UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`______________
`
`CRS ADVANCED TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
`Petitioner
`v.
`Patent of FRONTLINE TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
`Patent Owner
`______________
`Case CBM2012-00005
`Patent 6,675,151
`_____________
`
`PATENT OWNER’S EXHIBIT LIST
`
`
`
`

`

`Case CBM2012-00005
`Patent 6,675,151C1
`
`FRONTLINE TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
`EXHIBIT LISTING
`
`Exhibit No.
`2001
`
`2002
`
`2003
`
`Description
`Selected pages from Dictionary of Computer and Internet Terms, Seventh
`Edition (2000)
`Selected pages from Webster’s Third New International Dictionary
`Unabridged (1981)
`Declaration of Edward Yourdon in Response to Plaintiff’s Petition for
`Transitional Post-Grant Review Under Section 18 of the Leahy-Smith
`America Invents Act and 35. U.S.C. § 321 submitted March 18, 2013
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Demonstrative
`Exhibit No.
`DX-1
`DX-2
`
`DX-3
`
`DX-4
`
`DX-5
`
`DX-6
`
`DX-7
`
`DX-8
`
`DX-9
`
`DX-10
`
`DX-11
`
`DX-12
`
`DX-13
`
`DX-14
`
`DX-15
`DX-16
`DX-17
`DX-18
`DX-19
`DX-20
`DX-21
`DX-22
`DX-23
`DX-24
`DX-25
`DX-26
`
`Case CBM2012-00005
`Patent 6,675,151C1
`
`
`FRONTLINE TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT LISTING
`
`
`Description
`
`General Principles of law Regarding Subject Matter Eligibility
`Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC: The Most Recent law on §101
`Eligibility
`Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC: The Most Recent law on §101
`Eligibility
`Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC: The Most Recent law on §101
`Eligibility
`Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC: The Most Recent law on §101
`Eligibility
`Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC: The Most Recent law on §101
`Eligibility
`Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC: The Most Recent law on §101
`Eligibility
`Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC: The Most Recent law on §101
`Eligibility
`Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC: The Most Recent law on §101
`Eligibility
`Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC: The Most Recent law on §101
`Eligibility
`Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC: The Most Recent law on §101
`Eligibility
`Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC: The Most Recent law on §101
`Eligibility
`Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC: The Most Recent law on §101
`Eligibility, Judge Lourie Concurrence
`Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC: The Most Recent law on §101
`Eligibility, Judge Lourie Concurrence
`§101 Eligibility Process
`Step 1: Determine Statutory Category
`Claim 3 of the ‘151 Patent = Process
`Claims 16, 24 and 33 of the ‘151 Patent = Process
`Claim 6 of the ‘151 = Machine
`Claim 7 of the ‘151 = Machine
`Step 2: Determine Whether Judicial Exception Applies
`Determine Whether Exception to Patent Eligibility Applies
`Step A: Does the Claim involve an Intangible Abstract Idea?
`‘151 Patent Claims do Not Involve an Intangible Abstract Idea
`The Claims Do Not Relate to Mere Mental Steps
`CRS Has Alleged the Claims Involve an Abstract Idea
`
`

`

`
`
`DX-27
`
`DX-28
`DX-29
`DX-30
`DX-31
`DX-32
`DX-33
`DX-34
`DX-35
`DX-36
`DX-37
`DX-38
`DX-39
`DX-40
`DX-41
`DX-42
`DX-43
`DX-44
`DX-45
`DX-46
`
`DX-47
`
`DX-48
`
`DX-49
`
`DX-50
`
`DX-51
`
`DX-52
`
`DX-53
`
`Case CBM2012-00005
`Patent 6,675,151C1
`
`Step B: Is the Claim Meaningfully Limited to Less Than the Abstract
`Idea?
`Meaningful Limitations = Patent Eligible
`’151 Patent – Background
`’151 Patent – Background
`’151 Patent – Background
`’151 Patent – Disclosed System
`’151 Patent – Claim Construction
`Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC Application of §101 Eligibility Law
`Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC Application of §101 Eligibility Law
`Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC Application of §101 Eligibility Law
`Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC Application of §101 Eligibility Law
`Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC Application of §101 Eligibility Law
`Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC Application of §101 Eligibility Law
`Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC Application of §101 Eligibility Law
`Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC Application of §101 Eligibility Law
`Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC Application of §101 Eligibility Law
`Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC Application of §101 Eligibility Law
`Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC Application of §101 Eligibility Law
`Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC Application of §101 Eligibility Law
`Following Reasoning of Ultramercial, The ’151 Patent Claims Are
`Patent Eligible: Claim 3 of the ’151 Patent Imposes Meaningful Limits
`On the Abstract Idea of Automated Substitute Fulfillment
`Following Reasoning of Ultramercial, The ’151 Patent Claims Are
`Patent Eligible: Claim 3 of the ’151 Patent Imposes Meaningful Limits
`On the Abstract Idea of Automated Substitute Fulfillment (Cont’d.)
`Following Reasoning of Ultramercial, The ’151 Patent Claims Are
`Patent Eligible: Claim 6 of the ’151 Patent Imposes Meaningful Limits
`On the Abstract Idea of Automated Substitute Fulfillment
`Following Reasoning of Ultramercial, The ’151 Patent Claims Are
`Patent Eligible: Claim 6 of the ’151 Patent Imposes Meaningful Limits
`On the Abstract Idea of Automated Substitute Fulfillment (Cont’d.)
`Following Reasoning of Ultramercial, The ’151 Patent Claims Are
`Patent Eligible: Similar to the Reasoning in Ultramercial, It Would Be
`Error to Strip Away the Recited Structure
`Following Reasoning of Ultramercial, The ’151 Patent Claims Are
`Patent Eligible: Similar to the Claims in Ultramercial, the Figures of
`the ’151 Patent Demonstrate That the Claim is Not a Disembodied
`Abstract Idea
`Following Reasoning of Ultramercial, The ’151 Patent Claims Are
`Patent Eligible: Similar to the Claims in Ultramercial, the Figures of
`the ’151 Patent Demonstrate That the Operations Are Tied to a
`Computer Implementation (Cont’d.)
`Following Reasoning of Ultramercial, The ’151 Patent Claims Are
`Patent Eligible: Similar to the Claims in Ultramercial, the Invention
`
`

`

`
`
`DX-54
`
`DX-55
`
`DX-56
`
`DX-57
`
`DX-58
`
`DX-59
`
`DX-60
`
`DX-61
`
`DX-62
`
`DX-63
`
`DX-64
`
`DX-65
`
`DX-66
`
`DX-67
`
`DX-68
`
`Case CBM2012-00005
`Patent 6,675,151C1
`
`Involves an Extensive Computer Interface
`Following Reasoning of Ultramercial, The ’151 Patent Claims Are
`Patent Eligible: Similar to the Claims in Ultramercial, the Invention
`Involves an Extensive Computer Interface (Cont’d.)
`Following Reasoning of Ultramercial, The ’151 Patent Claims Are
`Patent Eligible: Similar to the Claims in Ultramercial, The Claims of
`the ’151 Patent Are Not Highly Generalized
`Following Reasoning of Ultramercial, The ’151 Patent Claims Are
`Patent Eligible: Similar to the Claims in Ultramercial, The Breadth of
`the Claims of the ’151 Patent Does Not Render the Claims Abstract
`Following Reasoning of Ultramercial, The ’151 Patent Claims Are
`Patent Eligible: Similar to the Claims in Ultramercial, The Claims of
`the ’151 Patent Do Not Claim a Mathematical Algorithm or Mental
`Steps
`Following Reasoning of Ultramercial, The ’151 Patent Claims Are
`Patent Eligible: Similar to the Claims in Ultramercial, The Claims of
`the ’151 Patent Are Not So Manifestly Abstract as to Override §101
`Following Reasoning of Ultramercial, The ’151 Patent Claims Are
`Patent Eligible: Under Judge Lourie’s Reasoning, The Claims of the
`’151 Patent Do Not Cover the Full Abstract Idea Itself
`Following Reasoning of Ultramercial, The ’151 Patent Claims Are
`Patent Eligible: Under Judge Lourie’s Reasoning, The Claims of the
`’151 Patent Do Not Cover the Full Abstract Idea Itself (Cont’d.)
`CRS’s Analysis is Incorrect: CRS Incorrectly Alleges the Claims
`Describe Generic Technology That is Not Integral to the Claimed
`Invention (Paper No. 2 at pp. 3, 25-26, 30)
`CRS’s Analysis is Incorrect: CRS Incorrectly Alleges the Claims
`Describe Generic Technology That is Not Integral to the Claimed
`Invention (Paper No. 2 at pp. 3, 25-26, 30) (Cont’d.)
`CRS’s Analysis is Incorrect: CRS Incorrectly Alleges the Claims
`Describe Generic Technology That is Not Integral to the Claimed
`Invention (Paper No. 2 at pp. 3, 25-26, 30) (Cont’d.)
`CRS’s Analysis is Incorrect: CRS Incorrectly Alleges the Claims
`Describe Generic Technology That is Not Integral to the Claimed
`Invention (Paper No. 2 at pp. 3, 25-26, 30) (Cont’d.)
`CRS’s Analysis is Incorrect: CRS Incorrectly Alleges the Claims
`Describe Generic Technology That is Not Integral to the Claimed
`Invention (Paper No. 2 at pp. 3, 25-26, 30) (Cont’d.)
`CRS’s Analysis is Incorrect: CRS Incorrectly Alleges the Claims
`Describe Generic Technology That is Not Integral to the Claimed
`Invention (Paper No. 2 at pp. 3, 25-26, 30) (Cont’d.)
`CRS’s Analysis is Incorrect: CRS Incorrectly Alleges the Claims
`Describe Generic Technology That is Not Integral to the Claimed
`Invention (Paper No. 2 at pp. 3, 25-26, 30) (Cont’d.)
`CRS’s Analysis is Incorrect: CRS Misinterprets Yourdon’s Testimony
`
`

`

`
`
`DX-69
`DX-70
`
`DX-71
`
`DX-72
`
`DX-73
`
`DX-74
`
`DX-75
`
`DX-76
`
`DX-77
`
`DX-78
`
`DX-79
`
`DX-80
`
`DX-81
`
`DX-82
`
`DX-83
`
`DX-84
`
`DX-85
`
`DX-86
`
`DX-87
`
`DX-88
`
`Case CBM2012-00005
`Patent 6,675,151C1
`
`CRS’s Analysis is Incorrect: CRS Misinterprets Yourdon’s Testimony
`CRS’s Analysis is Incorrect: CRS Incorrectly Disregards the Structure
`Recited in System Claim 6 (Paper No. 2 at p. 32.)
`CRS’s Analysis is Incorrect: CRS Incorrectly Disregards the Structure
`Recited in System Claim 6 (Paper No. 2 at p. 32.) (Cont’d.)
`CRS’s Analysis is Incorrect: CRS Incorrectly Asserts That the ’151
`Patent Claims Pre-empt an Abstract Idea (Paper No. 2 at pp. 3, 30.)
`CRS’s Analysis is Incorrect: CRS Incorrectly Asserts That the ’151
`Patent Claims Pre-empt an Abstract Idea (Paper No. 2 at pp. 3, 30.)
`(Cont’d.)
`CRS’s Analysis is Incorrect: CRS Incorrectly Asserts That the ’151
`Patent Claims Pre-empt an Abstract Idea (Paper No. 2 at pp. 3, 30.)
`(Cont’d.)
`CRS’s Analysis is Incorrect: CRS Incorrectly Asserts That the ’151
`Patent Claims Pre-empt an Abstract Idea (Paper No. 2 at pp. 3, 30.)
`(Cont’d.)
`CRS’s Analysis is Incorrect: CRS Misinterprets Frontline’s
`Illustration of the Lack of Pre-emption (Paper No. 48 at p. 14)
`Supreme Court Precedent on §101 Eligibility:
`Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63 (1972)
`Supreme Court Precedent on §101 Eligibility:
`Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584 (1978)
`Supreme Court Precedent on §101 Eligibility:
`Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (1981)
`Supreme Court Precedent on §101 Eligibility:
`Bilski v. Kappos, 130 S. Ct. 3218 (2010)
`Supreme Court Precedent on §101 Eligibility:
`Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs, Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289
`(2012)
`Other Federal Circuit Precedent on §101 Eligibility:
`In re Alappat, 33 F.3d 1526 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (en banc)
`Other Federal Circuit Precedent on §101 Eligibility:
`SiRF Tech., Inc. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n, 601 F.3d 1319 (Fed. Cir.
`2010)
`Other Federal Circuit Precedent on §101 Eligibility:
`Research Corp. Techs., Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 627 F.3d 859 (Fed.
`Cir. 2010)
`Other Federal Circuit Precedent on §101 Eligibility:
`CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, 654 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2011)
`Other Federal Circuit Precedent on §101 Eligibility:
`Dealertrack Inc. v. Huber, 674 F. 3d 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2012)
`Other Federal Circuit Precedent on §101 Eligibility:
`Fort Props. Inc. v. Am. Master Lease LLC, 671 F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cir.
`2012)
`Other Federal Circuit Precedent on §101 Eligibility:
`
`

`

`
`
`DX-89
`
`DX-90
`
`DX-91
`
`DX-92
`
`DX-93
`
`DX-94
`
`Case CBM2012-00005
`Patent 6,675,151C1
`
`Bancorp Services, LLC v. Sun Life Assur. Co. of Canada (US), 687
`F.3d 1266 (Fed. Cir. 2012)
`Bancorp is Factually Different: In the ’151 patent, the recited
`operations do not involve mathematical calculations at all
`CRS’s Analysis is Incorrect: CRS Misinterprets Frontline’s
`Distinction from Bancorp (Paper No. 48 at p. 11)
`CRS’s Analysis is Incorrect: CRS Misinterprets Frontline’s
`Distinction from Bancorp (Paper No. 48 at p. 11) (Cont’d.)
`CLS Bank Int’l v. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd., 717 F.3d 1269 (Fed. Cir.
`2013), NON-PRECEDENTIAL
`Recent PTAB Decision: SAP America, Inc. v. Versata Development
`Group, Inc., 2013 Pat. App. LEXIS 3788 (Pat. App. 2013)
`ULTRAMERCIAL, INC., AND ULTRAMERCIAL, LLC, Plaintiffs-
`Appellants, v. HULU, LLC, Defendant, AND WILDTANGENT,
`INC., Defendant-Appellee. 2010-1544
`UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL
`CIRCUIT, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 12715; 107 U.S.P.Q.2D (BNA) 1193
`
`
`

`

`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I, John P. Donohue, Jr., hereby certify that on this 9th day of August, 2013, the
`foregoing PATENT OWNER’S DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBITS FOR
`AUGUST 13, 2013 ORAL HEARING was
`served electronically via email on the following:
`
`E. Robert Yoches, Esquire
`Reg. No. 30,120
`Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow,
`Garrett & Dunner LLP
`901 New York Avenue, N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20001-4113
`Email: bob.yoches@finnegan.com
`
`Aaron J. Capron, Esquire
`Reg. No. 56,170
`Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow,
`Garrett & Dunner LLP
`901 New York Avenue, N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20001-4113
`Email: aaron.capron@finnegan.com
`
`Darrel C. Karl, Esquire
`Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow,
`Garrett & Dunner LLP
`901 New York Avenue, N. W.
`Washington D. C. 20001-4113
`Email: darrel.karl@finnegan.com
`
`/John P. Donohue, Jr./
`John P. Donohue, Jr.
`Reg. No. 29,916
`Woodcock Washburn, LLP
`Cira Centre – 12th Floor
`2929 Arch Street
`Philadelphia, PA 19103
`Email: donohue@woodcock.com
`Attorney for Frontline Technologies, Inc.
`
`