchasing transactions.” Pet. 21. Patent Owner responds that Petitioner’s proposed abstract idea “does not rise to the level of a ‘fundamental building block’ of technology, of economic behavior, or of human organization.” PO Resp. 24–25 (citing Pet. 21), 27–28 (citing Martin Decl. ¶ 76); Tr. 56:15–22. Patent Owner also argues that, even if online purchasing transactions were a “fundamental building block,” the claims are directed to “a very specific subset of transactions that use a specific subset of ‘substitute billing data.’” Id. at 28–29 (citing Martin Decl. ¶ 17). Petitioner replies that “there is no rule that an idea is abstract only if it falls within a particular category of abstract ideas.” Reply 8–9. We are persuaded by the Supreme Court’s opinion in Alice that Petitioner is correct, and that these enumerated categories were not intended as exclusive. Specifically, the Court wrote: “In any event, we need not labor to delimit the precise contours of the ‘abstract ideas’ category in this case.” 134 S. Ct. at 2357; accord Content Extraction, 776 F.3d at 1347. Furthermore, providing substitute billing data is similar in principle to using a purchasing agent. We, therefore, conclude that the first step in the Alice/Mayo test is met for claims 1–18 of the ’701 patent.” slip op. at 20
- Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step two — inventive conceptStep2 no inventive conceptUnpatentable
“Three of the four steps of claim 1 recite an “electronic device facilitating . . .” and the last step recites the “electronic device obtaining” The plain and ordinary meaning of “electronic device” does not tie claim 1 “to any particular novel machine or apparatus, only a general purpose computer.” See Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716. In arguing that the “electronic device” is integral to the claim, Patent Owner cites its expert declaration, but the declaration relies on Patent Owner’s proposed interpretations of “substitute billing data” and “billing service,” which we did not adopt. See Martin Decl. ¶¶ 69–77. Also, the words of the claim do not specify how the electronic device facilitates or obtains the recited activities. Claim 1 generally recites the activities of requesting credit card numbers, obtaining credit card numbers as a substitute for personal billing data, and purchasing from businesses associated with the credit card numbers. We find no persuasive evidence in the record that claim 1 recites more than “well-understood, routine, conventional activity.” Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1298. Thus, based on the complete record before us, we conclude that method claim 1, which merely requires generic computer implementation, fails to transform an abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. See Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2357.” slip op. at 25
Patent outcomesUS 7,664,701 unpatentableClaim construction§ 101 eligibilitycites Alice · Mayo · BilskiPatents in suitUS 7,664,701 - TD Ameritrade Holding Corp. / TD Ameritrade, Inc. et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc.Rehearing deniedPTAB · Feb 2, 2015 · CBM2014-00135 · APJ Philip J Hoffmann · CBM · Rehearing
The Board denied both rehearing requests, leaving intact institution of CBM review of claims 1–56 under § 101 and denial of institution under §§ 102, 103, and 112.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“decision for an abuse of discretion. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). An abuse of discretion may be determined if a decision is based on an erroneous interpretation of law, if a factual finding is not supported by substantial evidence, or if the decision represents an unreasonable judgment in weighing relevant factors. See Arnold Partnership v. Dudas, 362 F.3d 1338, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2004). For the reasons that follow, Petitioner does not show that the Board abused its discretion.” slip op. at 2
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached
“characterizing Togher’s disclosure, for the following reasons we find that Petitioner relied on Silverman and Gutterman to render obvious claim 1’s limitation “selecting a particular area in the order entry region [corresponding to a price of a static display of prices] through single action of the user input device . . . to set a plurality of parameters for the trade order and send the trade order to the electronic exchange.” Thus, Petitioner’s argument that Togher discloses “selecting a particular area in the order entry region [corresponding to a price of a static display of prices] through single action of the user input device . . . to set a plurality of additional parameters for the trade order and send the trade order to the electronic exchange” is not timely raised, and will not be a basis for instituting covered business method patent review.” slip op. at 3
- BurdenDecided for patent owner
“displaying market information, setting trade order parameters, and sending a trade order to an electronic exchange. As further explained, the only hardware recited in claim 1 is a display and an input device, which both were known technology. Dec. 11–12. Further recitations in claim 1 are directed to use and operation of the GUI – for example, displaying market information in a certain arrangement on the GUI, as well as setting order parameters and sending the order to the exchange with the GUI. Id. Thus, inasmuch as claim 1 recites only known hardware, Patent Owner does not persuade us that claim 1 recites a novel GUI tool.” slip op. at 7
§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 6,772,132 - TD Ameritrade Holding Corp. / TD Ameritrade, Inc. et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc.Rehearing deniedPTAB · Feb 2, 2015 · CBM2014-00133 · APJ Philip J Hoffmann · CBM · Rehearing
The Board denied both rehearing requests, leaving in place institution on claims 1–28 under § 101 and denial of institution under § 103.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“decision for an abuse of discretion. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). An abuse of discretion may be determined if a decision is based on an erroneous interpretation of law, if a factual finding is not supported by substantial evidence, or if the decision represents an unreasonable judgment in weighing relevant factors. See Arnold Partnership v. Dudas, 362 F.3d 1338, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2004). For the reasons that follow, Petitioner does not show that the Board abused its discretion.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Ameritrade Online Holdings Corp. (collectively, “Petitioner”) filed a Petition (Paper 1, “Pet.”) on May 19, 2014, which requested review under the transitional program for covered business method patents of U.S. Patent No. 7,676,411 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’411 patent”). Trading Technologies International, Inc. (“Patent Owner”) filed a Preliminary Response (Paper 18, “Prelim. Resp.”) on September 3, 2014. The Board instituted covered business method patent review of claims 1–28 of the ’411 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 101, and denied institution of any claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Paper 19 (“Decision”). Petitioner and Patent Owner each filed a Request for Rehearing asking that the Board reconsider its Decision – Petitioner requesting that we institute based on grounds 2 and 3 of the Petition because claims 1–28 are obvious based on Silverman, Gutterman, and Togher with or without Paal (Paper 21, “Petitioner’s Req. Reh’g”), and Patent Owner requesting that we deny institution because the ’411 patent does not qualify for covered business method patent review (Paper 22, “Patent Owner’s Req. Reh’g”).” slip op. at 2
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached
“characterizing Togher’s disclosure, for the following reasons we find that Petitioner relied on Silverman and Gutterman to render obvious claim 1’s limitation “selecting a particular graphical area in the order entry region through a single action of the user input device to . . . set a price for the trade order and send the trade order . . . to the electronic exchange,” and relied on Togher to disclose the claim limitation “the trade order having a default quantity.” Thus, Petitioner’s argument that Togher discloses “a single action of the user input device [] both set[ting] a price for the trade order and send[ing] the trade order having a default quantity” is not timely raised, and will not be a basis for instituting covered business method patent review.” slip op. at 3
- BurdenDecided for patent owner
“information in a certain arrangement on the GUI, as well as setting order parameters and sending the order to the exchange with the GUI. Id. Thus, inasmuch as claim 1 recites only known hardware, Patent Owner does not persuade us that claim 1 recites a novel GUI tool.” slip op. at 7
§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialPatents in suitUS 7,676,411 - Groupon, Inc. v. Blue Calypso, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Dec 17, 2014 · CBM2013-00034 · APJ Barbara A Benoit · CBM · Final written decision
Claims 1–5 are unpatentable as anticipated by Paul; the Board rejected the Ratsimor anticipation and obviousness grounds because Ratsimor was not proven publicly accessible.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“1. “subsidy” Independent claim 1 recites “recognizing a subsidy, according to the subsidy program, for the subscriber.” The ’670 patent does not set forth a special definition for “subsidy.” Accordingly, we look to the ordinary meaning of the term “subsidy”—financial assistance given by one to another.5 The ’670 patent’s use of “subsidy” is consistent with its ordinary meaning. Specifically, the ’670 patent describes an advertiser setting up a subsidy program to subsidize communication fees, offer product discounts, generate and accumulate “reward points” for subscribers, or mitigate or defer other expenses of the subscriber. Ex. 1001, col. 3, ll. 39-45 (referring to Fig. 2). These examples are financial in nature. Product discounts reduce the monetary cost of a financial transaction, reward points are a form of currency, and mitigating or deferring expenses reduces the monetary cost of a financial transaction or postpones the monetary cost of a financial transaction, respectively. Also, the ’670 describes, as part of a subscriber setup process, an intermediary presenting, to a subscriber for selection, “subsidy programs available, including the criteria for continued subsidy and levels of subsidy.” Ex. 1001, col. 4, ll. 59-65 (referring to Fig. 3); see id. at col. 4, ll. 16-17. In an example of a bi-directional endorsement process, the ’670 patent further describes an advertiser calculating the amount to” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notPreamble limitingDecided for patent owner
“We agree the preamble is limiting. In general, a preamble is construed as a limitation “if it recites essential structure or steps, or if it is ‘necessary to give life, meaning, and vitality’ to the claim.” Catalina Mktg. Int’l, Inc. v. Coolsavings.com, Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 808 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (quoting Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). When the limitations in the body of the claim “rely upon and derive antecedent basis from the preamble, then the preamble may act as a necessary component of the claimed invention.” Eaton Corp. v. Rockwell Int'l Corp., 323 F.3d 1332, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Notably, the preamble of independent claim 1 requires “a source communication device possessed by a subscriber,” “a destination communication device possessed by a recipient,” and “an advertisement.” The body of claim 1 recites “the source communication device,” “the subscriber,” “the destination communication device,” and “the 17 advertisement,” all of which rely on and derive antecedent basis from the preamble of claim 1. Accordingly, we conclude that the preamble of independent claim 1 is entitled to patentable weight.” slip op. at 17
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication not establishedReference not prior artNot shown unpatentable
“Having reviewed the parties’ arguments and supporting evidence, we do not find sufficient evidence that the Ratsimor paper was accessible publicly and, therefore, we conclude the Ratsimor paper is not a printed publication under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Section 102 states: “A person shall be entitled to a patent unless . . . (b) the invention was . . . described in a printed publication . . . more than one year prior to the date of the application for patent . . . .” 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) (2011). “The statutory phrase ‘printed publication’ has been interpreted to give effect to ongoing advances in the technologies of data storage, retrieval, and dissemination.” In re Hall, 781 F.2d 897, 898 (Fed. Cir. 1986). As such, a printed publication under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) may be an electronic publication, such as the Ratsimor paper is purported to be. See In re Wyer, 655 F.2d 221, 226 (CCPA 1981) (holding that an electronic publication is considered to be a “printed publication” “upon a satisfactory showing that such document has been disseminated or otherwise made available to the extent that persons interested and ordinarily skilled in the subject matter or art, exercising reasonable diligence, can locate it and recognize and comprehend therefrom the essentials of the claimed invention without need of further research or experimentation”).” slip op. at 22
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“as recited in the claim, must be found in a single prior art reference. Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2008); Karsten Mfg. Corp. v. Cleveland Golf Co., 242 F.3d 1376, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2001). To anticipate, a prior art reference must disclose more than “multiple, distinct teachings that the artisan might somehow combine to achieve the claimed invention.” Net MoneyIN, 545 F.3d at 1371; see also In re Arkley, 455 F.2d 586, 587 (CCPA 1972) (“The [prior art] reference must clearly and unequivocally disclose the claimed [invention] or direct those skilled in the art to the [invention] without any need for picking, choosing, and combining various disclosures not directly related to each other by the teachings of the cited reference.”). Although the elements must be arranged 30 or combined in the same way as in the claim, “the reference need not satisfy an ipsissimis verbis test,” i.e., identity of terminology is not required. In re Gleave, 560 F.3d 1331, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2009); In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 832 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Moreover, the prior art reference is read from the perspective of one with ordinary skill in the art. In re Graves, 69 F.3d 1147, 1152 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (“A reference anticipates a claim if it discloses the claimed invention such that a skilled artisan could take its teachings in combination with his own knowledge of the particular art and be in possession of the invention.”); In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826 (CCPA 1968) (“[I]t is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom.”).” slip op. at 30
Patent outcomesUS 8,457,670 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipationcites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 8,457,670 - Groupon, Inc. v. Blue Calypso, LLCSome claims unpatentablePTAB · Dec 17, 2014 · CBM2013-00033 · APJ Barbara A Benoit · CBM · Final written decision
Claims 7-16 and 23-27 are unpatentable as anticipated by Paul; claims 1-6 and 17-22 were not shown unpatentable because Ratsimor was not a publicly accessible printed publication.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“endorsement.” In proffering constructions, neither party provides sufficient evidence of the ordinary meaning of “bi-lateral” or “endorsement.” We determine the ordinary meaning of the terms “bi-,”7 “lateral,”8 and “endorsement”9 collectively mean “both sides giving approval.” The use of “bi-lateral endorsement” in independent claims 7 and 23 indicate that an endorsement occurs between two parties, a subscriber and an advertiser, which is consistent with its ordinary meaning of “both sides giving 7 AMERICAN HERITAGE DICTIONARY 181 (3d ed. 1992) (defining “bi-” as “1. a. Two . . . b. Both . . . c. Both sides, parts, or directions”). 8 AMERICAN HERITAGE DICTIONARY 1017 (3d ed. 1992) (defining “lateral” as “1. Of, relating to, or situated at or on the side”). 9 AMERICAN HERITAGE DICTIONARY 608 (3d ed. 1992) (defining “endorse” as “4. To give approval of or support to, especially by public statement”); id. (defining “endorsement” as “1. The act of endorsing”). 11 approval.” The ’679 patent provides an example of a bi-lateral endorsement in Figure 7a, which describes a bi-directional endorsement process between the subscriber and the advertiser, via an intermediary, during the enrollment process. Ex. 1001, col. 7, ll. 56-58. As part of an enrollment process, the advertiser decides whether to endorse a particular subscriber. Id. at col. 8, ll. 47-48. The bi-lateral endorsement is completed after the subscriber chooses at least one plan and one advertiser for endorsement. Id. at col. 8, l. 66 – col. 9, l. 3. The ’679 patent also describes examples of endorsement by an advertiser of a subscriber and endorsement by a subscriber of one or more advertisers. See id. at col. 3, ll. 39-65, col. 4, ll. 59-65. The use of bilateral endorsement in the ’679 patent is consistent with its ordinary meaning of “both sides giving approval.”” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notPreamble limitingDecided for patent owner
“We agree. In general, a preamble is construed as a limitation “if it recites essential structure or steps, or if it is ‘necessary to give life, meaning, and vitality’ to the claim.” Catalina Mktg. Int’l, Inc. v. Coolsavings.com, Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 808 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (quoting Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). When the limitations in the body of the claim “rely upon and derive antecedent basis from the preamble, then the preamble may act as a necessary component of the claimed invention.” Eaton Corp. v. Rockwell Int'l Corp., 323 F.3d 1332, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Notably, the preamble of independent claim 7 requires “a source communication device possessed by a subscriber,” “a destination communication device possessed by a recipient,” and “an advertisement.” The body of claim 7 recites “the source communication device,” “the subscriber,” “the destination communication device,” and “the 18 advertisement,” all of which rely on and derive antecedent basis from the preamble of claim 7. Similarly, the preamble of independent claim 23 recites “a first communication device,” “a second communication device,” and “a set of advertisers.” The body of claim 23 recites “the first communication device,” “the second communication device,” and “the set of advertisers.” Accordingly, we conclude that the preambles of independent claims 7 and 23 are entitled to patentable weight.” slip op. at 18
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication not establishedReference not prior artNot shown unpatentable
“As an initial matter, we note that there are gaps in Petitioner’s proffered evidence—foremost is Dr. Joshi’s lack of indication that the Ratsimor paper was downloaded or otherwise disseminated, or how persons interested and ordinarily skilled in the subject matter or art, exercising reasonable diligence, could locate the Ratsimor paper on the Departmental website or otherwise locate an issued Technical Report in November 2003. 25” slip op. at 25
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“Based on the above disclosures of Paul, we find that the direct e-mail campaign and a “refer-a-friend” campaign are not different methods, but are different tool options provided by the campaign manager computer program in the e-mail communications system disclosed by Paul. Accordingly, as different tool options of the campaign manager in the e-mail communications system, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the direct e-mail campaign tool option was to be used in conjunction with the “refer-a-friend” campaign tool option to send “refer-a-friend” e-mail message incentives to a subset of the members based on member demographic characteristics. To determine otherwise would require a finding that one of ordinary skill in the art, when reading Paul, would come to the conclusion that the only option would be to send a “refer-a-friend” e-mail to all members. We do not find that one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood Paul to be so restrictive. Rather, Paul’s disclosure of the campaign manager computer program having multiple tool options to develop marketing campaigns is analogous to a reference disclosing two functions of a word processing program—creating a document and saving a document. One skilled in the art would understand the word processing program reference to disclose how to use those functions together to create and save a document.14 Cf. Transcript 67:9 – 68:11.” slip op. at 37
Patent outcomesUS 8,155,679 mixedClaim construction§ 102 anticipationcites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 8,155,679 - CRS Advanced Technologies, Inc. v. Frontline Technologies, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Jan 21, 2014 · CBM2012-00005 · APJ Jennifer S Bisk · CBM · Final written decision
Claims 3, 6, 7, 16, 24, and 33 are unpatentable under § 101 because they claim abstract substitute fulfillment using generic computing technology without meaningful limitations.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“the act of conveying or supplying for use making information available For each of the claim terms discussed above, we conclude that either definition would result in the same § 101 analysis. In other words, each of the challenged claims is unpatentable under § 101 whether or not we adopt CRS’s proposed claim constructions. Therefore, we conclude that each of the claim terms is given its ordinary and customary meaning and the issue of claim construction will not be addressed further.” slip op. at 8
- Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step one — 'directed to'Step1 directed to exceptionUnpatentable
“We conclude that claims 3, 16, 24, and 33 are directed to abstract, and, therefore, unpatentable, methods for substitute fulfillment. The claims are directed to concepts for taking the preexisting process of substitute fulfillment and implementing it in a networked computing environment. We do not agree with Frontline’s argument that the computer technology is integral to the claimed subject matter. As we explained in the Decision to Institute, the “one or more computers,” “Internet communication link,” and “website” recited in claim 3 are not analogous to the GPS receiver in SiRF. Decision to Institute 10-11. Frontline has not directed us to anything in the record at trial to cause us to change our position. Frontline asserts that because the claimed limitations “generating and posting by one or more computers a list of one or more positions of one or more absent workers that need to be filed by one or more substitute workers on a website” and “receiving via at least one communication link absentee information” are required for the claimed process to work as intended, they, like the GPS receiver in SiRF, are integral to the claimed subject matter. PO Resp. 25-26. We, however, disagree. We find these additions of generic computer technology to be more akin to the addition of “computer-aided” to the claims of Dealertrack, and the additions of “transaction database” and “transmitting information” to the claims of Accenture. Accenture, 728 F.3d at 1339; Dealertrack, 674 F. 3d at 1333. Like the terms “computer-aided” in Dealertrack, and “transaction database” in Accenture, the terms “one or more computers,” “website,” and “communication link” at issue in this case do not impose meaningful limits on the challenged claims’ scope. This particular technology is employed only for the purposes of creating more efficient communication and data storage—basic functions of those components. Ex. 1001, col. 4, ll. 46-58 (stating that the advantages of the present invention are “to provide a reliable, efficient system . . . . that has low overhead and requires little . . . oversight. . . . includ[ing] an interface to the Internet . . . .[and] a central database”); see also col. 3, ll. 36-64 (describing the prior art automated systems). In other words, the claims here, even with the recitation of computing technology, are not part of a “technological advance” of any sort. See Bancorp, 687 F.3d at 1279.” slip op. at 13
- Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step two — inventive conceptStep2 no inventive conceptUnpatentable
“Like the terms “computer-aided” in Dealertrack, and “transaction database” in Accenture, the terms “one or more computers,” “website,” and “communication link” at issue in this case do not impose meaningful limits on the challenged claims’ scope. This particular technology is employed only for the purposes of creating more efficient communication and data storage—basic functions of those components. Ex. 1001, col. 4, ll. 46-58 (stating that the advantages of the present invention are “to provide a reliable, efficient system . . . . that has low overhead and requires little . . . oversight. . . . includ[ing] an interface to the Internet . . . .[and] a central database”); see also col. 3, ll. 36-64 (describing the prior art automated systems). In other words, the claims here, even with the recitation of computing technology, are not part of a “technological advance” of any sort. See Bancorp, 687 F.3d at 1279.” slip op. at 14
Patent outcomesUS 6,675,151 unpatentableClaim construction§ 101 eligibilityPatents in suitUS 6,675,151 - SAP America, Inc. v. Pi-Net International, Inc.Rehearing deniedPTAB · Oct 15, 2013 · CBM2013-00013 · APJ Brian J Mcnamara · CBM · Rehearing
The Board denied rehearing on claims 4–6, finding the cited references did not disclose the claimed object routing or virtual information store.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“Petition contends that “‘object routing’ should be construed as encompassing actions or data that execute a user’s request, which may include sending an object from one point to another” and that “[a]n object in the context of object routing could include a message.” Pet. 18. In the Decision To Institute, the Board construed “‘object routing’ to mean the use of individual network objects to route a user from a selected transactional application to the processing provided by the service provider.” Decision To Institute, Paper No. 15, p. 17. The Petition does not discuss individualized network objects.” slip op. at 3
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached
“between computing entities and, at least in the case of Lawlor, the additional feature of converting internal system transactions information into a format that is compatible with the network. In the rehearing request, Petitioner contends that a pair of messages generated in Lawlor, i.e., a POS debit and a POS credit, constitutes networked objects that facilitate the routing of a user for the selected transactional application to the processing provided by the service provider. Rehearing Req. 3-5. Petitioner notes that Lawlor also describes an interface module that converts internal system transaction information, such as user and service provider accounts and transaction amounts, to a format that is compatible with the network, so that the computer system can interface with the interchange network. Pet. 37. It is not clear from the Petition or the rehearing request how the use of such standard messages constitutes the use of individualized network objects required for object routing. In particular, there is no discussion in the Petition or Rehearing Request of how the user is routed to the processing provided by the service provider.” slip op. at 4
§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 8,037,158
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.