• DISH Network Corporation / DISH Network L.L.C. v. Customedia Technologies, L.L.C.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jul 25, 2018 · CBM2017-00032 · APJ Meredith C Petravick · CBM · Final written decision

  Claims 1–4, 6–7, 16–19, 23–24, 26–28, 32–36, and 41 are unpatentable under § 101; the petitioner did not show claims 17, 18, 23, 24, and 28 unpatentable under § 112.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • BurdenOther

    “Considering each claim limitation, as well as each explicit citation to the specification expressly set forth in the Petition, we are persuaded that Petitioner has met its burden of showing, via analysis and evidence explicitly set forth on pages 6–7 of the Petition, that independent claim 1, as a whole, does not recite a technological feature that is novel or unobvious.” slip op. at 22

  • Adverse judgmentOther

    “Response (Paper 24, “PO Resp.”) and disclaimed claims 5, 25, 39, and 43 (Ex. 2006). Petitioner filed a Reply to the Patent Owner’s Response (Paper 38, “Pet. Reply”). Patent Owner filed a Sur-Reply (Paper 40, “PO Sur”), and Petitioner filed a Response to the Sur-Reply (Paper 41, “Pet. Sur”).” slip op. at 2

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Other

    “II. ANALYSIS A. Claim Construction Petitioner and Patent Owner dispute the construction of certain claim terms. Pet. 23–28; PO Resp. 34–46. We apply the constructions of those terms set forth in Paper 49 in this decision.” slip op. at 7

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

    “We agree. The preambles of independent claims 1, 19, and 33 expressly state as much. In particular, the preamble of claims 1 and 33 provide: “A system for providing targeted advertising to a multimedia content end user” (claim 1) or “a plurality of multimedia content end users” (claim 33). Ex. 1003, 46:13–14, 49:59–60. Likewise, claim 19’s preamble refers to “[a] device for providing targeted advertising to an end user.” Id. at 48:20–21. Taking claim 1 as a representative example, the remainder of the claim recites certain tangible components, namely a “storage device” and specifically, an “addressable and reserved storage space”; a “processor”; and “software implemented by” the processor. Id. at 46:13–28. The claim further requires the following functionalities: the processor “reserv[ing]” the storage space; the processor “select[ing] particular advertising data suitable for targeting to at least one end user based upon predefined criteria data”; the storage space “storing digital advertising data” and specifically, the “particular advertising data”; and the “particular advertising data” being “accessible to” the user. Id. Thus, we are persuaded that claim 1, taken as a whole, is focused on the concept of providing targeted advertising to a user. Further, the claims merely invoke computers as a tool to implement the concept of targeted advertising, and are not directed to any improvement in computer functionality. See Pet. 34; Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 944–945. The claims recite generic components and functionality. For example, in claim 1, the required components, outlined above—a storage device and specifically, a storage space, a processor, and software— are conventional. The recited functionalities—reserving the storage space for advertising data, selecting advertising data targeted to a user, storing that data, and making that data accessible to the user—are likewise basic and routine. As Petitioner points out, the specification expressly acknowledges that some of the tangible components of the recited system were known. See Pet. 7–8, 33–34, 40–75; Ex. 1008 ¶ 949. For instance, the specification refers to storage device 14 as “any medium known in the art for storing electronic data” and similarly, “any storage device for audio/video information known in the art.” Ex. 1003, 13:22–28, 15:1–5, 24:66–25:7; see id. at [57], 5:3–6, 21:42–22:2. The testimony of Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Negus, also persuade us that each recited component and functionality was generic, conventional, and known. Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 945, 949–954; see id. ¶¶ 955–987.” slip op. at 26

  Patent outcomesUS 9,053,494 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 101 eligibility§ 112 disclosurecites Mayo · Enfish
  Patents in suitUS 9,053,494
• Yahoo! Inc. v. Almondnet, Inc.Rehearing denied
  PTAB · Feb 5, 2018 · CBM2017-00047 · APJ Michael W Kim · CBM · Rehearing

  The Board denied Yahoo!’s rehearing request, leaving in place the denial of institution on the § 101 challenge to claims 1, 2-4, 11-13, 16-17, and 20-22.

  RulingsRehearing decision

  • RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied

    “requesting party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). When rehearing a decision on institution, the Board will review the decision for an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c).” slip op. at 2

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

    “matter, resolution of this issue in Petitioner’s favor is not dispositive, as Petitioner still failed to account sufficiently for the terms “offsite” and “targeted” (to say nothing of “first Internet site,” “second Internet site,” and directing off-site advertisements to visitors of the second Internet site as a consequence of determining visits to the first Internet site “using the tags and the records,” as also recited in claim 1). See Decision 11–14. Moreover, Petitioner’s assertion is incorrect, as while certainly at times, an omission of “Internet” from an identification of what a claim is directed to is proper, our review of the case law cited by Petitioner does not support a blanket assertion that the term “Internet” should never be considered in this manner, under any circumstances. See, e.g., DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1256–57 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (under Alice step one, the court held that “[a]lthough the claims address a business challenge (retaining website visitors), it is a challenge particular to the Internet”). We are unpersuaded that we could have misapprehended or overlooked that which is incorrect.” slip op. at 6

  • Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step one — 'directed to'Step1 not directed to exceptionNot shown unpatentable

    “matter, resolution of this issue in Petitioner’s favor is not dispositive, as Petitioner still failed to account sufficiently for the terms “offsite” and “targeted” (to say nothing of “first Internet site,” “second Internet site,” and directing off-site advertisements to visitors of the second Internet site as a consequence of determining visits to the first Internet site “using the tags and the records,” as also recited in claim 1). See Decision 11–14. Moreover, Petitioner’s assertion is incorrect, as while certainly at times, an omission of “Internet” from an identification of what a claim is directed to is proper, our review of the case law cited by Petitioner does not support a blanket assertion that the term “Internet” should never be considered in this manner, under any circumstances. See, e.g., DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1256–57 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (under Alice step one, the court held that “[a]lthough the claims address a business challenge (retaining website visitors), it is a challenge particular to the Internet”). We are unpersuaded that we could have misapprehended or overlooked that which is incorrect.” slip op. at 6

  § 101 eligibility
  Patents in suitUS 8,244,586
• Yahoo! Inc. v. Almondnet, Inc.Rehearing denied
  PTAB · Feb 5, 2018 · CBM2017-00046 · APJ Michael W Kim · CBM · Rehearing

  The Board denied Yahoo!’s rehearing request, leaving in place the denial of institution on the § 101 challenge to claims 1–8, 10, 13–16, 24, 27–29, 31, 32, 36, 37, 39, and 41–47.

  RulingsRehearing decision

  • RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied

    “II. ANALYSIS A request for rehearing must identify specifically all matters the requesting party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). When rehearing a decision on institution, the Board will review the decision for an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c).” slip op. at 2

  • Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step one — 'directed to'Step1 not directed to exceptionNot shown unpatentable

    “targeted” (to say nothing of “first Internet site,” “second Internet site,” and directing off-site advertisements to visitors of the second Internet site as a consequence of determining visits to the first Internet site “using the tags and the records,” as also recited in claim 1). See Decision 11–14. Moreover, Petitioner’s assertion is incorrect, as while certainly at times, an omission of “Internet” from an identification of what a claim is directed to is proper, our review of the case law cited by Petitioner does not support a blanket assertion that the term “Internet” should never be considered in this manner, under any circumstances. See, e.g., DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1256–57 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (under Alice step one, the court held that “[a]lthough the claims address a business challenge (retaining website visitors), it is a challenge particular to the Internet”). We are unpersuaded that we could have misapprehended or overlooked that which is incorrect. slip op. at 6

  § 101 eligibility
  Patents in suitUS 7,822,639
• Emerson Electric Co. v. Sipco, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 16, 2018 · CBM2016-00095 · APJ Joni Y Chang · CBM · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 7, 9, 16, and 17 are unpatentable under § 101 and § 103(a) over Tymes; unpatentability under § 112, ¶ 1 was not shown.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “Upon consideration of the parties’ contentions, we are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s arguments, as they conflate “power” with “transmission range”—the claim term recites “low-power,” not “low-transmission range.” We agree with Petitioner that Patent Owner’s proposed construction would import improperly a limitation into the claims, and we credit Mr. James T. Geier’s testimony (Ex. 1038 ¶¶ 34−39) as it consistent with the other evidence of record before us. We address below each of Patent Owner’s arguments in turn. First, Patent Owner argues that “the claim language itself indicates that the claimed low-power transceiver transmits low-power signals,” citing the language of claim 2, “wherein the low-power signal comprises a logical IP address.” PO Resp. 12 (citing Ex. 1001, 14:60–61). However, “the low-power signal” does not necessarily require a transceiver to transmit signals having a limited transmission range. Patent Owner does not explain meaningfully, or provide persuasive evidence to show, how a “low-power signal” is necessarily related to the transmission range of a transceiver. Consistent with the plain and ordinary meaning of the term, “a low-power transceiver” refers to a transceiver that consumes less power, e.g., by transmitting and receiving low power signals. Ex. 1038 ¶¶ 34−39.” slip op. at 23

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

    “However, Patent Owner’s arguments are not commensurate in scope with the claims. The purported problems that arose with the development of networks hosting wireless device—unlawful interruption of that data, interference, and contention—are addressed by using an extremely low-power transmitter. Ex. 1001, 5:65−6:11. As discussed above, the challenged claims recite a generic “low-power transceiver,” not an extremely low-power transmitter. Additionally, the alleged problem of transforming data to a different protocol is addressed by an unclaimed feature, as the ’842 patent itself recognizes that the invention is not necessarily limited to certain protocol or requires a protocol conversion. Id. at 13:55−14:5. Moreover, the challenged claims do not requires a protocol conversion or recite a device for converting data from one protocol to a different protocol. Rather, they recite generically a “network of addressable devices.” Patent Owner’s argument that the claims are “directed to an improvement in communication technology between remote devices that are accessible by wireless communication and a central location via a circuit interface” is unavailing. Significantly, the claims are not directed to a new type of transceiver, interface circuit, or controller to establish a communication link between a remote device and the central location. Instead, the claims are directed to transmitting data between locations using conventional or generic computer components. The challenged claims essentially recite a device for communicating information that comprises: (1) a low-power transceiver for transmitting or receiving data; (2) an interface circuit for communicating with a central 33 location; and (3) a controller for establishing a communication link. The Specification confirms that these features were known in the art. Ex. 1001, 5:23–25, 6:62–64 (“As is well known by those skilled in the art, a variety of transducers can perform this functionality adequately.”), 10:13–15 (“[T]he controller 256 may be a general purpose microprocessor or microcontroller.”), 10:21–23 (“The interface 258 within the transceiver 270 is designed to interface with this typical/standard telephone circuitry 263.”), 10:23–26 (“The specific implementation of the circuitry of [interface] 258 will be appreciated by persons skilled in the art and need not be described in detail herein.”). Indeed, the FCC Bulletin also confirms that low-power wireless transmitters were “used virtually everywhere,” noting that “[c]ordless phones, baby monitors, garage door openers, wireless home security systems, keyless automobile entry systems and hundreds of other types of common electronic equipment rely on such transmitters to function.” Ex. 2001, 1. Moreover, the ’842 patent itself recognizes that the communication link between the remote device and central location can be established by initiating a phone call over a telephone line that is part of the public-switched telephone network. Ex. 1001, 2:34−38. There is no dispute that such a communication link was known in the art. Id. at 10:21−26.” slip op. at 33

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

    “38 For the foregoing reasons, we are persuaded that Petitioner has demonstrated sufficiently that claims 1, 7, 9, 16, and 17 of the ’842 patent are directed to a patent-ineligible abstract idea. Whether the challenged claims lack a patent-eligible inventive concept Turning to the second step in the analysis, we look for additional elements that can “transform the nature of the claim” into a patent-eligible application of an abstract idea. That is, we determine whether the claims include an “inventive concept,” i.e., an element or combination of elements sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent on the abstract idea itself. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2357. The additional elements must be more than “well-understood, routine, conventional activity.” Mayo, 768 S. Ct. at 1297−98. Here, Petitioner argues that claims 1, 7, 9, 16, and 17 are unpatentable because they are “directed only to an abstract idea with nothing more added than generic computing components and ‘well-understood, routine, conventional activity’ previously performed in the field (both individually and as an ordered combination in the claims).” Pet. 23–24 (citing Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294). According to Petitioner, the challenged claims “recite the concept of establishing a communication route between two points ‘as performed by a generic computer,’ without disclosing any ‘novel or unusual’ improvement to ‘the functioning of the computer itself’ or any ‘advance in computer technology that makes the performance of [routine] functions more effective.” Id. at 24 (citing Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358–60). 39” slip op. at 38

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

    “As Petitioner notes (Pet. 66−68; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 353−366), Tymes discloses “an improved, low-cost, low-power, data communication network in which a number of remote terminal units are able to send packets of data to a central station, and . . . to receive acknowledge signals and data from the central station.” Ex. 1005, 2:36−56 (emphasis added). Tymes describes that the central station includes a number of base stations connected to a central computer. Id. at 3:21−25. As shown in Figure 1, the network includes base stations 12−14, each of which “is coupled by an RF link to a number of remote units.” Id. at 4:61−5:44. The RF link is used for sending “data packets from the remote terminals to the base stations and return.” Id. at 3:48−51 (emphasis added), 6:66–7:2. In fact, Tymes teaches that the “advantage of this type of RF data link is that a band may be used which does not require site licensing by the F.C.C.” Id. at 3:55−59. Contrary to Patent Owner’s assertion that “low-power” refers to only the remote terminals, Tymes describes a low-power network that includes base stations. As Petitioner also notes (Pet. 66–67, n.38), Tymes teaches an “indoor” limited range network and an RF data link “usable without site licensing under F.C.C. regulations, so that the expense and delays incident to such licensing are eliminated or minimized.” Ex. 1005, 2:36–56. Significantly, Tymes discloses that the optimum frequency is in the 902−928 MHz range 54 for the RF transceivers in the base stations. Id. at 6:66–7:2, 13:58–61, 18:1−3. The FCC limits the power for unlicensed transmitters, and the power limit under the FCC regulations is less than or equal to one watt for the disclosed 902–928 MHz range. Ex. 1010, 217; Ex. 1017, 7:9–11, 31–34. Mr. Geier testifies that an ordinarily skilled artisan “would have understood that an indoor communications network as taught by Tymes requires only a limited range (e.g., 1 mile or less (the length of a storage facility)), so that high-powered transceivers would be unnecessary and disfavored,” and that such an artisan “would have considered a transmission of 1 Watt to be a ‘low-power’ transmission, with a limited range of approximately 1 mile.” Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 358−359. Mr. Geier also testifies that such an artisan would have had a reason to use low-power transceivers in the base stations so that they are usable indoors without licensing under the FCC regulations. Id. We credit Mr. Geier’s testimony as it is consistent with Tymes’ teachings and other evidence. Ex. 1005, 2:36–56, 6:66–7:2, 13:58−61, 18:1−3, Figs. 1, 3, 10; Ex. 1010, 21; Ex. 1017, 7:9−11, 29−34 (explaining that “unlicensed systems using conventional modulation techniques attain ranges on the order of 500−1000 feet” (emphasis added)).” slip op. at 54

  Patent outcomesUS 8,908,842 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 101 eligibility§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Alice · Mayo · Bilski · Enfish · Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,908,842
• Ibg LLC / Interactive Brokers LLC et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc.Rehearing denied
  PTAB · Nov 9, 2016 · CBM2016-00032 · APJ Meredith C Petravick · CBM · Rehearing

  The Board denied petitioner’s rehearing request, finding no error in its denial of the proposed obviousness combination of TSE, Schott, and Subler.

  RulingsRehearing decision

  • RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied

    “II. STANDARD OF REVIEW Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c), “[w]hen rehearing a decision on petition, a panel will review the decision for an abuse of discretion.” Abuse of discretion occurs when a “decision was based on an erroneous conclusion of law or clearly erroneous factual findings, or . . . a clear error of judgment.” PPG Indus. Inc. v. Celanese Polymer Specialties Co., 840 F.2d 1565, 1567 (Fed. Cir. 1988). In its request for rehearing, the dissatisfied party must identify the place in the record where it previously addressed each matter it submits for review. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d).” slip op. at 3

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

    “and evidence but were not persuaded that a POSITA would have combined TSE, Schott, and Subler in the manner proposed in the Petition. The Decision states: We disagree that the proposed combination is nothing more than an obvious design choice or nothing more than combining prior art elements according to a known method to yield predictable and desirable results of increasing the efficiency and decreasing the complexity of order entry. As can be seen from the annotated figure above, the proposed combination results in a more complex order entry system because it requires not merely the substitution of a point-and-click technique for a drag-and-drop technique but the addition of a window, such as Subler’s Viewer window 334, having the order icons to drag-and-drop. Dec. 25 (referring to a figure from page 49 of the Petition, reproduced on page 24 in the Decision). Petitioner effectively disagrees with our Decision, which is not an appropriate basis for rehearing.” slip op. at 4

  § 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 7,212,999
• HP Inc. / SAP America, Inc. v. Big Baboon, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Jun 28, 2016 · CBM2016-00020 · APJ Trenton A Ward · CBM · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show that claims 15 and 20–34 were more likely than not unpatentable under § 101 or any of the three § 103 grounds.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “For the reasons that follow, Petitioner failed to establish that it is more likely than not that at least one of the challenged claims is unpatentable. Therefore, we deny the Petition.” slip op. at 2

  • BurdenDenied

    “We believe the same is true in this matter. Petitioner fails to identify specific documentary evidence indicating that the claim element “via Web administration, producing a software configuration in which selected ones of the modules are enabled or disabled” would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the ’275 patent. At best, Petitioner provides a string cite to nine different documents, without pointing to any particular page or disclosure in any of those documents, as allegedly illustrating an “industry-wide push to Web-enable,” and provides a string cite to eight different paragraphs of testimony from Dr. Greenspun, as allegedly indicating why a skilled artisan “would have seen a strong need to provide Web-enabled system administration capabilities for the R/3 system described in R/3 Online and R/3 Book.” See Pet. 63–64 (citing Exs. 1017– 1021, 1023, 1026, 1027, 1030; Ex. 1032 ¶¶ 58–60, 85–86, 110–112). Petitioner, however, fails to identify with specificity which documentary evidence indicates that it would have been common knowledge to provide a Web interface for system administration of the system described by R/3 Online and the R/3 Book and, thus, that claim 15 would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan based on combining this alleged common knowledge with the system described by R/3 Online and R/3 Book. The Board, and Patent Owner, are left to speculate as to which particular evidence Petitioner is relying on. See Pet. 12, 42; 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.304(b)(4)–(5) (a petition must “specify where each element of the claim is found in the prior art” and identify “specific portions of the evidence that support the challenge”), 42.22(a)(2) (a petition must include a “full statement of the reasons for the relief requested, including a detailed explanation of the significance of the evidence”). In view of this deficiency, we determine that Petitioner fails to articulate sufficient reasoning to support its assertion of obviousness. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 418 (citing In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)). Accordingly, based on the record before us, we determine that Petitioner fails to demonstrate that it is more likely than not that independent claim 15, and claims 20–34 dependent therefrom, would have been obvious over R/3 Online and R/3 Book.” slip op. at 29

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

    “Petitioner urges the Board to construe two claim phrases. First, Petitioner urges us to construe the claimed “end-to-end, business-to-business, e-commerce business automation software for automation business functions across multiple business domains” to mean “[s]oftware that, using a computer network, at least partially automates business functions relating to two or more businesses and from two or more business domains (such as products, payments, and financial performance).” Pet. 19. Second, Petitioner urges us to construe the claimed “via Web administration, producing a software configuration in which selected ones of the modules are enabled or disabled” to mean “producing a software configuration in which modules can be enabled or disabled by (1) changing the configuration parameters of a web server program or (2) using a Web browser to change configuration parameters of software running on a server.” Pet. 21. Patent Owner does not offer any proposed constructions of claim terms in its Preliminary Response. For the reasons explained below, in this case determining the scope of the terms proffered by Petitioner is not necessary to determine whether Petitioner has met the standard for institution of a covered business method patent review, and we decline to adopt the constructions sought by Petitioner. See, e.g., 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.’”) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).” slip op. at 9

  • Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step one — 'directed to'Step1 not directed to exceptionNot shown unpatentable

    “Claim 15 (the only claim substantively addressed by Petitioner), however, does not recite any “gathering” steps, and Petitioner does not explain sufficiently how the limitations of claim 15 are directed to the concept of “gathering” information. For example, claim 15 merely recites “providing . . . business automation software, “identifying multiple modules of the software,” and producing a “software configuration.” Additionally, claim 15 requires producing a “workscope/workflow structured display of complex database records,” which constitutes “an integrated decision-making environment for a particular business function.” Thus, the method of claim 15 does not expressly require that information be gathered across “multiple business domains.” Rather, claim 15 requires providing “business automation software” to produce a “structured display” of “records” pertaining to a “business transaction,” such that the display constitutes an “integrated decision-making environment for a particular business function.” Thus, even if Petitioner is correct that “gathering information from across a business and using the information to make decisions” by itself is an abstract idea, Petitioner’s analysis does not address sufficiently the specific language of claim 15 and explain why claim 15 is directed to that idea. See Pet. 27. Similarly, dependent claims 20–34 are not directed to “gathering information,” and Petitioner provides no analysis of the language of the dependent claims. In light of the above, we determine that Petitioner has failed to establish the first step of the Mayo framework; i.e., Petitioner fails to identify sufficiently an abstract idea to which claim 15 is directed.8 Petitioner combines its arguments under § 101 against dependent claims 20– 34 with its arguments against claim 15 and fails to provide any additional arguments for these dependent claims. See Pet. 25 (arguing that the “sixteen challenged claims of the ’275 patent are likewise unpatentable under §101”). Therefore, we similarly determine that Petitioner fails to establish the first step of the Mayo framework with respect to dependent claims 20–34. Based on the foregoing, we determine Petitioner has failed to establish, based on the record presented, that claims 15 and 20–34 are more likely than not directed to patent ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. 8 We need not decide whether claim 15 is directed to a different abstract idea, and only determine that Petitioner has not shown sufficiently that claim 15 is directed to the alleged abstract idea that Petitioner proposes in the Petition.” slip op. at 19

  Claim construction§ 101 eligibility§ 103 obviousnesscites Alice · Mayo
  Patents in suitUS 6,343,275
• Epicor Software Corporation v. Protegrity CorporationRehearing denied
  PTAB · Apr 19, 2016 · CBM2015-00002 · APJ Kevin F Turner · CBM · Rehearing

  The Board denied both rehearing requests, leaving the institution of § 101 review of claims 1, 5, 8, 19, 20, and 27–31 and denial of prior art grounds unchanged.

  RulingsRehearing decision

  • RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied

    “D. Conclusion We are not persuaded of an abuse of discretion either by Patent Owner or Petitioner. III. ORDER In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby: ORDERED that each Request for Rehearing is denied.” slip op. at 18

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

    “The Board instituted covered business method patent review of the ’201 Patent based upon the following ground, combined from both proceedings: Ground Prior Art Challenged Claims § 101 n/a 1, 5, 8, 19, 20, and 27–31 Papers 17 and 13 (’02 Decision and ’30 Decision, respectively). The Board did not institute covered business method patent review upon any prior art grounds. See ’02 Decision 6 and ’30 Decision 4–5 (listing grounds proffered by Petitioner).” slip op. at 2

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

    “Response, Patent Owner argues that the claims are directed toward protection of data in a database on a more granular level, namely at the data element level. Prelim. Resp. 27 (“the ’201 Patent is not directed to some abstract idea, but rather a specific improvement in computing technologies to protect data in a database at the date element level”). However, the abstract idea we identified is that of “determining whether access to a given data element value in a database should be granted based on whether one or more rules are satisfied.” ’02 Decision 20. See also Pet. 20. As such, the abstract idea goes directly to the concept of protecting data at the data element level.” slip op. at 13

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

    “Although Atalla discloses authorization to a file based on information about the file, Ex. 1007, 3:27–58, Petitioner has not shown that the information about the file is individual data element types. Overall, Atalla addresses accessing files, in part, based on whether the files were previously accessed, but a file in not the same as an individual data element value. The section of Atalla cited in Petitioner’s Rehearing Request discloses the need for a correct key code, but that key code is for the entire file and not specific to the data element type. Pet. Req. 6 (citing Ex. 1007, 3:27–58). Although “information about the file” could include information about individual data element types, Petitioner has not demonstrated any such teaching or suggestion in Atalla. As stated in the ’02 Decision, Atalla “does not describe that access authorization file 15 comprises ‘a data element protection catalogue (DPC), which contains each individual data element type (DT) and one or more protection attributes stating processing rules for data element values’ as requires by claim 1.” ’02 Decision 28. Thus, we are not persuaded by Petitioner that we abused our discretion in denying institution of covered business method patent review of claims 1, 5, 19, 20, and 27–31 over the anticipation ground of Atalla provided in the Petition.” slip op. at 16

  § 101 eligibility§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 6,321,201
• Ibg LLC / Interactive Brokers LLC et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc.Rehearing denied
  PTAB · Apr 11, 2016 · CBM2015-00181 · APJ Jeremy M Plenzler · CBM · Rehearing

  The Board denied rehearing, leaving institution denied for claims 1–28 under the Silverman challenges because the Petition offered only conclusory support for the moving limitations.

  RulingsRehearing decision

  • RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied

    “Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c), “[w]hen rehearing a decision on petition, a panel will review the decision for an abuse of discretion.” Abuse of discretion occurs when a “decision was based on an erroneous conclusion of 1 U.S. Pat. No. 5,077,665, iss. Dec. 31, 1991 (Ex. 1003, “Silverman”). 2 U.S. Pat. No. 5,297,031, iss. Mar. 22, 1994 (Ex. 1004, “Gutterman”). 3 PCT Pub. No. WO 90/11571, pub. Oct. 4, 1990 (Ex. 1009, “Belden”). The page numbers referenced herein are those at the bottom of each page. 4 U.S. Pat. No. 5,375,055, iss. Dec. 20, 1994 (Ex. 1005, “Togher”). 5 U.S. Pat. No. 5,263,134, iss. Nov. 16, 1993 (Ex. 1018, “Paal”). 6 Our Decision granted inter partes review with respect to other challenges. law or clearly erroneous factual findings, or . . . a clear error of judgment.” PPG Indus. Inc. v. Celanese Polymer Specialties Co., 840 F.2d 1565, 1567 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (citations omitted). In its request for rehearing, the dissatisfied party must identify the place in the record where it previously addressed each matter it submits for review. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d).” slip op. at 2

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

    “demonstrate that it is more likely than not that the challenged claims are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on the Silverman challenges, we considered the entirety of Petitioner’s arguments on pages 41–43 of the Petition, which are referenced in this Request for Rehearing. See Dec. 21– 22. We read the Petition as asserting that “Gutterman discloses the movement of bid/asks along a price axis,” which Petitioner acknowledges is the statement set forth in the Petition. See id. (citing Pet. 40–41 n.3); Req. Reh’g 3. As noted above, Petitioner now clarifies that it does not rely on Gutterman as teaching the “moving” limitation. Any misapprehension regarding this argument, however, is not sufficient for a modification to our Decision. Rather, we read the Petition as advancing that position because it was the only assertion of any teaching of the “moving” limitation in the Silverman challenges, and the additional discussion in the cited pages of the Petition is nothing more than conclusory statements regarding why the “moving” limitations would have been obvious. Limiting our review to Section VI(G)(5) of the Petition, as Petitioner now requests (i.e., without the statement in footnote 3 discussed above), we note that the Petition provides only a conclusory assertion that the “moving” limitation would have been obvious. See Pet. 42–43. The Request for Rehearing makes this clear, stating that the limitation would have been obvious because the combination GUI of Silverman and Gutterman would always display the best inside price along a price axis. And when it receives a new best inside price, the indicators associated with the new best inside price would be displayed at their appropriate price level(s)—i.e., move along the price axis. Req. Reh’g 5. Noticeably lacking from the Petition (and the Request for Rehearing’s characterization of the Petition) is any explanation as to why “the combination GUI of Silverman and Gutterman” would have a fixed price axis where the indicators move, rather than a moving (i.e., dynamic) price axis where the indicators move.” slip op. at 4

  • BurdenNot shown unpatentable

    “demonstrate that it is more likely than not that the challenged claims are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on the Silverman challenges, we considered the entirety of Petitioner’s arguments on pages 41–43 of the Petition, which are referenced in this Request for Rehearing. See Dec. 21– 22. We read the Petition as asserting that “Gutterman discloses the movement of bid/asks along a price axis,” which Petitioner acknowledges is the statement set forth in the Petition. See id. (citing Pet. 40–41 n.3); Req. Reh’g 3. As noted above, Petitioner now clarifies that it does not rely on Gutterman as teaching the “moving” limitation. Any misapprehension regarding this argument, however, is not sufficient for a modification to our Decision. Rather, we read the Petition as advancing that position because it was the only assertion of any teaching of the “moving” limitation in the Silverman challenges, and the additional discussion in the cited pages of the Petition is nothing more than conclusory statements regarding why the “moving” limitations would have been obvious. Limiting our review to Section VI(G)(5) of the Petition, as Petitioner now requests (i.e., without the statement in footnote 3 discussed above), we note that the Petition provides only a conclusory assertion that the “moving” limitation would have been obvious. See Pet. 42–43. The Request for Rehearing makes this clear, stating that the limitation would have been obvious because the combination GUI of Silverman and Gutterman would always display the best inside price along a price axis. And when it receives a new best inside price, the indicators associated with the new best inside price would be displayed at their appropriate price level(s)—i.e., move along the price axis. Req. Reh’g 5. Noticeably lacking from the Petition (and the Request for Rehearing’s characterization of the Petition) is any explanation as to why “the combination GUI of Silverman and Gutterman” would have a fixed price axis where the indicators move, rather than a moving (i.e., dynamic) price axis where the indicators move.” slip op. at 4

  None
  Patents in suitUS 7,676,411
• NRT Technology Corp. / NRT Technologies, Inc. v. Everi Payments, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Jan 22, 2016 · CBM2015-00167 · APJ Michael J Fitzpatrick · CBM · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show any challenged claim was more likely than not unpatentable under § 101, Akel, or grounds relying on Reeder.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “We may not institute a CBM patent review “unless the Director[2] determines that the information presented in the petition . . . would demonstrate that it is more likely than not that at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition is unpatentable.” 35 U.S.C. § 324(a).3 Based on our review of the record, we conclude that Petitioner is less likely than not to prevail with respect to all of the challenged claims. Accordingly, we deny the Petition to institute a CBM patent review, as set forth below.” slip op. at 2

  • Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step one — 'directed to'Step1 not directed to exceptionNot shown unpatentable

    “As Patent Owner points out, Petitioner has oversimplified the challenged claims. Prelim. Resp. 31. The challenged claims are not directed simply to the idea of providing money to an account holder or using trial-and-error until success is achieved. Rather, the claims are directed to particular methods of providing money to an account holder using an ATM via a POS transaction after an ATM transaction has failed. See Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2354 (“Applications of such concepts to a new and useful end . . . remain eligible for patent protection.”) (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted). Further, Petitioner’s analysis omits any consideration of the elements of the claims as ordered combinations to determine whether the additional elements transform the nature of the claims into a patent-eligible application. It was Petitioner’s burden to do so. Petitioner has not shown that the claims are more likely than not patent-ineligible. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2354 (“an invention is not rendered ineligible for patent simply because it involves an abstract concept”).” slip op. at 11

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

    “It is a petitioner’s burden to explain how a challenged claim should be construed and how, being so construed, it is unpatentable. 37 C.F.R. § 42.204(b)(3)–(4). Petitioner does not propose an express construction for “personal identification number” and does not show that its plain and ordinary meaning would include a password. Further, claim 1 requires entering a PIN into the terminal. In the context of the specification and surrounding claim language, this step is part of the claimed “method of providing money or an item of value to an account-holder.” The teaching on which Petitioner relies, however, relates to a system operator’s back-end access of the Akel system. See Ex. 1006, 6:58–62 (“Each system operator requires a password to access the system . . . .”) (emphasis added). Elsewhere, Akel describes a “customer” (distinct from a system operator) as using a kiosk to obtain cash. Id. at 2:56–3:11. But, Akel does not describe entering a password into a terminal, let alone a PIN, as part of that process. Thus, even if Akel’s password fell within the scope of the recited PIN, the Petition would still fail to show how its use by an operator “to access the system” (see Ex. 1006, 258–60) meets the recited “entering a personal identification number into the terminal” as part of the claimed “method of providing money or an item of value to an account-holder.” Petitioner has not shown that Akel teaches “entering a personal identification number into the terminal.” Accordingly, Petitioner has not shown that claim 1, or dependent claims 2–8, are more likely than not anticipated by Akel.” slip op. at 13

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

    “The invention date of the ’792 patent is no later than its filing date, which is January 5, 1998. Although the Reeder application was filed, and thus privately known to Mr. Reeder, before the ’792 filing date, such private knowledge is not within the scope of § 102(a). See, e.g., Carella v. Starlight Archery & Pro Line Co., 804 F.2d 135, 139 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (“The statutory language, ‘known or used by others in this country’ (35 U.S.C. § 102(a)), means knowledge or use which is accessible to the public.”). Reeder was 8 The AIA took effect on March 18, 2013. Because the application from which the ’792 patent issued was filed before that date, our citations to 35 U.S.C. § 102 are to its pre-AIA version. eventually patented of course but not until after the filing date of the ’792 patent. For these reasons, Reeder is not prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a), which is the only provision under which the Petition asserted Reeder. Reeder presumptively is prior art to the ’792 patent under a different subsection of the statute, namely § 102(e). However, a reference that is prior art under only § 102(e) may not be asserted in a CBM patent review. Under the AIA, a Petition for a CBM patent review may challenge novelty or non-obviousness of a claim only on the basis of: (i) prior art that is described by section 102(a) . . . ; or (ii) prior art that— (I) discloses the invention more than 1 year before the date of the application for patent in the United States; and (II) would be described by section 102(a) . . . if the disclosure had been made by another before the invention thereof by the applicant for patent. AIA § 18(a)(1)(C). Because Petitioner has not shown that Reeder is prior art that may be asserted in a Petition for a CBM patent review, all of the grounds that rely on Reeder are denied.” slip op. at 15

  § 101 eligibility§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Alice
  Patents in suitUS 6,081,792
• Intermix Media, LLC v. Bally Gaming, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Jan 20, 2016 · CBM2015-00154 · APJ Hyun J Jung · CBM · Institution

  The Board denied institution because the petition did not show that claims 1–34, 38, 39, and 45–77 were more likely than not ineligible under § 101.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “Petitioner fails to provide a credible analysis considering the elements of the challenged claims “individually and ‘as an ordered combination”’ to determine whether the additional elements transform the nature of the challenged claims into a patent-eligible application in accordance with the second step of the Alice analysis. The Petition fails to provide a credible and sufficient explanation as to whether an element or combination of elements is sufficient to ensure that the ’918 patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the ineligible concept itself. The Petition, instead, asserts cursory and conclusory arguments with no or insufficient evidence that the additional claim elements are well known or recite generic structure. See Pet. 31–80. Petitioner’s failure to do a full analysis under Alice constitutes a breach of 37 C.F.R. § 42.304(b)(4), as well as 35 U.S.C. § 322(a)(3), which requires identifying the grounds “with particularity.”” slip op. at 7

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

    “Petitioner fails to provide a credible analysis considering the elements of the challenged claims “individually and ‘as an ordered combination”’ to determine whether the additional elements transform the nature of the challenged claims into a patent-eligible application in accordance with the second step of the Alice analysis. The Petition fails to provide a credible and sufficient explanation as to whether an element or combination of elements is sufficient to ensure that the ’918 patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the ineligible concept itself. The Petition, instead, asserts cursory and conclusory arguments with no or insufficient evidence that the additional claim elements are well known or recite generic structure. See Pet. 31–80. Petitioner’s failure to do a full analysis under Alice constitutes a breach of 37 C.F.R. § 42.304(b)(4), as well as 35 U.S.C. § 322(a)(3), which requires identifying the grounds “with particularity.”” slip op. at 7

  § 101 eligibilitycites Alice · Mayo · Bilski
  Patents in suitUS 5,816,918

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.