`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`In re Post-Grant Review of:
`)
`)
`
`) U.S. Class: 705/9
` U.S. Patent No. 6,675,151
`)
`
`) Group Art Unit: 3623
`Jan. 6, 2004
`Issued:
`)
`
`
`) Confirmation No. XXXX
`Inventors: Michael S. BLACKSTONE
`)
`
` Roland R. THOMPSON
`)
`
`
`)
`Application No.: 09/419,266
`)
`
`
`)
`Filed:
`Oct. 15, 1999
`) FILED ELECTRONICALLY
`
`
`) PER 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(b)(1)
`For: SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR
`)
`
`PERFORMING SUBSTITUTE
`
`FULFILLMENT INFORMATION )
`
`COMPILATION AND
`)
` NOTIFICATION )
`
`Mail Stop Patent Board (37 C.F.R. § 42.6(b)(2)(ii))
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S.P.T.O.
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`DECLARATION OF JEFF C. PARMET IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR
`TRANSITIONAL POST-GRANT REVIEW UNDER SECTION 18 OF THE
`LEAHY-SMITH AMERICA INVENTS ACT AND 35 U.S.C. § 321
`
`I, Jeff C. Parmet, hereby declare as follows:
`
`1. I am the principal of DisputeSoft (formerly known as Jeff Parmet and
`
`Associates LLC), an independent consulting firm in Potomac, Maryland,
`
`specializing in software dispute consulting, e-discovery and computer forensics.
`
`
`
`Page 1 of 39
`
`
`
`CRS EXHIBIT 1007
`
`
`
`
`
`2. I hold a BA degree from Cornell University and a JD degree, cum laude, from
`
`San Fernando Valley College of Law. I have more than 39 years’ experience in
`
`the information technology profession, the past 14 years of which I have
`
`dedicated to litigation consulting on software failure disputes, software
`
`intellectual property disputes, e-discovery, and computer forensics.
`
`3. During the past 14 years, I have been designated as a consulting or testifying
`
`expert on more than 50 software IP disputes, including several software patent
`
`cases and cases involving financial software.
`
`4. I have managed, during earlier years of my career, dozens of IT projects.
`
`5. Early in my career, I designed and implemented the first on-line terminal
`
`system for banks. I have additionally led the implementation and evaluation of
`
`many types of other software applications, including accounting, financial
`
`management and insurance software.
`
`6. I have also led more than a dozen forensic investigations involving
`
`unauthorized access to information on computer networks via the Internet.
`
`7. My qualifications, publications and prior testimony are listed on my CV, which
`
`is included in this declaration as Attachment A.
`
`8. I have been retained by the law firm Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett &
`
`Dunner, LLP to act as an independent technical expert in a litigation involving
`
`Frontline Technologies, Inc. (“Frontline”) and CRS, Inc. (“CRS”), namely,
`
`
`
`Page 2 of 39
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Frontline Technologies, Inc. v. CRS, Inc., Civil Action No. 2:07-cv-2457 (E.D.
`
`Pa.). I am being compensated at the rate of $425 per hour for the work I have
`
`performed on this engagement. My compensation is in no way based upon the
`
`outcome of this litigation or this transitional post-grant review proceeding.
`
`9. In connection with the Frontline Technologies litigation, I prepared two expert
`
`reports which addressed, inter alia, the issues of (1) whether the U.S. Patent
`
`No. 6,675,151 (“the ’151 patent”) was entitled to the filing date of the parent
`
`U.S. No. 6,334,133 (“the ’133 patent”), and (2) whether claims 3, 6, 7, 16, 24
`
`and 33 of the ’151 patent were invalid for lack of an adequate written
`
`description. This declaration repeats the substance of my analysis of those two
`
`issues from those expert reports.
`
`10. It is my opinion that the language “generating and posting…a list of one or
`
`more positions…on a website and providing…information indicating directly or
`
`indirectly an organization worksite location for the respective position” in
`
`claims 3, 6, 7, 16, 24 and 33 of the ’151 patent claim is not disclosed in the
`
`patent application that ultimately issued as U.S. Patent No. 6,334,133 (“the ’133
`
`patent”), and therefore those claims are not entitled to the filing date of the ’133
`
`patent. The ’133 patent does not expressly or inherently disclose providing
`
`information indicating directly or indirectly an organization worksite location
`
`information. Nor does the ’133 patent expressly or inherently disclose providing
`
`
`
`Page 3 of 39
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`location information in conjunction with the “posting” step or providing
`
`location information on a website.
`
`11. It is my opinion that claims 3, 6, 7, 16, 24 and 33 of the ’151 patent are invalid
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 112 for failing to provide an adequate written description for
`
`“generating and posting…a list of one or more positions…on a website and
`
`providing…information indicating directly or indirectly an organization
`
`worksite location for the respective position.”
`
`12. In conducting my analysis of claims under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, I
`
`have used the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims in light of the
`
`specification in which they appear.1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 37 C.F.R. § 42.300(b); see also In re Yamamoto, 740 F.2d 1569, 1571 (Fed. Cir.
`
`1984).
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 4 of 39
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`13. It is my opinion that claims 3, 6, 7, 16, 24 and 33 of the ’151 patent are not
`
`entitled to the December 21, 1998 filing date of the ’133 patent because the
`
`’133 patent fails to provide the written-description support required by 35
`
`U.S.C. § 112 for the claim language “generating and posting…a list of one or
`
`more positions…on a website and providing…information indicating directly or
`
`indirectly an organization worksite location for the respective position.”
`
`14. It is my understanding that, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 120, an application claim
`
`in a continuation-in-part application can only gain the benefit of the filing date
`
`of its parent application if, inter alia, the parent application discloses the subject
`
`matter of the claims at issue in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
`
`paragraph, including the written description requirement.
`
`15. I further understand that, in order to be entitled to the priority date of an earlier
`
`application, a patentee must show that the earlier application necessarily
`
`discloses a particular claimed invention.2 Moreover, in the event that a given
`
`claim limitation is not expressly or literally disclosed in the earlier patent
`
`application, it must be “inherently” disclosed in the earlier application – i.e., it
`
`must be clear “that the missing descriptive matter is necessarily present in the
`
`thing described in the reference, and that it would be so recognized by persons
`
`
`2 See Hyatt v. Boone, 146 F.3d 1348, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
`
`
`
`Page 5 of 39
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`of ordinary skill.”3
`
`16. Based upon my review of the ’133 specification and originally filed claims, it
`
`is my opinion that the ’133 patent fails to provide the written-description
`
`support required under § 112 in two particular respects:
`
`16.1. While the ’133 patent specification does disclose a system that makes
`
`use of a web-server interface, the specification fails to adequately
`
`describe the “website” specifically recited in the ’151 patent claims.
`
`16.2. In addition to not adequately describing the “website” recited in the
`
`claims as described above, the ’133 patent specification omits any
`
`mention of the term “organization worksite location” and fails to
`
`disclose, either expressly or inherently, that any “information indicating
`
`directly or indirectly an organization worksite location for the respective
`
`position” is (1) provided “on a website”; or (2) provided as part of the
`
`“generating and posting” of a list of available positions, as recited in the
`
`’151 patent claims.
`
`17. I have reviewed the specification and the originally filed claims of the ’133
`
`patent for support for the particular “website” element recited in the asserted
`
`claims. The specification discloses the following instances of the words “web
`
`
`3 MPEP § 2163.07(a) (Sept. 2007).
`
`
`
`Page 6 of 39
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`server,” “web site,” “web pages, “World Wide Web,” and “Internet,” and the
`
`following references pertaining to both a “website” and the manner in which a
`
`list of available positions is made available to substitute workers: (emphasis
`
`added):
`
`There is generally indicated at 10 in FIG. 1 a block diagram of a
`substitute fulfillment system
`in accordance with a preferred
`embodiment of the present invention. The main components of
`substitute fulfillment system 10 are a communications and processing
`server 30, connected to an Oracle™ server, or like database engine 34,
`a web server 36, and a report processing unit 38, with multiple
`communication channels
`for clients, workers and potential
`replacements.4
`The Web Server manages and stores web pages accessible from the
`Internet.5
`In a preferred embodiment, communications and processing server 30
`is further connected to a router 29 with a connection 28 to the Internet,
`shown generally at 26. Preferably, communications and processing
`server 30 maintains at least two interfaces, most preferably two
`World Wide Web interfaces, for access to the substitute fulfillment
`system 10 via the Internet 26. The first such interface or web site is
`principally directed towards client organizations 56 such as, for
`
`
`
`4 ‘133 patent, 6:3-11.
`
`5 Ibid., 6:21-22.
`
`
`
`Page 7 of 39
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`example, school districts. The second such interface or web site is
`principally directed toward workers 18 and potential replacement
`workers 22, such as, for example, teachers and substitute teachers.6
`A client organization 56 is required to have a computer 54 with
`Internet access 12. The Internet access 12 is preferably through a
`direct connection, but may alternatively be through a dial-up
`connection. In a preferred embodiment of the present invention, a
`potential customer organization 56 initially accesses the substitute
`fulfillment system 10 through the client organization web site in step
`62. In step 70, the potential customer organization 56 obtains a copy
`of an introductory software applet of the present invention by
`downloading it from the web site.7
`In a preferred embodiment of the present invention, in step 64, once
`the potential customer organization accesses the web site and requests
`the applet, the communications and processing server first sends the
`organization a registration "wizard."8
`In a preferred embodiment, the applet resides locally on the client's
`computer 54 and functions independently of the main server 30 for
`most of its functions; an Internet connection 12 need not be
`maintained to run the applet, nor need Internet communications
`software be open. The applet is primarily a data entry and reporting
`
`
`
`6 Ibid., 6:28-39.
`
`7 Ibid., 6:46-55.
`
`8 Ibid., 6:59-63.
`
`
`
`Page 8 of 39
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`and Internet communications tool.9
`The applet communicates with the communications and processing
`server 30 via the Internet.10
`Alternatively, the worker 18, 46 may contact the communications and
`processing server 30 via the Internet 26, possibly using a home-based
`computer 20, through a worker web site which is preferably secure.11
`In a preferred embodiment of the present invention, all desired
`transaction information, including all absence notifications, substitute
`requirements, substitute fulfillment attempts, substitute fulfillment
`successes and failures, web site accesses, employment searches by
`substitutes, etc., are stored in the database 34.12
`In a preferred embodiment, using the information in the database 34,
`the server 30 may also generate a listing of opportunities for
`replacement workers 22 and make the listing available through a
`web site interface. Replacement workers 22 may access the site and
`select an assignment. If the same assignment is currently being
`processed or waiting to be processed by the substitute fulfillment
`system's Interactive Voice Technology, then the assignment selection
`is recognized, further processing is halted, and appropriate reports
`
`
`
`9 Ibid., 7:19-25.
`
`10Ibid., 7:58-59.
`
`11 Ibid., 9:10-13.
`
`12 Ibid., 10:25-31.
`
`
`
`Page 9 of 39
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`generated. 13
` [A system]…wherein the central server automatically generates a list
`of one or more substitute workers for each absent worker in response
`to the information representing absent workers, the central server
`automatically communicates information representing positions
`to be filled to substitute workers identified by the central server
`via a telephone communication link or an internet communication
`link….14
`
`18. I have also identified the following references in the ’133 patent specification
`
`pertaining to “worksite location” (emphasis added):
`
`“In a preferred embodiment, the information in the data records is
`provided to the substitute fulfillment system 10 through the applet.
`Referring now to FIG. 3, teacher and substitute information stored in a
`staff data record 90 may include: name 92; title 25…classroom
`location information 120….”15
` “In a preferred embodiment, the server 30 and database 34 track
`substitute fulfillment data globally, identify opportunities for inter-
`organization substitute referral or fulfillment, and report on substitute
`fulfillment needs and other trends. For example, the server 30 may
`identify substitute teachers registered in a district adjacent to a
`
`
`
`13 Ibid., 10:32-41.
`
`14 Ibid., 12:1-8.
`
`15 Ibid., 8: 20-39.
`
`
`
`Page 10 of 39
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`customer school district and inform the customer school district.
`In another example, the substitute fulfillment system may identify hot
`spots where substitutes with particular qualifications are in demand.”16
`
`
`19. It is my opinion that the above-listed citations do not, either individually or
`
`collectively, convey that the inventors were in possession of the claimed
`
`“website” so as to satisfy the § 112 written description requirement. The most
`
`that these citations establish is that the ’133 invention: (1) makes use of a “web
`
`server” for the purpose of allowing access to “web pages” via the Internet; (2)
`
`preferably makes use of at least two “World Wide Web interfaces” for the
`
`purpose of allowing Internet-based access to both client school districts and
`
`teachers/substitutes; and (3) “makes available” a list of opportunities for
`
`replacement workers through a website interface.
`
`20. However, the above-listed citations fail to provide an adequate written
`
`description of the content of the “website” recited in the claims. In particular,
`
`the ’133 specification fails to convey to one of ordinary skill in the art at the
`
`time of filing that the inventors were in possession of the claimed information
`
`(i.e., direct or indirect organizational worksite location information) being
`
`displayed or contained on the “website.” The ’133 specification also fails to
`
`16 Ibid., 10:49-60.
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 11 of 39
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`convey that the inventors were in possession of the step of generating and
`
`posting or otherwise providing “information indicating directly or indirectly an
`
`organization worksite location for the respective position.” These claim
`
`limitations are not expressly disclosed in the ’133 patent specification, and one
`
`of ordinary skill in the art would not understand them to be inherently or
`
`necessarily present in the ’133 patent.
`
`21. In the district court litigation, Frontline attempted to rely on an “Internet
`
`interface 26” in the ’133 patent. The ’133 patent, however, makes no reference
`
`to an “Internet interface” and refers only to “the Internet, shown generally at
`
`26.”17 Although Frontline cited Figure 1 of the ’133 patent to support the
`
`position that the ’133 patent discloses an “Internet interface,” Figure 1 actually
`
`makes no mention of an “Internet interface,” disclosing only a component
`
`labeled “26 Internet.”
`
`22. Frontline also maintained that column 6, lines 20-21 of the ’133 patent discloses
`
`that “[t]he Web Server manages and stores web pages accessible from the
`
`Internet,” and that column 6, lines 37-39 of the ’133 patent disclose that “[t]he
`
`second such interface or web site is principally directed toward workers 18 and
`
`potential replacement workers 22, such as, for example, teachers and substitute
`
`
`17 See, e.g., ‘133 patent, 6:31.
`
`
`
`Page 12 of 39
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`teachers.” In my opinion, this excerpt falls far short of providing a written
`
`description for the claims. The cited description from the ’133 patent
`
`specification discloses only that “web pages [are] accessible from the Internet”
`
`and that “World Wide Web interfaces” provide potential replacement workers
`
`with access to the system “via the Internet.” However, the ’133 patent
`
`specification does not provide any description of the functionality, construction
`
`or operation of the website, nor does the specification describe exactly which
`
`information is displayed on the website. In particular, the ’133 patent discloses
`
`that the server may “using the information in the database 34, generate a listing
`
`of opportunities for replacement workers 22 and make the listing available
`
`through a web site interface,”18 but the ’133 patent does not disclose what
`
`information from the database is displayed on the website. This disclosure
`
`describes only that a “listing of opportunities” is made available to replacement
`
`workers without describing whether any characteristics, if any, of those
`
`opportunities are also made available to the replacement workers. That is, the
`
`’133 patent does not disclose whether the “web site interface” displays every
`
`field in the database to a potential replacement worker accessing the web site,
`
`such as the school name. Moreover, there is also no disclosure that the
`
`18 ‘133 patent, 10:33–36.
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 13 of 39
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`information displayed indicates directly or indirectly an organization worksite
`
`location of an available position. In light of these omissions, it is my opinion
`
`that the ’133 patent specification fails to convey that the inventors were in
`
`possession of the claimed “website” and therefore fails to satisfy the § 112
`
`written description requirement.
`
`23. Frontline also relied on the fact that the ’133 patent discloses that “a staff data
`
`record 90” includes “a reference to a school 110” and that the “record for
`
`storing school data” depicted in Figure 6 of the ’133 patent includes “a name of
`
`the school 168.” However, in my view, these references to the ’133 patent
`
`specification fail to provide adequate written-description support for the
`
`limitation in claims 3 and 6 of the ’151 patent relating to “generating and
`
`posting a list of one or more absent workers on a website and providing, for one
`
`or more of the positions, information indicating directly or indirectly an
`
`organization worksite location for the respective position.” The ’133 patent
`
`does not provide any description of an invention that provides such worksite-
`
`location information as part of the step of “generating and posting a list of one
`
`or more positions of one or more absent workers that need to be filled by one or
`
`more substitute workers on a website” as recited in claims 3 and 6 of the ’151
`
`patent. Furthermore, although the ’133 specification does describe an invention
`
`that includes “information indicating directly or indirectly an organization
`
`
`
`Page 14 of 39
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`worksite location” in either a “staff data record” or a “record for storing school
`
`data” in the server database, it does not disclose that such information is
`
`actually “provided” on a website as part of the “generating and posting” step.
`
`Due to the absence of any mention of this claim limitation in the ’133 patent, it
`
`is my opinion that claims 3 and 6 of the ’151 patent (and dependent claims 7,
`
`16, 24, and 33) are not entitled to the December 21, 1998 filing date of the ’133
`
`patent for failure to satisfy the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. §
`
`112.
`
`24. Frontline additionally attempted to rely on the fact that the ’133 patent discloses
`
`a “report 276,” entitled “absentee report,” that contains information including a
`
`“location.” The ’133 patent specification, however, does not disclose that the
`
`“absentee report” is provided to substitute workers, nor does the ’133
`
`specification disclose that such report is provided on the website as part of the
`
`generating and posting of a list of one or more positions of one or more absent
`
`workers. Moreover, column 9, lines 24-42 of the ’133 patent specification
`
`states that “[s]ummary absence reports 276 may be distributed by facsimile 52,
`
`electronic mail 16, or via the applet to any parties designated by the client 56 as
`
`‘need-to-know’ parties 14, 50 for all absences or for particular absences.” As
`
`Figure 1 of the ’133 patent demonstrates, parties 14 and 50 both refer to
`
`“Groups within Customer Organization”; however, Figure 1 distinguishes
`
`
`
`Page 15 of 39
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`parties 14 and 50 from party 22, “Potential Replacements.” Furthermore, the
`
`’133 specification discloses only that the “summary absentee reports 276” are
`
`distributed “to organization personnel 14 designated for receipt of the reports”
`
`and makes no mention whether such reports are distributed to substitute
`
`workers (i.e., party 22) as well.19 Indeed, according to the ’133 specification,
`
`such summary absence reports 276 are sent to such organization personnel in
`
`step 80 before identifying potential replacements in step 81 or contacting
`
`potential replacements in step 82. The other reports 278, 279, and 280 are
`
`generated only after the substitute 22 accepts an assignment (or if no substitute
`
`can be found).20 Because the ’133 patent fails to disclose that substitute
`
`workers receive such “absentee reports” that are generated and posted on a
`
`website as disclosed in claims 3 and 6 of the ’151 patent, in my view the ’151
`
`patent fails to satisfy the § 112 written description requirement and is not
`
`entitled to the December 21, 1998 filing date of the ’133 patent.
`
`25. Moreover, the ’133 patent specification discloses that an “absentee report” is
`
`(1) distributed only to “relevant client personnel” and (2) distributed at “step
`
`80,” not during the “generating and posting” step, contrary to the limitation of
`
`
`
`19 ‘133 patent, 10:16-18.
`
`20 ‘133 patent, 10:8-20.
`
`
`
`Page 16 of 39
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`claims 3 and 6 of the ’151 patent disclosing that the system necessarily provides
`
`such worksite-location information to substitute workers as part of the step of
`
`“generating and posting a list of one or more positions of one or more absent
`
`workers that need to be filled by one or more substitute workers on a website.”
`
`26. Frontline also relied on column 9, lines 24-31 of the ’133 patent specification:
`
`In step 80, the substitute fulfillment system 10 distributes absence
`notifications to relevant client personnel 14, 50, preferably on a
`regular basis at a time specified in advance by the client. Referring
`now to FIG. 12, notifications may take the form of summary absence
`reports 276. For example, the server 30 may transmit a summary
`absence report 276 for each work day at 5:00 p.m. on the previous day
`and again at 7:00 a.m. that day to selected client personnel.
`
` First, the written description cited above discloses only that “[absence]
`
`notifications may take the form of summary absence reports” (emphasis added).
`
`Though the ’133 patent specification discloses that “summary absence reports”
`
`contain “location” information, column 8, lines 24-31 of the specification
`
`indicates that the system may distribute alternate forms of notification that
`
`might not include worksite-location information. Second, the ’133 patent does
`
`not disclose that “relevant client personnel” includes substitutes. Third, the ’133
`
`specification makes clear that “step 80,” which describes the distribution of
`
`absence notifications, occurs subsequent to “step 78,” which describes the
`
`
`
`Page 17 of 39
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`manner in which “the system may be notified of an absence….”21 The ’133
`
`patent specifies that absence notifications are distributed when a teacher reports
`
`an absence, not during the “generating and posting” step.
`
`27. Frontline also relied on column 10, lines 32-36 of the ’133 patent specification,
`
`which discloses that “using the information in the database 34, the server
`
`30…may generate a listing of opportunities for replacement workers 22 and
`
`make the listing available through a web site interface.” This disclosure
`
`describes only that a listing of opportunities is made available to replacement
`
`workers without describing whether any characteristics, if any, of those
`
`opportunities are also made available to the replacement workers. That is, the
`
`’133 patent does not disclose whether the web site interface displays every field
`
`in the database to a potential replacement worker accessing the web site, nor
`
`does the ’133 patent specify that the web site displays the “school name” field
`
`170 in Figure 6 of the ’133 specification. In fact, the ’133 patent fails to
`
`describe exactly which information is displayed on the “web site interface,”
`
`disclosing little more than that the system “make[s]…available” a listing of
`
`opportunities on the web site. Because the ’133 specification does not provide
`
`any written description of which information is actually viewable by a potential
`
`21 ‘133 patent, 9:3.
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 18 of 39
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`replacement worker accessing the web site, including but not limited to whether
`
`worksite-location information is viewable, the written description is inadequate
`
`for purposes of satisfying the § 112 written description requirement, and
`
`therefore, claims 3, 6, 7, 16, and 24 of the ’151 patent are not entitled to the
`
`filing date of the ’133 patent.
`
`28. Frontline also relied upon the fact that Figure 12 of the ’133 patent “discloses
`
`three different reports that list absences 276, 278, and 280, and each report
`
`includes, for each absence, the location of the absence.” However, the ’133
`
`patent does not disclose that these reports are provided to the substitute worker
`
`or that the providing occurs during the generating and posting step. Indeed, as
`
`noted above, report 276 is generated for administrative personnel before
`
`potential replacements are identified and contacted, and reports 278 and 280 are
`
`generated only after the substitute has accepted a position (or no substitute has
`
`been found).
`
`29. It is additionally my opinion that the language “securing, in response to
`
`receiving the acceptance form [sic: from] the substitute worker, via the Internet
`
`communication link and the one or more computers, the posted position for the
`
`substitute worker who selected the posted position to fill in for the absent
`
`worker, the securing comprising halting, at the one or more computers, further
`
`processing to fulfill the posted position with any other substitute worker” in
`
`
`
`Page 19 of 39
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`claims 3, 6, 7, 16, 24 and 33 of the ’151 patent claim is not disclosed in the ’133
`
`patent, and therefore those claims are not entitled to the filing date of the ’133
`
`patent. The ’133 patent does not expressly or inherently disclose that processing
`
`is halted at the website in response to receiving the acceptance. At most, the
`
`’133 patent discloses that the IVR functionality stops calling substitutes once a
`
`position is filled.
`
`30. The ’133 patent specification does not mention the word “securing.”
`
`Application claim 1 claims “[a] computer-implemented substitute fulfillment
`
`system that identifies and secures substitute workers for a plurality of different
`
`organizations” but does not describe how the system “secures.”
`
`31. The ’133 patent specification mentions “halting” once, stating:
`
` Replacement workers 22 may access the site and select an assignment.
`If the same assignment is currently being processed or waiting to be
`processed by the substitute fulfillment system's Interactive Voice
`Technology, then the assignment selection is recognized, further
`processing is halted, and appropriate reports generated.
`
`
`
`32. This reference to “further processing” refers to the antecedent “if the same
`
`assignment is currently being processed or waiting to be processed by the
`
`substitute fulfillment system's Interactive Voice Technology.” This reference
`
`only discloses halting IVR processing. While this reference discloses that jobs
`
`are posted on a website and IVR processing is halted, it does not necessarily
`
`
`
`Page 20 of 39
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`disclose that processing on the website is halted. Furthermore, as I interpret this
`
`reference, it teaches that processing on the website is not halted in response to a
`
`replacement worker selecting an assignment.
`
`33. The originally filed ’133 patent application claims do not refer to halting.
`
`Although only the original application claims and not issued claims provide
`
`support under § 112, I note that the ’133 patent issued claims also do not
`
`support halting. The ’133 patent issued claims state that IVR processing occurs
`
`until a match is found, stating at issued claim 1 “the central server contacting
`
`the identified substitute workers in each list until one of the substitute workers
`
`in each list agrees to cover for the absent worker or until each list of substitute
`
`workers is exhausted.” This language was not in the original application claims.
`
`34. Since the invention disclosed in the ’133 patent is fully operational whether a
`
`given substitute is informed of the organization worksite location before he
`
`accepts a job or only after he accepts a job, there is clearly no requirement or
`
`necessity that a substitute must be informed of the organization worksite
`
`location before he accepts the position. Indeed, one can easily conceive of
`
`business reasons that a school district or a temporary employment agency
`
`would find it preferable not to disclose the organization worksite location in
`
`advance, e.g., to ensure that vacancies in schools in economically
`
`disadvantaged neighborhoods would be filled to the same extent as vacancies in
`
`
`
`Page 21 of 39
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`more affluent neighborhoods.
`
`35. It may be argued that it would have been obvious to include such direct or
`
`indirect organizational worksite location information on the website. However,
`
`it is my understanding that, under Lockwood, the ’133 patent specification
`
`would still fail to meet the written description requirement because the
`
`specification must necessarily disclose the invention, not merely suggest that it
`
`would be obvious to provide direct or indirect organizational worksite location
`
`information on a website, and the ’133 patent does not contain such a
`
`disclosure.22
`
`36. Though it may be argued that it would have been obvious to include such direct
`
`or indirect organizational worksite location information on the website, it is my
`
`understanding that the ’133 patent specification would still fail to meet the
`
`written-description requirement because the specification must necessarily
`
`disclose the invention, and it does not.
`
`37. The “Statement of Status and Support” of the February 2009 Amendment filed
`
`during the reexamination of the ’151 patent, the Patent Owner amended claims
`
`3 and 6 to expressly include the limitation of “providing information indicating
`
`directly or indirectly an organization worksite location”:
`
`
`22 Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
`
`
`
`Page 22 of 39
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Claim 3 has been amended to further clarify that the “generating and
`posting” step is by “one or more computers.” Additionally, the
`generating and posting step has been amended to add the requirement
`
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
