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:
`)
`
`
`) Proceeding No. CBM2012-00005
`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
`
`
`PETITION FOR TRANSITIONAL POST-GRANT REVIEW UNDER
`§ 18 OF THE LEAHY-SMITH AMERICA INVENTS ACT
`AND 35 U.S.C. § 321
`
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 321, section 18 of the Leahy–Smith America
`
`
`
`Invents Act (“AIA”), and 37 C.F.R. § 4.300 (2012), the undersigned hereby
`
`requests post-grant review of claims 3, 6, 7, 16, 24, and 33 of U.S. Patent No.
`
`6,675,151 (“the ‘151 patent,” attached as Exhibit 1001), which issued to Roland
`
`R. THOMPSON and Michael S. BLACKSTONE on Jan. 6, 2004, as reissued by
`
`1
`
`
`

`

`Ex Parte Reexamination Certificate No. 7116 (attached as Exhibit 1002) on Oct.
`
`20, 2009 (amending claims 3, 6, and 9, and adding new claims 14–55).
`
`An electronic payment for $35,800 for the post-grant review petition is
`
`included. There are fewer than 21 claims, no additional fees are necessary. See 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.15.1
`
`
`1 The fee may change, as the PTO has proposed. See Patent Fees Proposed Rule, 77
`
`Fed. Reg. 55,028 (Sept. 6, 2012) (suggesting a $30,000 fee, $18,000 of which the
`
`USPTO will return $18,000 if it does not institute a review). Petitioner respectfully
`
`requests the fees be returned in the case of a rule change.
`
`2
`
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I. 
`
`II. 
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1 
`
`GROUNDS FOR STANDING ........................................................................ 5 
`
`A.  At Least One Challenged Claim Is Unpatentable (37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.208(c)) ........................................................................................... 5 
`
`B. 
`
`C. 
`
`D. 
`
`E. 
`
`F. 
`
`G. 
`
`H. 
`
`Claims 3, 6, 7, 16, 24, and 33 Are a Covered Business Method .......... 6 
`
`Claims 3, 6, 7, 16, 24, and 33 Are Not a “Technological
`Invention” (37 C.F.R. § 42.301(b) (2012)) ......................................... 10 
`
`Petitioner Has Been Sued for Infringement of the ‘151 Patent
`(AIA § 18(a)(1)(B) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.302) ...................................... 12 
`
`Real Party-in-Interest (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1)) ................................... 13 
`
`Related Matters (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2)) ............................................ 13 
`
`Lead and Back-Up Counsel (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3)) ......................... 13 
`
`Service Information (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4)) ..................................... 14 
`
`III. 
`
`STATEMENT OF PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED FOR EACH
`CLAIM CHALLENGED .............................................................................. 15 
`
`A. 
`
`B. 
`
`C. 
`
`Claims Challenged .............................................................................. 15 
`
`Statutory Grounds of Challenge .......................................................... 15 
`
`Claim Construction ............................................................................. 17 
`
`1. 
`
`2. 
`
`Broadest Reasonable Interpretation .......................................... 17 
`
`Plain Language of Claims, Specification, Prosecution
`History ....................................................................................... 19 
`
`IV.  CLAIMS 3, 6, 7, 16, 24, AND 33 OF THE ‘151 PATENT ARE
`UNPATENTABLE ........................................................................................ 20 
`
`A. 
`
`Claims 3, 6, 7, 16, 24, and 33 are Invalid Under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 101 .................................................................................................... 20 
`
`i
`
`
`

`

`1. 
`
`2. 
`
`Standard of Review ................................................................... 20 
`
`Claims 3, 6, 7, 16, 24, and 33 Fail the Test for Patentable
`Subject Matter and are Thus Invalid ......................................... 20 
`
`a.
`
` The ‘151 Patent Claims Do Not Claim Any
`“Specific” Machine and thus Fail the Machine-or-
`Transformation Test ....................................................... 24 
`
`i. 
`
`ii. 
`
`iii. 
`
`“One or More Computers” .................................. 26 
`
`“A Website” ......................................................... 27 
`
`“Communication link” (or “Internet
`communication link”) ........................................... 28 
`
`The ‘151 Patent Preempts the Use of an Abstract
`Idea Across Disciplines .................................................. 29 
`
`Claim 6 Embodies Claim 3 and Is Thus Likewise
`Invalid ............................................................................. 31 
`
` All Dependent Claims Are Invalid ................................ 32 
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`B. 
`
`Claims 3, 6, 7, 16, 24, and 33 Are Invalid Under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 112 as Lacking Written Description Support in the
`Specification as Originally Filed ......................................................... 33 
`
`1. 
`
`2. 
`
`The Claims 3, 6, 7, 16, 24, and 33 of the ‘151 Patent Are
`Not Supported by the Specification of the ‘133 Patent ............ 35 
`
`The Challenged Claims of the ‘151 Patent Are Not
`Supported by the Specification of the ‘151 Patent .................. 48 
`
`C. 
`
`The Invalidity of Claims 3, 6, 7, 16, 24, and 33 under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 102 and 103 Is Not Challenged Here ............................................... 53 
`
`1. 
`
`2. 
`
`3. 
`
`Prior Art Applicable under AIA § 18 ....................................... 53 
`
`Anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102 Is Not Challenged
`Here ........................................................................................... 53 
`
`Obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 Is Not Challenged
`Here ........................................................................................... 53 
`ii
`
`
`

`

`V. 
`
`V.
`
`CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 53 
`
`CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 53
`
`iii
`iii
`
`
`

`

`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`
`
`FEDERAL CASES
`
`Ariad Pharm., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co.,
`598 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc) .................................................... 37, 38
`
`
`Bancorp Services, L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assur. Co. of Canada (U.S.),
`687 F.3d 1266 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ...................................................................passim
`
`
`Bilski v. Kappos,
`130 S. Ct. 3218 (2010) .................................................................................. 21, 22
`
`
`CLS Bank Int’l v. Alice Corp.,
`685 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ...................................................................passim
`
`
`Cyberfone Sys., LLC v. Cellco Partnership,
`Civ. No. 11-827-SLR (D. Del. Aug. 16, 2012) ...................................... 23, 24, 30
`
`
`CyberSource v. Retail Decisions,
`654 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2011) .............................................................. 22, 29, 31
`
`
`Dealertrack Inc. v. Huber,
`674 F.3d 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ........................................................ 22, 29, 31, 32
`
`
`Diamond v. Chakrabarty,
`447 U.S. 303 (1980) ............................................................................................ 21
`
`
`Fort Props. Inc. v. Am. Master Lease LLC,
`671 F.3d 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .......................................................................... 29
`
`
`Frontline Placement Techs., Inc., v. CRS, Inc.,
`No. 2:07-cv-2457 (E.D. Pa. filed June 18, 2007) ............................................... 14
`
`
`Frontline Placement Techs., Inc. v. West Educ. Leasing, Inc.
`No. 10-cv-10804 (E.D. Mi. filed Feb. 26, 2010) (consolidated Oct. 6,
`2010) ................................................................................................................... 15
`
`
`
`iii
`
`
`

`

`Fuzzysharp Technologies. Inc. v. 3DLabs Inc.,
`477 Fed. Appx. 182 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ............................................................ 22, 36
`
`
`Gottschalk v. Benson,
`409 U.S. 63 (1972) ........................................................................................ 33, 36
`
`
`Hyatt v. Boone,
`146 F.3d 1348 (Fed. Cir. 1998) .......................................................................... 39
`
`
`In re NTP, Inc.,
`654 F.3d 1269 (Fed. Cir. 2011) .......................................................................... 19
`
`
`In re Yamamoto,
`740 F.2d 1569 (Fed. Cir. 1984) .......................................................................... 18
`
`
`Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc.,
`107 F.3d 1565 (Fed. Cir. 1997) .................................................................... 37, 38
`
`
`Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs, Inc.,
`132 S. Ct. 1289 (2012) ........................................................................ 6, 23, 33, 35
`
`
`OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com,
`No. C-12-1233 EMC (N.D. Cal. Sept. 11, 2012) ............................................... 24
`
`
`Parker v. Flook,
`437 U.S. 584 (1978) ............................................................................................ 33
`
`
`Research Corp. Techs., Inc. v. Microsoft Corp.,
`627 F.3d 859 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ............................................................................ 21
`
`
`SiRF Tech., Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n,
`601 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ................................................................ 1, 24, 25
`
`
`Tech. Licensing Corp., v. Videotek, Inc.,
`545 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2008) .......................................................................... 48
`
`
`West Educ. Leasing, Inc. v. Frontline Placement Techs., Inc. and Frontline
`Placement Techs., Inc. v. West Educ. Leasing, Inc.
`No. 10-cv-10804 (E.D. Mi. filed Feb. 26, 2010) (consolidated Oct. 6,
`2010) ............................................................................................................. 14, 15
`
`iv
`
`
`

`

`FEDERAL STATUTES
`
`35 U.S.C. § 42.208 ..................................................................................................... 5
`35 U.S.C. § 42.208(c) ................................................................................................ 5
`35 U.S.C. § 101 .................................................................................................passim
`35 U.S.C. § 102 ........................................................................................................ 59
`35 U.S.C. § 103 ........................................................................................................ 59
`35 U.S.C. § 112 .................................................................................................passim
`35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 1 ..................................................................................... 37, 38, 59
`35 U.S.C. § 120 ........................................................................................................ 39
`35 U.S.C. § 324(a) ..................................................................................................... 5
`35 U.S.C. § 282(b)(2)............................................................................................... 16
`35 U.S.C. § 282(b)(3)............................................................................................... 16
`35 U.S.C. § 322(a)(2) ............................................................................................... 14
`35 U.S.C. § 324 ........................................................................................................ 60
`35 U.S.C. § 324(a) ..................................................................................................... 5
`
`RULES
`
`Covered Business Method and Technological Invention Definitions Final
`Rules, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,734 (Aug. 14, 2012) ........................................................ 7
`
`
`Inter Partes Review Proceedings, Post-Grant Review Proceedings, and
`Transitional Program for Covered Business Method Patents, Final Rules,
`77 Fed. Reg. 48,680 (Aug. 14, 2012) ................................................................. 18
`
`
`Inter Partes, Post Grant, and Covered Business Method Review Final Rules,
`77 Fed. Reg. 48,680 (Aug. 14, 2014) ................................................................... 5
`
`
`Patent Fees Proposed Rule, 77 Fed. Reg. 55,028 (Sept. 6, 2012) ............................. 2
`
`v
`
`
`

`

`REGULATIONS
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1) .............................................................................................. 14
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2) .............................................................................................. 14
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3) .............................................................................................. 15
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4) .............................................................................................. 15
`37 C.F.R. § 42.30 ....................................................................................................... 7
`37 C.F.R. § 42.300(b) .............................................................................................. 18
`37 C.F.R. § 42.301 ................................................................................................... 11
`37 C.F.R. § 42.301(b) .............................................................................................. 11
`37 C.F.R. § 42.302 ................................................................................................... 14
`37 C.F.R. § 48.6 ....................................................................................................... 14
`
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`
`MPEP § 2163.02 (8th ed. Rev. 9, Aug. 2012) ......................................................... 37
`MPEP § 2163.07(a) (8th ed. Rev. 9, Aug. 2012) ..................................................... 39
`
`vi
`
`
`

`

`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`Exhibit 1001: U.S. Patent No. 6,675,151 (filed Oct. 15, 1999) (“the ‘151 patent”)
`
`Exhibit 1002: Ex Parte Reexam. Cert. No. 7116 (filed Aug. 9, 2007) (issued Oct.
`20, 2009) (reexam. of the ‘151 patent)
`
`Exhibit 1003: U.S. Patent No. 6,334,133 (filed Dec. 21, 1998) (“the ‘133 patent”)
`(parent-in-part of the ‘151 patent)
`
`Exhibit 1004: Frontline Placement Technologies, Inc. v. CRS, Inc., 824 F.Supp.2d
`602 (E.D. Pa. 2011) (claim construction memorandum)
`
`Exhibit 1005: Frontline Placement Technologies, Inc. v. CRS, Inc., No. 07-2457,
`Dkt. 56 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 8, 2011) (claim construction order)
`
`Exhibit 1006: Frontline Placement Technologies, Inc. v. CRS, Inc., No. 07-2457,
`Dkt. 104 (E.D. Pa. July 26, 2012) (opinion denying summary judgment of
`noninfringement and denying summary judgment of invalidity for lack of an
`adequate written description)
`
`Exhibit 1007: Declaration of Jeff C. Parmet (construing claims and describing lack
`of written description support for challenged claims)
`
`Exhibit 1008: Petitioner’s Amendment, Reexam No. 7116 (Feb. 18, 2009) (“Feb.
`2009 Amendment”)
`
`Exhibit 1009: Cyberfone Sys., LLC v. Cellco Partnership, No. 11-827-SLR (D.
`Del. Aug. 16, 2012) (order granting defendant’s motion to dismiss computer-
`implement business method patent telephone system for invalidity under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 101)
`
`Exhibit 1010: OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, No. C-12-1233 EMC (N.D. Cal.
`Sept. 11, 2012) (order granting defendant’s motion to dismiss computer-
`implemented business method patent price selector method for invalidity under 35
`U.S.C. § 101)
`
`Exhibit 1011: Petitioner’s Amendment, Patent No. 6,334,133 (Apr. 21, 2003)
`(“Apr. 2003 Amendment”).
`
`vii
`
`
`

`

`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`We challenge claims 3, 6, 7, 16, 24, and 33 of the reexamined ‘151 patent:
`
`as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 101, because the claims encompass only
`
`abstract unpatentable subject matter; and as invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 112, because
`
`the claims lack sufficient written description in the patent specification.
`
`Two new Federal Circuit cases, Bancorp Services, L.L.C. v. Sun Life
`
`Assurance Co. of Canada (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266 (Fed. Cir. 2012) and CLS Bank
`
`International v. Alice Corp., 685 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2012), make clear why
`
`claims 3, 6, 7, 16, 24, and 33 of the ‘151 patent are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101
`
`for claiming unpatentable subject matter.
`
`Those cases establish a claim that relies on a computer or similar element to
`
`define patent-eligible subject matter must invoke a “specific” computer or
`
`technology that imposes a “meaningful limitation” on the scope of the claims and
`
`the computer must play a “significant part in permitting the claimed method to be
`
`performed; it cannot ‘function solely as an obvious mechanism for permitting a
`
`solution to be achieved more quickly.’” See CLS, 685 F.3d at 1355 (citing SiRF
`
`Tech., Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 601 F.3d 1339, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2010)). Reciting
`
`preexisting technological expedients—i.e., post-solution activity, such as “using a
`
`computer” or the phone, fax, or Internet—is illusory, and fails to pass § 101
`
`muster.
`
`1
`
`
`

`

`In addition, claim cannot effectively preempt the use of a business concept.
`
`Cf. Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs, Inc.,132 S. Ct. 1289, 1301–02 (2012)
`
`(“these patents tie up too much future use of laws of nature”) (applied in Bancorp.
`
`and CLS to abstract ideas as computer-implemented method claims).
`
`Bancorp, for example, invalidated patent claims to a computer-implemented
`
`method and system for managing a stable-value protected investment plan with a
`
`“fee calculator,” a “credit calculator,” an “investment calculator,” a “policy
`
`calculator,” and digital storage. Bancorp, 687 F.3d at 1266, 1272, 1281. The
`
`Federal Circuit held that the claimed computers were not “integral” to the method
`
`and did not add a “meaningful limit” on the claims, and found the claims invalid.
`
`Id. at 1274, 1278–79.
`
`In CLS, on the other hand, the court found claims passed the §101 test
`
`because they recited concrete, tangible steps associated with and requiring a
`
`specific computer system and specific computer code. CLS, 685 F.3d at 1351,
`
`1355–56. There, the “computer limitations” played a “significant part in the
`
`performance of the invention or that the claims” and were “limited to a very
`
`specific application of the concept,” CLS, at 1355, unlike here.
`
`The ‘151 patent’s nominal recitations of phones, fax, general-purpose
`
`computers, and the Internet are not enough to sustain the validity of the challenged
`
`claims.
`
`2
`
`
`

`

`Although the patent’s specification contains a number of configurations and
`
`connections between existing processors, the claims simply recite tan abstract idea
`
`for how to fill worker vacancies. The generic technological recitations do not save
`
`these claims.
`
`Claims 3, 6, 7, 16, 24, and 33 of the ‘151 patent are also invalid under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 112 for a lack of sufficient written description support. The specification
`
`of parent-in-part U.S. Patent No. 6,334,133 (“the ‘133 patent,” Ex. 1003) and the
`
`‘151 patent specification fail to provide adequate written description of “generating
`
`and posting . . . a list of one or more positions . . . on a website providing . . .
`
`information indicating directly or indirectly an organization worksite location for
`
`the respective position.” See Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 16.1, 22.
`
`The specifications also fail to disclose which information (i.e., direct or
`
`indirect organizational worksite location information) is displayed or contained on
`
`the “website” of independent claims 3 and 6. In particular, the specifications of
`
`both patents fail to mention “organization worksite location” and fail to disclose
`
`any “information indicating directly or indirectly an organizational worksite
`
`location for their respective position” that is: (1) provided “on a website”; or (2)
`
`provided as part of the “generating and posting” of a list of available positions. Ex.
`
`1007 ¶¶ 16.1, 16.2.
`
`3
`
`
`

`

`The patent also does not show that 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” when they
`
`filed the application. Id. ¶ 16.2. The method does not require the substitute worker
`
`be “informed of the organization worksite location” before the worker accepts the
`
`position for invention to work; the patentee neither discloses nor suggests this
`
`element. In fact, patentee added the limitation during reexamination and it has no
`
`support in the specification.
`
`Examining each of the patent owner’s alleged written description support
`
`citations, one of ordinary skill in the art—such as Mr. Parmet—finds they do not
`
`convey that the inventors possessed the product or system in question. Namely,
`
`they do not support “an organization worksite location for the respective position”
`
`provided “on a website” as part of “generating and posting” the list of available
`
`positions—either individually or collectively. Nor does the specification convey
`
`the inventors possessed a product or system that provides information that both
`
`directly and indirectly indicates an organization worksite location. Therefore, the
`
`challenged claims of the ‘151 patent are invalid due to the lack of written
`
`description for the amended claim.
`
`4
`
`
`

`

`II. GROUNDS FOR STANDING
`A. At Least One Challenged Claim Is Unpatentable (37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.208(c))
`
`A patent will qualify for post-grant review if the Board finds “that the
`
`petition supporting the ground would, if unrebutted, demonstrate that it is more
`
`likely than not that at least one of the claims challenged in the petition is
`
`unpatentable.” 35 U.S.C. § 324(a) (2012); see also Inter Partes, Post Grant, and
`
`Covered Business Method Review Final Rules, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,680, 48684 (Aug.
`
`14, 2014) (final rule) (to be codified at § 42.208).
`
`The Board need only find one claim is, more likely than not, unpatentable.
`
`Thus, we draw the Board’s attention to method claim 3 and part IV.A, infra.
`
`
`
`Congress took the extraordinary step of creating a special post-grant review
`
`for business-method patents like those in the ‘151 patent. Here, it is at least more
`
`likely than not that claim 3, defining method of hiring temporary workers only
`
`nominally reciting generic computer elements—is too abstract to be eligible for
`
`patenting. See infra Part IV.A. System claim 6, the functional equivalent of claim 3
`
`and adds nothing other than a generic database and information storage steps, is
`
`unpatentable for the same reason. Additionally, the claims do not meet the
`
`requirements under 35 U.S.C. § 112 for lack of written description support. See
`
`infra Part IV.B.
`
`5
`
`
`

`

`B. Claims 3, 6, 7, 16, 24, and 33 Are a Covered Business Method (37
`C.F.R. § 42.30)
`
`The AIA and the PTO final rules define a CBM patent as “a patent that
`
`claims a method or corresponding apparatus for performing data processing or
`
`other operations used in the practice, administration, or management of a financial
`
`product or service, except that the term does not include patents for technological
`
`inventions.” AIA § 18(d)(1); see also Covered Business Method and Technological
`
`Invention Definitions Final Rules, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,734, 48,753 (Aug. 14, 2012).
`
`“‘[F]inancial product or service’’ should be interpreted broadly” to include
`
`services ancillary to banks, businesses, and sales. 77 Fed. Reg. at 48,735.
`
`The ‘151 patent explicitly claims a method for easing the administrative
`
`burden of banks by replacing worker vacancies with substitute workers. See Ex.
`
`1001, cl. 1 (explicitly claiming banks). The ‘151 patent specification likewise
`
`makes mention of this limitation, and says that the claimed service can apply
`
`across professional disciplines. Id. at col. 1–2, ll.60–68, 1–4. Indeed, in one
`
`embodiment, “the invention may be used to fulfill the substitute teller requirements
`
`for workers in a retail bank.” Ex. 1001 col. 14 l. 48–50, col. 15, ll. 1–25. Further
`
`disclosing a list of professions, the patentee’s specification includes other types of
`
`business workers, such as cashiers and salespeople. Id. col. 15 ll. 20–25.
`
`Although independent claims 3 and 6 do not contain an express reference to
`
`banks, they were drafted using generic terms like “substitute workers” and
`
`6
`
`
`

`

`“organizations” without specifying a field of use and therefore are broad enough
`
`on their face to cover methods and systems that provide substitute workers for
`
`banking and other financial organizations. Thus, the patent claims a process useful
`
`for the administration of financial services—such as banks—that is a CBM.
`
`Furthermore, the claims recite a method of performing a simple business
`
`function: processing data to administer a professional enterprise. See, e.g., Ex.
`
`1003, cl. 3. The specification further points to the broad based nature of the
`
`business method at issue here, stating the method refers “not only to more
`
`traditional work environments, but to any work environment amenable to substitute
`
`fulfillment, information compilation or notification.” Id. col. 6, ll. 1–15 (emphasis
`
`added). Thus, even the claims that do not verbatim invoke banking services are
`
`broad enough to encompass them, by the patent’s admission.
`
`In addition, the PTO has classified the ‘151 patent in Class 705 strongly
`
`indicates that it constitutes a CBM patent.2 See id. Ex. 1002, Ex. 1003 (cover).
`
`
`2 That classification definition reads:
`
`This is the generic class for apparatus and corresponding methods for
`performing data processing operations, in which there is a significant
`change in the data or for performing calculation operations wherein
`the apparatus or method is uniquely designed for or utilized in the
`practice, administration, or management of an enterprise, or in the
`processing of financial data. This class also provides for apparatus and
`
`7
`
`
`

`

`According to the PTO’s rules implementing § 18, “patents subject to covered
`
`business method review are anticipated to be typically classifiable in Class 705.”
`
`77 Fed. Reg. at 48,739. The ‘151 patent is further classified in subclass 9, “Staff
`
`Scheduling or Task Assignment.” The title of 705 and the subclass encompass the
`
`subject matter of the ‘151 claims, notably the “administration or management of an
`
`enterprise,” demonstrating that Congress intended the ‘151 patent be subject to
`
`CBM review.3
`
`The legislative history of § 18 further demonstrates that the ‘151 patent is a
`
`CBM patent. According to Senator Schumer, one of the bill’s proponents, “[i]n
`
`addition to patents covering a financial product or service, the ‘practice,
`
`administration and management’ language is intended to cover any ancillary
`
`
`corresponding methods for performing data processing or calculating
`operations in which a charge for goods or services is determined.
`See Class 705 Definition, USPTO Manual of Classification (2012).
`
`3 The PTO and the Congressmen responsible for drafting the America Invents Act
`
`originally proposed defining “Covered Business Method Patents” as class 705.
`
`While the Congress and later the PTO eventually rejected this definition as
`
`underinclusive, the language still largely tracks class 705—which even includes
`
`the prospectively AIA-banned Tax Preparation strategies subclass 36T. 157 Cong.
`
`Rec. S5410 (daily ed. Sept. 8,2011)
`
`8
`
`
`

`

`activities related to a financial product or service, including . . . marketing,
`
`customer interfaces, Web site management and functionality, transmission or
`
`management of data, servicing, underwriting, customer communications, and back
`
`office operations . . ..” 157 Cong. Rec. S5432 (daily ed. Mar. 8, 2011) (emphases
`
`added). The ‘151 patent discloses the transmission of data, back office operations,
`
`and the administrative filling of worker vacancies in banks and banking services—
`
`as well as workplace-generic “information compilation or notification.” ‘Ex. 1001
`
`col. 6, ll. 1–8. Thus, at a minimum, claim 3’s generic method covers the “practice,
`
`administration, and management” of financial services. Broadly and reasonably
`
`defining these terms, Congress intended the ‘151 patent fall under the CBM patent
`
`definition.
`
`Finally, the system and method claims both qualify as a covered business
`
`“method” patent subject to review. Congress intended system patents to qualify as
`
`covered businesses “method” patents. Speaking during the passage of the bill, Sen.
`
`Schumer indicated that a “patent qualifies as a covered business method patent
`
`regardless of the type or structure of claims contained in the patent. Clever drafting
`
`of patent applications should not allow a patent holder to avoid PTO review under
`
`this amendment. Any other result would elevate form over substance.” 157 Cong.
`
`Rec. S1364 (daily ed. Mar. 8, 2011). Thus, the ‘151 patent is a CBM patent
`
`without regard to formal categories of invention.
`
`9
`
`
`

`

`C. Claims 3, 6, 7, 16, 24, and 33 Are Not a “Technological Invention”
`(37 C.F.R. § 42.301(b) (2012))
`
`Section 18 of the AIA excludes “patents for technological inventions” from
`
`the definition of CBM patents. AIA § 18(d)(2). The authors of the bill anticipated
`
`this exception would be narrow:
`
`The invention must be novel as software. If an invention recites
`software elements, but does not assert that it is novel as software, or
`does not colorably appear to be so, then it is not ineligible for review
`simply because of that software element.
`157 Cong. Rec. S5431 (daily ed. Sept. 8, 2011) (statement of Sen. Kyl) (emphases
`
`added). Here, the claims include only generic hardware, and claim no code,
`
`computer software, or concrete hardware executable only with the involved
`
`method on the claimed specific hardware.
`
`To determine whether a patent is a technological invention, “the following
`
`will be considered on a case-by-case basis: whether the claimed subject matter as a
`
`whole recites a technological feature that is novel and unobvious over the prior art;
`
`and solves a technical problem using a technical solution.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.301
`
`(2012).
`
`The ‘151 patent does not recite a single novel technological feature. For
`
`example, claim 3 recites only three technological features: “one or more
`
`computers,” “a website,” and a “communication link” (or “Internet communication
`
`link”). Ex. 1002, cl. 3. Claim 6 adds only a generic “database.”
`
`10
`
`
`

`

`These claims thus recite a method and related systems for filling a worker
`
`vacancy that requires no specific technological feature.
`
`The ‘151 patent likewise does not solve a technological problem using a
`
`technological solution. Instead, the patent merely makes more efficient a process
`
`that has long been in use using existing, automated telephone technology. See Ex.
`
`1001 col. 3, ll. 35–60.
`
`According to Bancorp, increasing efficiency does not save a claim.
`
`Moreover, the ‘151 patent does not provide a “technical” solution. Instead, any
`
`computer can still implement the patent with Inter- or Intranet access. Furthermore,
`
`the claim plausibly reads on a telephone-fax system, which computes and converts
`
`data via a network communication link. The patent fails to claim any novel
`
`improvements in database, computer, or telephone technology. Rather, the solution
`
`simply reorganizes the abstract method of organizing the flow of data to fill worker
`
`vacancies.
`
`The legislative history of AIA § 18 shows the ‘151 patent is not a
`
`technological invention. Congress found that the “technological invention”
`
`exception does not “exclude patents that use known technology to accomplish a
`
`business process or method of conducting business—whether or not that process or
`
`method appears to be novel.” 157 Cong. Rec. S1364 (daily ed. Mar. 8, 2011)
`
`(statement of Sen. Schumer). The ‘151 patent describes nothing more than the
`
`11
`
`
`

`

`generic business process of filling worker vacancies using widely known
`
`technology. Reciting known technology like “software, memory, computer-
`
`readable storage medium, [or