Paper 34
`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822 Entered: February 19, 2013
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________________
`
`CRS ADVANCED TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
`Petitioner
`v.
`FRONTLINE TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
`Patent Owner
`____________________
`
`Case CBM2012-00005
`Patent 6,675,151C1
`___________________
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, THOMAS L. GIANNETTI, and JENNIFER
`S. BISK, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`BISK, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`ORDER ON REHEARING
`
`SUMMARY
`On September 16, 2012, CRS Advanced Technologies, Inc. (“CRS”
`or “Petitioner”) filed a Petition under 35 U.S.C. § 321, pursuant to
`Section 18 of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”) 1. In a
`decision entered January 23, 2013 (“Decision”), the Board concluded that
`U.S. 6,675,151 (“the ’151 patent”) qualified as a covered business method
`
`1 Pub. L. No. 112–29, 125 Stat. 284 (2011).
`
`
`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822 Entered: February 19, 2013
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________________
`
`CRS ADVANCED TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
`Petitioner
`v.
`FRONTLINE TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
`Patent Owner
`____________________
`
`Case CBM2012-00005
`Patent 6,675,151C1
`___________________
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, THOMAS L. GIANNETTI, and JENNIFER
`S. BISK, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`BISK, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`ORDER ON REHEARING
`
`SUMMARY
`On September 16, 2012, CRS Advanced Technologies, Inc. (“CRS”
`or “Petitioner”) filed a Petition under 35 U.S.C. § 321, pursuant to
`Section 18 of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”) 1. In a
`decision entered January 23, 2013 (“Decision”), the Board concluded that
`U.S. 6,675,151 (“the ’151 patent”) qualified as a covered business method
`
`1 Pub. L. No. 112–29, 125 Stat. 284 (2011).
`
`
`
`Case CBM2012-00005
`Patent 6,675,151C1
`
`patent under AIA § 18(d) and instituted a transitional covered business
`method review for claims 3, 6, 7, 16, 24, and 33. On February 6, 2013,
`Patent Owner, Frontline Technologies, Inc., filed a request for rehearing
`(“Rehearing Req.”) to modify the Decision’s determination that the
`’151 patent is a covered business method patent.
`
`DISCUSSION
`The applicable standard for a request for rehearing is set forth in
`37 C.F.R. § 42.71 (d), which provides in relevant part:
`A party dissatisfied with a decision may file a request for rehearing,
`without prior authorization from the Board. The burden of showing a
`decision should be modified lies with the party challenging the
`decision. The request must specifically identify all matters the party
`believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place
`where each matter was previously addressed in a motion, opposition,
`or a reply.
`
`Patent Owner asserts that the Board applied a legally erroneous
`standard in determining that the ’151 patent was subject to review as a
`covered business method patent. Rehearing Req. 1. Specifically, Patent
`Owner argues that the Board applied a standard that “an activity that is at
`least ‘incidental’ and/or ‘complementary to a financial activity’ . . . qualifies
`as a covered business method patent under the statute” instead of applying
`the actual language of the statute. Id. at 3-12. Patent Owner asserts that the
`activities recited in the claims of the ’151 patent are “used in an entirely
`different pursuit than the practice, administration or management of a
`financial product or service.” Rehearing Req. 14 (internal quotation marks
`omitted). Therefore, according to Patent Owner, under the correct standard
`the ’151 patent does not qualify as a covered business method patent. Id.
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case CBM2012-00005
`Patent 6,675,151C1
`
`Instead, the Patent owner asserts that the claims recite actions that are used
`in “performing substitute fulfillment for a plurality of different
`organizations.” Id. at 13.
`We disagree that the Decision applied an erroneous standard for
`determining whether the ’151 patent is a covered business method patent. In
`making this argument, Patent Owner focuses narrowly on several sentences
`of the Decision. In our Decision, we found that the broadest reasonable
`construction of the ’151 claim term “performing substitute fulfillment for a
`plurality of different organizations” includes retail banks. Decision 8.
`Moreover, claim 1 of the ’151 patent explicitly recites “retail banks.” Id.
`(citing ’151 patent, col. 17, l. 47). The Decision also explains, and Patent
`Owner has not disputed, that retail banks provide financial products and
`services to their customers. Id. In addition, as described by the ’151 patent,
`performing substitute fulfillment for a retail bank may entail providing
`temporary employees to the bank, such as tellers (see ’151 patent col. 14,
`l.47-col.15, l. 19), to carry out the functions of the retail bank. Id. Thus,
`because the legislative history supports the notion that the definition of
`covered business method patents be broadly interpreted, we concluded that
`the substitute fulfillment and processing operations claimed by the
`’151 patent are “used in the practice, administration or management of a
`financial product or service” as required by the statute. Id.
`As detailed in our Decision, we are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s
`arguments that the activities claimed by the ’151 patent are not used in the
`practice, administration, or management of a financial product or service.
`We further conclude that Patent Owner has not met its burden to show that
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case CBM2012-00005
`Patent 6,675,151C1
`
`the Decision misapprehended or overlooked any matters. 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.71(d).
`
`CONCLUSION
`For the foregoing reasons, Patent Owner’s request for rehearing is
`granted to the extent that we have reconsidered our decision in light of
`Patent Owner’s request and otherwise denied because we see no basis for
`changing that decision.
`
`
`For Petitioner
`
`E. Robert Yoches
`Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow,
` Garrett & Dunner LLP
`bob.yoches@finnegan.com
`
`For Patent Owner
`
`John Donohue
`John E. McGlynn
`Woodcock Washburn, LLP
`donohue@woodcock.com
`mcglynn@woodcock.com
`
`
`
`4
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
