• Ancestry.Com Dna, LLC v. Dna Genotek Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Nov 23, 2016 · IPR2016-01152 · APJ Michelle N Wormmeester · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution on all challenged claims because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any asserted obviousness ground.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “It is not sufficient, however, for Petitioner to demonstrate that each of the claim elements is known. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). Petitioner must also provide “some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006). In that regard, Petitioner directs us to where Birnboim describes a container with a barrier, which may be a septum that separates a composition from a fluid until the septum is pierced or punctured. Pet. 36 (citing Ex. 1008, 9:11, 23:29–31). Petitioner also directs us to where Birnboim teaches that “the means for closing the container may be coupled to the disestablishment of the barrier.” Id. (citing Ex. 1008, 24:8–9). According to Petitioner, however, “Birnboim does not disclose how, in such embodiment, the ‘means for closing the container may be coupled to the disestablishment of the barrier.’” Id. Thus, Petitioner argues, a POSITA would have looked to analogous art “for a solution that would complete” Birnboim’s embodiment, and would have “recognized [O’Donovan] as providing a particularly relevant solution to the identified problem because, like Birnboim, O’Donovan is explicitly directed to a container system for use in analyzing biological samples.” Id. at 36–37 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 111).” slip op. at 8

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

    “We are unpersuaded by Petitioner’s argument. As Patent Owner points out, Petitioner does not explain sufficiently why one of ordinary skill in the art would have considered combining the container of Birnboim with certain features of the container of O’Donovan to arrive at the claimed invention. Prelim. Resp. 35. The mere fact that both Birnboim and O’Donovan are in the same field of endeavor falls short of an adequate rationale. The same field of endeavor analysis is merely the jumping-off point in reaching the determination of whether a claimed invention is obvious. See K-TEC, Inc. v. Vita-Mix Corp., 696 F.3d 1364, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (to qualify as prior art in an obviousness analysis, references must be analogous art—either from the same field of endeavor, or reasonably pertinent to the problem with which the inventor is involved). Petitioner further argues that combining the teachings of Birnboim and O’Donovan “would have required no more than ‘[a]pplying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results,’” noting that “‘[a] person with ordinary skill in the art is a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton, and in many cases . . . will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle.’” Pet. 37 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 112). We also are unpersuaded by this argument. Petitioner’s conclusory statements are nothing more than a restatement of basic tests identified by the Supreme Court for determining whether an invention would have been obvious. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 417 (“whether the improvement is more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions”); id. (whether “the claimed subject matter may involve more than . . . the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for the improvement”); see also id. at 421 (“A person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.”). General principles on what may constitute a supporting rationale cannot substitute for specific application of those principles to the facts. Petitioner does not provide a persuasive, fact-based analysis to support the proposed combination of Birnboim and O’Donovan. Notably, it is not clear which features of O’Donovan’s container are to be incorporated into Birnboim’s container, or how, or why.” slip op. at 9

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

    “Petitioner provides proposed interpretations for various limitations of the claims. See Pet. 16–26. Patent Owner responds. Prelim. Resp. 6. For purposes of this Decision, we conclude that no term requires express interpretation at this time to resolve any controversy in this proceeding. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“only those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy”).” slip op. at 6

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 8,221,381
• TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 3, 2016 · IPR2015-01131 · APJ Toni R Scheiner · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–29 were not shown unpatentable under § 103 over Lohrman and Ackilli because the petitioner did not explain why a skilled artisan would modify Ackilli’s ranges to reach the claimed pH range.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “Petitioner asserts constructions for the following claim terms, “having a pH of about 1.9 to about 2.4,” “flavoring,” and “drip index value.” Pet. 21–23. Patent Owner asserts that we need construe no claim term. PO Resp. 19–20. We agree with Patent Owner that no claim term requires 9 express construction for purposes of rendering a final written decision in this trial.” slip op. at 9

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownOther

    “Ms. Ferruzzi states that one of skill in the art included at least the ability to make the subject matter disclosed in Ackilli. Ex. 1010 ¶¶ 12–13; Pet. 24–25. Ms. Ferruzzi also states that one of skill in the art at the time of the invention also would have the ability “to make predictable use of the compositions and materials described” in Ackilli, and also have the education and experience in food chemistry to have knowledge of the information in Ackilli. Ex. 1010 ¶¶ 12–13; Pet. 25 (adding the ability to make predictable use of the containers described in the art such as Lohrman). Dr. Marvin J. Rudolph, Patent Owner’s declarant, disagrees with Ms. Ferruzzi’s assessment of the level of skill. Ex. 2012 ¶¶ 20–22. Dr. Rudolph asserts that one of skill in the art at the time of the invention would have “at least a Bachelor of Science in Food Science, Chemistry, or Chemical Engineering and at least five years of experience in the design and formulation of consumer beverage products” and “a Bachelor of Science in a packaging science or Mechanical Engineering or at least five years of experience in the design and manufacture of consumer product packaging.” Ex. 2012 ¶ 21. It is not apparent that Ms. Ferruzzi’s and Dr. Rudolph’s definitions relating to flavored beverage liquid concentrates are necessarily disparate. In reviewing the ’557 patent and Ackilli and applying the factors set forth above from Custom Accessories, we find that one of skill in the art who has the education and experience in food chemistry to understand Ackilli and the ’557 patent and can make predictable use of such 16 information, would have at least a Bachelor of Science in Food Science, Chemistry, or Chemical Engineering and at least five years of experience in the design and formulation of consumer beverage products.” slip op. at 16

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

    “overlap or are encompassed by disclosed ranges in the prior art. See Peterson, 315 F.2d at 1329–30 (“Selecting a narrow range from within a somewhat broader range disclosed in a prior art reference is no less obvious than identifying a range that simply overlaps a disclosed range.”). The overlap itself of the disclosed ranges and the claimed ranges provides sufficient motivation to optimize the ranges because of the “normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known.” See Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330. Here, Ackilli, which addresses optimizing dispersion of its flavoring composition concentrates in water, does not mention pH, much less disclose a pH range for the flavoring compositions. See Ex. 1003, 1:10–13. Also, it is clear that Ackilli did not recognize pH as a result-effective variable for compositions as it did not discuss pH. Only if a variable is known to be result-effective is the optimization of the variable within the grasp of one of ordinary skill in the art. Applied Materials, Inc., 692 F.3d at 1295 (citing Antonie, 559 F.2d at 620); In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 276 (CCPA 1980)). Because the Peterson presumption does not apply here, we need to identify where Petitioner offered some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support a conclusion of obviousness. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 418.” slip op. at 30

  • Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedOther

    “We rejected this inherency theory in our Decision on Institution. We recognized that Ackilli does not disclose the pH of any of its disclosed concentrations, and Petitioner had not established that the pH of any of Ackilli’s working samples met the requirements of the challenged claims. Dec. Instit. 18–19. Therefore, we agreed with Patent Owner that Ackilli does not expressly or inherently disclose concentrations meeting the pH range of the challenged claims. Id. In the Declaration submitted with Petitioner’s Reply, Mr. Ackilli offers a new theory for how Ackilli teaches the claimed pH range. Mr. Ackilli testifies that the pH of a beverage is driven by the desired taste profile of the finished beverage and relies on alleged commercial embodiments of the Ackilli reference to prove that the beverage concentrates described in Ackilli included beverage concentrates with a pH in the claimed range. Ex. 1202 ¶¶ 55–61. Including such a new theory and new evidence concerning what a reference teaches is inappropriate at the reply stage. See 35 U.S.C. 312(a)(3); 37 C.F.R. § 41.104. Also, the evidence of the pH of alleged embodiments of the Ackilli reference on sale before the critical date, such as the peach and orange-flavored Water Sensations, is beyond the scope of this inter partes 28 proceeding because such evidence is not a patent or printed publication. See 35 U.S.C. § 311(b) (stating the scope of an inter partes review is limited to challenges under §§ 102 or 103 and “only on the basis of prior art consisting of patents or printed publications”); Tr. 32:24–33:14 (asserting that Water Sensations evidence is beyond scope of Petition).” slip op. at 28

  Patent outcomesUS 8,603,557 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,603,557
• TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 3, 2016 · IPR2015-01128 · APJ Susan L C Mitchell · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–22 were not shown unpatentable under § 103 over Ackilli because the petitioner did not explain why a skilled artisan would modify Ackilli’s compositions to reach the claimed pH range.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “improved taste (including a lasting taste impression and desirable body), improved palatability, improved keeping qualities, and stabilized flavor and color may be achieved by modifying the compositions of Ackilli to include higher amounts of citric acid and lower amounts of sodium citrate or potassium citrate buffers that result in compositions falling within the scope of the claim. 23 Ex. 1010 ¶ 24. Ms. Ferruzzi, however, cites only two references in support, references that we found a person of ordinary skill would not look to when seeking to modify Ackilli’s beverage concentration. Dec. Instit. 19; see PO Resp. 36 n.8. Without further support as to what one of skill in the art would have known, we do not credit this testimony.” slip op. at 23

  • Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner

    “recognize in Ackilli should have been in the Petition.” Tr. 34:23–25. We agree; Petitioner’s assertion of and reliance on Mr. Ackilli’s testimony to establish what one or ordinary skill in the art would have gleaned from Ackilli should have been in the Petition. See 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) (stating that the petition must identify in writing and with particularity the evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim including affidavits or declarations of supporting evidence and opinions that petitioner relies upon). The fact that an argument may be responsive to Patent Owner’s arguments set forth in its Response does not relieve the Petitioner of its initial burden to identify “with particularity” the “evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim.” Maxlinear, Inc. v. Cresta Tech. Corp., Case IPR2015-00594, slip op. at 29 (PTAB Aug. 15, 2016) (quoting Intelligent Bio-Systems, 821 F.3d 1359, 1367–68 (Fed. Cir. 2016)); see also 37 C.F.R. § 42.104 (describing required content of the Petition).” slip op. at 19

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied

    “As Patent Owner notes, we are “well positioned to determine and assign appropriate weight to evidence presented” to us. We agree that the arguments presented in Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude go to the weight that we give the evidence, and therefore, are an improper basis for excluding evidence. For this reason, we dismiss Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude.” slip op. at 25

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “Dr. Marvin J. Rudolph, Patent Owner’s declarant, disagrees with Ms. Ferruzzi’s assessment of the level of skill. Ex. 2012 ¶¶ 20–22. Dr. Rudolph asserts that one of skill in the art at the time of the invention would have “at least a Bachelor of Science in Food Science, Chemistry, or Chemical Engineering and at least five years of experience in the design and formulation of consumer beverage products.” Ex. 2012 ¶ 21. It is not apparent that Ms. Ferruzzi’s and Dr. Rudolph’s definitions are necessarily disparate. In reviewing the ’299 patent and Ackilli and applying the factors set forth above from Custom Accessories, we find that one of skill in the art who has the education and experience in food chemistry to understand Ackilli and the ’299 patent and can make predictable use of such information, would have at least a Bachelor of Science in Food Science, Chemistry, or Chemical Engineering and at least five years of experience in the design and formulation of consumer beverage products.” slip op. at 10

  Patent outcomesUS 8,293,299 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,293,299
• Tyco Fire Products LP v. Victaulic Co.Rehearing denied
  PTAB · Sep 30, 2016 · IPR2016-00277 · APJ Benjamin D M Wood · IPR · Rehearing

  The Board denied rehearing and maintained its denial of institution for claims 1–18 because the petition did not show Lewis disclosed or rendered obvious the supporting limitations.

  RulingsRehearing decision

  • RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied

    “and the “specific records in the Petition and the Phillips Declaration (Ex. 1105) have been overlooked by the Board.” Reh’g Req. 3. For the “supporting” limitations, Petitioner proceeds to discuss excerpts from Lewis and the Phillips Declaration that Petitioner discussed on pages 24 and 25 of the Petition, i.e., Ex. 1102, 5:12–21, 9:7–13; and Ex. 1105 ¶¶ 61, 62. Id. at 5–7. But these are virtually the same excerpts from the record that we noted in the Decision. Dec. 9–10. Thus, Petitioner has not identified any aspect of the record that we overlooked. Moreover, the Petition discussed these excerpts from Lewis and the Phillips Declaration in the context of the asserted anticipation ground, not with respect to any of the obviousness grounds. Pet. 24–25; see also Dec. 12 (stating “Petitioner does not, however, contend that the ‘supporting’ limitations would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill”). The Rehearing Request does not identify any assertion or discussion in the Petition that Lewis would have suggested the “supporting” limitations to a person of ordinary skill in the art, or that the “supporting” limitations would otherwise have been obvious to a skilled artisan in view of Lewis. Nor have we found any such discussion. Instead, in discussing claim 1, the Petition’s obviousness discussion focused on the “flexible resilient ring” limitation, asserting that “[t]he cited portions of Lewis . . . establish . . . that the sealing ring in Lewis is both flexible and resilient.” Pet. 36. Accordingly, we decline to rehear our decision on the basis of an argument raised for the first time in a rehearing request.2” slip op. at 4

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

    “11. We noted that Petitioner did not identify any express disclosure in Lewis of the “supporting” limitations, and that, on the contrary, Lewis “can be read to disclose the opposite, i.e., that the housing supports the ring.” Id. (citing Ex. 1102, 4:24–26). We also determined that Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to establish that Lewis inherently discloses a ring that supports the coupling segments in a preassembled state. Id. Petitioner had argued that “Lewis discloses that the housing and the sealing ring have a matching geometry . . . and therefor mutually support one another as the pipes are inserted into the pre-assembled coupling.” Pet. 24 (citing Ex. 1102, 5:15–21, 15:17–20, Fig. 1). Petitioner also contended that “[w]hen the housing includes multiple segments and multiple fastening elements that are loosely positioned in a preassembled state . . . the sealing ring’s outer diameter supports the housing segments that are positioned on, and surround the ring.” Id. (citing Ex. 1102, 5:12–14). We determined, however, that “merely because Lewis’ housing and sealing ring have a ‘matching geometry’ does not necessarily mean that they ‘mutually support one another.’” Dec. 12. Having determined that Petitioner had not shown that Lewis discloses, either expressly or inherently, the “supporting” limitations, we noted that Petitioner did not argue that the “supporting” limitations would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in light of Lewis. Id. Thus, we determined that Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its obviousness grounds. Dec. 12–13.” slip op. at 3

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

    “11. We noted that Petitioner did not identify any express disclosure in Lewis of the “supporting” limitations, and that, on the contrary, Lewis “can be read to disclose the opposite, i.e., that the housing supports the ring.” Id. (citing Ex. 1102, 4:24–26). We also determined that Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to establish that Lewis inherently discloses a ring that supports the coupling segments in a preassembled state. Id. Petitioner had argued that “Lewis discloses that the housing and the sealing ring have a matching geometry . . . and therefor mutually support one another as the pipes are inserted into the pre-assembled coupling.” Pet. 24 (citing Ex. 1102, 5:15–21, 15:17–20, Fig. 1). Petitioner also contended that “[w]hen the housing includes multiple segments and multiple fastening elements that are loosely positioned in a preassembled state . . . the sealing ring’s outer diameter supports the housing segments that are positioned on, and surround the ring.” Id. (citing Ex. 1102, 5:12–14). We determined, however, that “merely because Lewis’ housing and sealing ring have a ‘matching geometry’ does not necessarily mean that they ‘mutually support one another.’” Dec. 12.” slip op. at 3

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

    “Having determined that Petitioner had not shown that Lewis discloses, either expressly or inherently, the “supporting” limitations, we noted that Petitioner did not argue that the “supporting” limitations would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in light of Lewis. Id. Thus, we determined that Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its obviousness grounds. Dec. 12–13.” slip op. at 3

  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 8,733,799
• Jackel International Limited / Mayborn USA, Inc. v. Admar International, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 21, 2016 · IPR2015-00979 · APJ Hyun J Jung · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–5, 7–12, and 14 were not shown unpatentable under § 103 because the cited references did not teach or suggest the claimed spout.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “In summary, we find that the extrinsic evidence cited by Patent Owner indicates that the ordinary and customary meaning of “spout,” as would have been understood by one of ordinary skill in the art in the context of the entire disclosure of the ’841 patent, is “a tube or lip projecting from a container, through which liquid can be poured and through which a user drinks” (see Ex. 1001 at 2:6–11, 5:11–13, 5:60–67, 6:2–7, 6:17–23, 10:5–8, Figs. 1, 2, 5, 11–14, claims 1, 8; Ex. 2011, 1688) and does not include a nipple (see Ex. 2022 at 5–8, Figs. 1–3; Valderrama Decl. ¶¶ 91–94). Microsoft Corp. v. Proxyconn, Inc., 789 F.3d 1292, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“Even under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the Board’s construction ‘cannot be divorced from the specification and the record evidence,’ and ‘must be consistent with the one that those skilled in the art would reach.’”). Accordingly, based on the complete record before us, we interpret “spout” to mean “a tube or lip projecting from a container, through which liquid can be poured and through which a user drinks” and does not encompass a nipple.” slip op. at 18

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “For the reasons discussed above in Section II.A, we determine that the broadest reasonable interpretation in view of the ’841 patent’s specification of “spout” to be “a tube or lip projecting from a container, through which liquid can be poured and through which a user drinks” and does not encompass a nipple. We agree with Patent Owner that liquid cannot be poured through a nipple. PO Resp. 10 (“Spouts are intended for a stream of liquid, while nipples are intended for liquid to seep.”); see also Tr. 24:2– 26:3, 29:12–16 (arguing liquids are poured through a spout); Ex. 1022 at 140:1–12 (Mr. Valderrama testifying that Raymond and Mutti do not have a spout); Ex. 2026, 34:20–35:15, 50:23–51:7 (Dr. Brown testifying that Raymond does not refer to a spout). We find that liquid cannot be poured through Petitioners’ asserted spout (Pet. 18 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 32; Ex. 1003 at 5:17–20, Fig. 2)). The full record persuades us that Petitioners’ asserted spout in Raymond and similar structure in Mutti do not teach or suggest the spout of claim 1. See PO Resp. at 28–30 (citing Valderrama Decl. ¶¶ 135– 138; Ex. 1005, Fig. 2–4; Ex. 2026, 27:24–25:16, 86:10–25). Therefore, we find that Raymond fails to teach or suggest the spout of claim 1, as argued by Petitioners. Petitioners rely on Mutti to teach slits that would be understood to be self-sealing. Pet. 19–20 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 69; Ex. 1004, Figs. 10–11). Petitioners’ reliance on Mutti does not remedy the deficiency discussed above regarding the “spout” of claim 1.” slip op. at 21

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied

    “Declaration of Stuart Brown (Ex. 1002)” because Patent Owner contends that “Dr. Brown admittedly has no experience in the design or development of the no-spill cups at issue in the ’841 patent” and “thus no basis to render an opinion of a person ordinarily skilled in the art.” Paper 31, 1. Petitioners respond that Patent Owner “failed to make a timely objection within ten business days of the institution of trial in this matter as required by 37 C.F.R. 42.64(b)(1)” and that Dr. Brown “is more than qualified to opine as a technical expert witness in the relevant art.” Paper 30, 1. Patent Owner filed a Reply (Paper 34). We agree with Petitioners that Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude is not in compliance with 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b). Even if Patent Owner’s Motion complied with our rules, however, as discussed above, we considered the Brown Declaration against the full record and gave it appropriate weight. And even having considered the relevant portions of the Brown Declaration, we are persuaded by Patent Owner’s arguments regarding whether the relied upon references teach or suggest “spout.” We, thus, deny Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude.” slip op. at 26

  • Strike new argumentNew argument consideredDecided for petitioner

    “We agree with Petitioners that the portions of Petitioners’ Reply identified by Patent Owner are properly responsive to arguments presented by Patent Owner in its briefs. Also, to the extent any of the identified portions can be deemed new arguments, even when those new arguments are considered, as discussed above, we are nevertheless persuaded by Patent Owner’s arguments regarding whether the relied upon references teach or suggest “spout,” and so the objection is overruled.” slip op. at 25

  Patent outcomesUS 8,695,841 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 8,695,841
• Care N’ Care Insurance Co., Inc. / Trizetto Corp. v. Integrated Claims Systems, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jul 28, 2016 · CBM2015-00063 · APJ Hyun J Jung · CBM · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 6, 8, 9, 12, 13, 15, 20, 21, 24, and 25 are unpatentable under § 101; claims 1, 6, 9, 15, and 20 are anticipated by Lech; and claims 6, 8, 12, 13, …

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • BurdenDecided for petitioner

    “Decision is issued pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 328(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73. For the reasons that follow, we determine that Petitioners have shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1, 6, 8, 9, 12, 13, 15, 20, 21, 24, and 25 are unpatentable.” slip op. at 2

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

    “Patent Owner proposes construing “field” as “computer software field.” Prelim. Resp. 24–33. We see no reason to interpret “fields” as “computer software fields.” We agree with Petitioners that Patent Owner’s proposed construction is circular insofar as the construction includes the entire term being construed. See Pet. Reply 6. Further, as discussed below, even if “fields” were interpreted as “computer software fields,” the complete record persuades us that Petitioners have shown unpatentability of the challenged claims by a preponderance of the evidence. Petitioners propose that the broadest reasonable interpretation of “digital attachment” recited by claim 9 is “information that can be digitized.” Pet. 5 (citing Ex. 1001 ¶¶ 32, 33, 36; Ex. 1003, 11:18–19, 20– 35). For the purposes of this Decision, we need not construe this or any other term expressly. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (holding that only those terms that are in controversy need to be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy).” slip op. at 8

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPrior construction adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “In the Decision on Institution, we interpreted “unitary data stream” as “transmitted set of information.” Dec. on Inst. 12. Patent Owner states that it “agrees that such definition is the broadest reasonable construction.” PO Resp. 24; see also Pet. Reply 4 (stating “Patent Owner does not dispute that the correct construction of ‘unitary data stream’ for this proceeding is ‘transmitted set of information.’”). Based on our review of the complete record, we do not perceive any reason or evidence that now compels any deviation from this interpretation.” slip op. at 7

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

    “device operatively coupled to a computer network receiving and transferring or transmitting contents of fields of a unitary data stream. Based on the full record before us, we determine that the subject matter of the challenged claims, when considered as a whole, is directed to the abstract idea of transmitting or copying information from a source to a destination. In particular, the complete record persuades us that the idea of transmitting or copying information from a source to a destination represents a disembodied, well-known concept, i.e., a basic building block of human ingenuity and that does not rise beyond the level of an abstract idea. See Content Extraction, 776 F.3d at 1347 (“Applying Mayo/Alice step one, we agree with the district court that the claims of the asserted patent are drawn to the abstract idea of 1) collecting data, 2) recognizing certain data within the collected data set and 3) storing that recognized data in a memory. The concept of data collection, recognition, and storage is undisputedly well-known. Indeed, humans have always performed these functions.”); see also Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2354 (“[I]n applying the § 101 exception, we must distinguish between patents that claim the ‘“buildin[g] block[s]”’ of human ingenuity and those that integrate the building blocks into something more”) (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1303). We also agree with Petitioners that the” slip op. at 28

  Patent outcomesUS 7,178,020 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 101 eligibility§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Alice · Bilski
  Patents in suitUS 7,178,020
• Care N’ Care Insurance Co. / Trizetto Corp. v. Integrated Claims Systems, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jul 28, 2016 · CBM2015-00062 · APJ Hyun J Jung · CBM · Final written decision

  Claims 27, 30, 36, 42–45, and 49–52 are unpatentable under § 101; claims 27, 42–45, and 49–52 under § 102; and claims 30, 36, and 42 under § 103.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “In the Decision on Institution, we interpreted “unitary data stream” as “transmitted set of information.” Dec. on Inst. 12. Patent Owner states that it “agree[s] that such definition is the broadest reasonable construction.” PO Resp. 24; see also Pet. Reply 5 (stating “Patent Owner does not dispute that the correct construction of ‘unitary data stream’ for this proceeding is ‘transmitted set of information’”). Based on our review of the complete record, we do not perceive any reason or evidence that now compels any deviation from this interpretation. Patent Owner further proposes interpreting “fields” as “computer software fields.” PO Resp. 24–33. Petitioners dispute the proposed interpretation of “fields.” Reply 4–7. We see no reason to interpret “fields” as “computer software fields.” We agree with Petitioners that Patent Owner’s proposed construction is circular insofar as the construction includes the entire term being construed. See Pet. Reply 5. Further, as discussed below, even if “fields” were interpreted as “computer software fields,” the complete record persuades us that Petitioners have shown unpatentability of the challenged claims by a preponderance of the evidence. Petitioners also propose interpreting “identities” recited by claims 42– 45 and 50–52 as “labels” (Pet. 4), and Patent Owner states that it “does not dispute that such definition is the broadest reasonable construction” (PO Resp. 24). For the purposes of this Decision, we need not expressly construe this or other claim terms further. See Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chem. Co., 642 F.3d 1355, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[C]laim terms need only be construed ‘to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”). III.” slip op. at 8

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

    “simply ask whether the claims involve a patent-ineligible concept” and that “some improvements in computer-related technology when appropriately claimed are undoubtedly not abstract, such as a chip architecture, an LED display, and the like.” Enfish, 882 F.3d at 1335. Therefore, the Federal Circuit “f[ou]nd it relevant to ask whether the claims are directed to an improvement to computer functionality versus being directed to an abstract idea” and that the “first step in the Alice inquiry . . . asks whether the focus of the claims is on the specific asserted improvement in computer capabilities . . . or, instead, on a process that qualifies as an ‘abstract idea’ for which computers are invoked merely as a tool.” Id. at 1335–1336. Here, claim 27 recites “a digital device,” “first and second networked components,” and a method that includes receiving and parsing a data stream with N fields and routing portions of the N fields to networked components. Claim 42 recites a “server” that receives a file with identifiable fields and copies a subset of the fields to correlated fields of a second file. Claim 50 does not expressly require any computers and recites a method that includes receiving a file with identifiable fields and copying a subset of the fields to correlated fields of a second file. The claims do not recite an improvement in computer-related technology, “such as a chip architecture, an LED display, and the like.” See Enfish, 882 F.3d at 1335. Patent Owner’s asserted improvement is “an improvement to data processing performed by a mainframe computer system or similar systems, allowing processing text data with associated digital attachments” (PO Resp. 48), but the focus of the challenged claims is not on “processing text data with associated digital attachments.” The claims instead require receiving data with fields and routing or copying a portion or subset of the fields. The asserted improvement is not an improvement in “computer functionality” or capabilities, but instead, as Patent Owner concedes, “an improvement to data processing performed by a mainframe computer system or similar system.” See PO Resp. 48. As discussed further below, the challenged claims invoke computers merely as a tool. See Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1338 (stating “patent-ineligible claims at issue in other cases . . . recited generalized steps to be performed on a computer using conventional computer activity”); see also Bascom Global Internet Servs., Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, No. 2015-1763, 2016 WL 3514158, at *5 (Fed. Cir. June 27, 2016) (stating that the “Enfish claims, understood in light of their specific limitations, were unambiguously directed to an improvement in computer capabilities”).” slip op. at 30

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

    “Based on our factual findings from the specification of the ’020 patent described above and the full record before us, we determine that the recited “digital device operatively coupled to first and second networked components” can be at least one of a personal computer, legacy computer, network server, or buffer computer. The complete record does not persuade us that the “digital device operatively coupled to first and second networked components” requires more than generic computer components. See Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2357–58 (explaining computer implementation not enough when “the process could be ‘carried out in existing computers long in use’” or when “the computer implementation was purely conventional”). Considering the full record before us, for the reasons explained above, we determine that claim 27 recites well-known, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry and generic computer components. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2359 (“Taking the claim elements separately, the function performed by the computer at each step of the process is ‘[p]urely conventional.’”). When considered as an ordered combination, we determine that claim 27 adds nothing that is not already present when its elements are considered individually. See Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2359 (“Considered ‘as an ordered combination,’ the computer components of petitioner’s method ‘ad[d] nothing . . . that is not already present when the steps are considered separately.”); OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“[R]elying on a computer to perform routine tasks more quickly or more accurately is insufficient to render a claim patent eligible.”); Bancorp, 687 F.3d at 1278 (explaining that a computer “employed only for its most basic function ... does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of those claims”); cf. DDR Holdings, 773 F.3d at 1258–59 (finding a computerimplemented method patent eligible where the claims recite a specific manipulation of a general-purpose computer such that the claims do not rely on a “computer network operating in its normal, expected manner”). Claim 27 “merely recite[s] the abstract idea . . . with the requirement . . . to perform it on a set of generic computer components”; does not “recite a specific, discrete implementation of the abstract idea”; and cannot “be read to ‘improve[] an existing technological process.’” See Bascom, 2016 WL 3514158, at *7. As discussed above, claim 27 recites well-known, routine, conventional activities that are arranged conventionally and generically. See id. at *6 (stating that “an inventive concept can be found in the non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of known, conventional pieces”).” slip op. at 40

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

    “receiving a unitary data stream including N fields of data,” Petitioners cite column 5, line 59 to column 6, line 16 and Figure 2 of Lech, not just column 6, lines 11–16. Pet. 59–60. In the cited portion, we find that Lech discloses that “scanner 210 stores all of the information extracted off of hard copy document 100 in the scanner memory 220” and that the “extracted information is stored in two forms . . . as image information [and] textual information recognized on the hard copy document 100 by, for example, employing standard character recognition software.” Ex. 1009, 5:66–6:7. We find that the portion of Lech cited by Petitioners supports their contention that the “exemplary hard copy document 100 of Fig. 2 is preferably scanned in and fields of information on it are recognized using standard optical character recognition software.” Pet. 59–60 (citing Ex. 1001 ¶ 64; Ex. 1009, 5:66–6:8). We also agree with Petitioners that the stored information is sent to computer 230. The portion of Lech cited by Petitioners discusses first and second operational modes and explicitly states that, in the second mode of operation, the information is displayed on computer 230. Ex. 1009, 6:13–16. The first and second operational modes appear to differ by how much of the document is scanned, not where the scanned information is sent. See id. at 6:63–67 (describing that “[t]hese second modes of operation are efficient for small businesses . . . since the user does not necessarily have to store all of the information that appears on the hard copy document”). Moreover, we find that Lech expressly discloses that the “information from scanner memory 220 or main memory 250 is transmitted to computer 230.” Ex. 1009, 5:1–2. Petitioners provide an asserted understanding of Lech by one of ordinary skill in the art in an “Overview of Lech,” and Petitioners cite this same portion of Lech to assert that the “document image, the extracted textual information, or both are then sent to a computer.” Pet. 56–57 (citing Ex. 1001 ¶ 52). We, thus, find that Lech discloses that the output from the scanner is sent to the computer 230 and that the output includes information in fields, as shown in Figure 2 of Lech, and therefore, discloses “receiving a unitary data stream including N fields of data,” as required by claim 27. slip op. at 55

  Patent outcomesUS 7,178,020 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 101 eligibility§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Alice · Bilski
  Patents in suitUS 7,178,020
• Caterpillar Inc. v. Miller UK LimitedAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 29, 2016 · IPR2015-00433 · APJ Mitchell G Weatherly · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 8, and 9 are unpatentable as obvious over Aker and Peterson because Caterpillar’s unrebutted evidence established obviousness by a preponderance.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “claims including the coupler having a sidewall with an aperture, the safety pin, and the removable plate occluding a portion of the aperture. Pet. 16–45. Caterpillar also proffers similarly detailed testimony from Dr. Fronczak in support of its contentions. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 24–72. Caterpillar concedes, however, that the plate in Aker that occludes the aperture is welded in place and thus not “removable.” Pet. 26 (independent claim 1), 40 (independent claim 6). The plate that Caterpillar identifies in Aker is highlighted in yellow in the modified version of Aker’s Figure 7 reproduced below. The modified version of Aker’s Figure 7 illustrates a spring-loaded locking pin mechanism that includes a circular plate (unnumbered and highlighted in yellow) that is welded to one end of the cylindrical container 86. Dr. Fronczak testifies that an ordinary artisan would understand Aker’s circular occluding plate to be welded in place based on the apparent appearance of a “fillet-like weld” at the joint between the plate and Aker’s cylindrical container 86. Ex. 1002 ¶ 36.” slip op. at 5

  • BurdenFwd all claims unpatentableUnpatentable

    “evidence adduced by Caterpillar demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that the combination of Aker and Peterson rendered claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 8, and 9 obvious. Dec. 5–9. More specifically, we determined that Caterpillar had had proffered evidence that was persuasive at the time of institution on every issue relating to its challenge that claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 8, and 9 were obvious. We must now determine whether the record before us establishes by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 8, and 9 are unpatentable as obvious in view of Aker and Peterson. 35 U.S.C. § 316(e).” slip op. at 6

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner

  Patent outcomesUS 7,914,226 unpatentable
  § 103 obviousnesscites KSR
  Patents in suitUS 7,914,226
• Life Technologies Corporation v. Unisone Strategic IP, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 28, 2016 · CBM2015-00037 · APJ Jacqueline Wright Bonilla · CBM · Final written decision

  Claims 52, 62, 67, 70–76, 81, 83–85, and 96 are unpatentable under § 101 because they claim the abstract idea of inventory management using generic computer components.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “degrees in inventory management or similar fields such as supply chain control or logistics” per se, and has “not studied, for a profession, the history of inventory management.” Id. at 34–35 (citing Ex. 2005, 16:14–21, 41:22– 42:3). According to Patent Owner, “Dr. Siegel admits he has no expertise in information management history and only attempted to educate himself in order to prepare his declaration.” Id. at 35. It is clear from Dr. Siegel’s testimony, however, that he has extensive experience in “the use of information technology with business strategy and operations,” has handled professionally “issues related to the integration of information” using computer and software systems, and holds advanced degrees in engineering and computer science. Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 3–11. We are satisfied that Dr. Siegel possesses sufficient qualifications to testify on matters that are relevant to our analysis here, including matters that do not concern the alleged “ancient” history of inventory management. PO Resp. 35. For example, Dr. Siegel testifies that relevant aspects of automated inventory management and VMI were well known before the priority date of the ’538 patent. Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 25–28 (citing Ex. 1018); Ex. 1027 ¶¶ 5–22 (citing Exs. 1020-1022, 1024, 1025). Dr. Siegel also testifies that the ’538 patent specification describes hardware and software that “require only generic computer implementation—not specialized hardware or software.” Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 43–54, 78–79, 89. In addition, Dr. Siegel discusses general concepts of inventory management using a computer and whether certain limitations of the challenged claims can be performed mentally, using pen and paper, or manually, without use of a computer. Id. at ¶¶ 40, 58–66, 80, 90.” slip op. at 23

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

    “Both Petitioner and Patent Owner present constructions for several claim terms. Pet. 19–24; PO Resp. 12–23. For example, Patent Owner asserts that Petitioner misconstrues the term “customer” by defining it as “a buyer (person or organization) that uses the claimed inventory management.” PO Resp. 15; Pet. 19–20. Consistent with the specification of the ’538 patent, we adopt Patent Owner’s construction of “customer” as referring to a “buyer of products via the present invention” (Ex. 1001, 5:52– 56), i.e., a buyer of products using the inventory management system recited in the respective claims.” slip op. at 7

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

    “Patent Owner also presents constructions in relation to other claim terms such as “inventory restocking parameters provided by said customer,” “tracks” or “tracking,” “access” to information according to “assigned permissions or roles,” and “detecting.” PO Resp. 18–23. For many of the reasons stated in Petitioner’s reply to those constructions, we decline Patent Owner’s invitation to import inappropriately “computerized” aspects into those general terms, notwithstanding the fact that the challenged claims elsewhere recite computer components, such as a “computer,” “databases,” and “software.” Reply 23–25; see also Ex. 1001, 3:3–10 (stating that Customer Inventory System 130 allows manual inventory tracking). For purposes of this Decision otherwise, however, we need not expressly construe claim terms further. Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (only claim terms in controversy need to be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy).” slip op. at 8

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

    “Based on the complete record before us, we determine that claim 67 is directed to the abstract idea of managing inventory in view of information. We are persuaded that managing inventory in view of collected and analyzed customer inventory, cost information, restocking information provided by a customer, as recited in claim 67, describes the basic concept of inventory management, i.e., a “fundamental economic practice.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2356. The method of claim 67 is sufficiently similar in this regard to the method of hedging against financial risk at issue in Bilski, 130 S.Ct. 3218 (2010), and the idea of intermediated settlement at issue in Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2356–57 (discussing Bilski). See also 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” (citation omitted)).” slip op. at 22

  Patent outcomesUS 6,996,538 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 101 eligibilitycites Alice · Mayo · Bilski
  Patents in suitUS 6,996,538
• Care N’ Care Insurance Company, Inc. / Trizetto Corporation v. Integrated Claims Systems, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 21, 2016 · CBM2015-00064 · APJ Timothy J Goodson · CBM · Final written decision

  Claims 81 and 83–88 are unpatentable under § 101 because they are directed to an abstract idea without an inventive concept.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • BurdenFwd all claims unpatentableUnpatentable

    “Considering the full record before us, we agree with, and adopt as our own, Petitioners’ explanation of why the challenged claims fail to recite any elements that individually or as an ordered combination transform the abstract idea of receiving information, storing it, and determining which of its parts to enter into a display into a patent-eligible application of that idea. Pet. 34–43. Stated simply, the challenged claims require no more than generic computer components performing generic computer functions and conventional activities. See Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2359 (noting, in carrying out the second step, that the “the relevant question is whether the claims here do more than simply instruct the practitioner to implement the abstract idea . . . on a generic computer”); TLI, 2016 WL 2865693 at *6 (“These steps fall squarely within our precedent finding generic computer components insufficient to add an inventive concept to an otherwise abstract idea.”). For example, claim 81 recites receiving data in fields, storing data in memory, determining which data to enter for display using a generic “logic process,” and displaying data. “[A]ll of these computer functions are ‘wellunderstood, routine, conventional activit[ies]’ previously known to the industry.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2359 (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294). The parallels that Petitioner draws between the claims challenged here and those addressed in Content Extraction are compelling. See Pet. 35–36. Patent Owner’s reliance on the use of fields in the challenged claims to satisfy the second step of the Mayo/Alice analysis and to distinguish Content Extraction is unpersuasive in view of Petitioners’ argument and evidence that computer software fields are a generic, well-known concept in data processing, and that using fields to transfer information from a field in one form to a correlated field in another form was routine and conventional. Reply 12; Ex. 1001 ¶¶ 36–37.” slip op. at 24

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

    “We agree with Petitioners. We see no reason why the resolution of the issues before us requires an express construction of this term. Even if we were to construe “field” as a “computer software field,” it would not impact our analysis of claims 81 and 83‒88 under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Accordingly, we do not provide an express construction of “field.” See Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chem. Co., 642 F.3d 1355, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[C]laim terms need only be construed ‘to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”).” slip op. at 14

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

    “We agree with Petitioners that the challenged claims are directed to a process of receiving information, storing it, and determining which of its parts to enter into a display. Pet. 29. Claims directed to such a process are analogous to the data processing claims that the Federal Circuit held were directed to an abstract idea in Content Extraction and Cyberfone. In particular, as Petitioners argue, the step in claim 81 “of determining which parts of the information to enter into a graphical display is analogous to the step in [Content Extraction] of ‘recognizing certain data within the collected data set.’” Pet. 33. Further, the steps in claim 81 of receiving information and storing it are similar to the steps in Content Extraction of collecting data and storing the recognized data in a memory. Id. With respect to Cyberfone, we agree with Petitioners that the challenged claims can be “described as directed to methods of ‘obtaining data . . . separating it into component parts, and sending those parts to different destinations’ that the Federal Circuit in Cyberfone held embodied an abstract idea.” Id. at 34 (quoting Cyberfone, 558 F. App’x at 990). We have considered Patent Owner’s arguments that the challenged claims are not directed to an abstract idea, but those arguments are not persuasive for the reasons that follow.” slip op. at 17

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

    “Considering the full record before us, we agree with, and adopt as our own, Petitioners’ explanation of why the challenged claims fail to recite any elements that individually or as an ordered combination transform the abstract idea of receiving information, storing it, and determining which of its parts to enter into a display into a patent-eligible application of that idea. Pet. 34–43. Stated simply, the challenged claims require no more than generic computer components performing generic computer functions and conventional activities. See Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2359 (noting, in carrying out the second step, that the “the relevant question is whether the claims here do more than simply instruct the practitioner to implement the abstract idea . . . on a generic computer”); TLI, 2016 WL 2865693 at *6 (“These steps fall squarely within our precedent finding generic computer components insufficient to add an inventive concept to an otherwise abstract idea.”). For example, claim 81 recites receiving data in fields, storing data in memory, determining which data to enter for display using a generic “logic process,” and displaying data. “[A]ll of these computer functions are ‘wellunderstood, routine, conventional activit[ies]’ previously known to the industry.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2359 (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294). The parallels that Petitioner draws between the claims challenged here and those addressed in Content Extraction are compelling. See Pet. 35–36. Patent Owner’s reliance on the use of fields in the challenged claims to satisfy the second step of the Mayo/Alice analysis and to distinguish Content Extraction is unpersuasive in view of Petitioners’ argument and evidence that computer software fields are a generic, well-known concept in data processing, and that using fields to transfer information from a field in one form to a correlated field in another form was routine and conventional. Reply 12; Ex. 1001 ¶¶ 36–37. We also agree with Petitioners that the challenged claims fail the machine-or-transformation test because the claims “are not tied to any particular novel machine or apparatus, only a general purpose computer,” and “adding a computer to otherwise conventional steps does not make an invention patent-eligible.” Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716–17. We discern nothing in the challenged claims requiring a novel machine or apparatus. Indeed, as noted above, Patent Owner concedes that “the hardware components recited by the Challenged Claims were known at the time the application leading to the ’609 Patent was filed.” Prelim. Resp. 19; PO Resp. 20. Turning to the transformation prong of the test, “[a]ny transformation from the use of computers or the transfer of content between computers is merely what computers do and does not change the analysis.” Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 717. Moreover, as the Federal Circuit explained in CyberSource, the “mere collection and organization of data regarding credit card numbers and Internet addresses is insufficient to meet the transformation prong of the test.” 654 F.3d at 1370. Here, claim 81 recites receiving an electronic communication that includes digital data in fields, some of which include insurance transaction data and at least one of which includes attachment data, storing the electronic communication, and processing the electronic communication by determining which of the received data to display and displaying the selected data and the attachment on a GUI. Ex. 1003, 50:20–43. We agree with Petitioners that the claimed method merely collects and organizes data, which is insufficient to meet the transformation prong of the machine-or-transformation test. Dependent claims 83–88 also do not recite more than the mere collection and organization of data.” slip op. at 24

  Patent outcomesUS 8,676,609 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 101 eligibilitycites Mayo
  Patents in suitUS 8,676,609

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.