`
`[3510-16-P]
`
`
`
`
`
`DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`
`Patent and Trademark Office
`
`37 CFR Part 42
`
`
`
`[Docket No. PTO-P-2011-0087]
`
`
`
`RIN 0651-AC75
`
`
`
`Transitional Program for Covered Business Method Patents - Definitions of
`
`Covered Business Method Patent and Technological Invention
`
`
`
`AGENCY: United States Patent and Trademark Office, Commerce.
`
`
`
`ACTION: Final rule.
`
`
`
`SUMMARY: The United States Patent and Trademark Office (Office or USPTO) is
`
`revising the rules of practice to implement the provision of the Leahy-Smith America
`
`Invents Act (“AIA”) that requires the Office to issue regulations for determining whether
`
`a patent is for a technological invention in a transitional post-grant review proceeding for
`
`covered business method patents. The provision of the AIA will take effect on
`
`September 16, 2012, one year after the date of enactment. The AIA provides that this
`1
`
`
`
`VOLUSION EXHIBIT 1010
`
`
`
`
`
`provision and any regulations issued under the provision will be repealed on September
`
`16, 2020, with respect to any new petitions under the transitional program.
`
`
`
`DATES: Effective Date: The changes in this final rule take effect on September 16,
`
`2012.
`
`
`
`Applicability Date: The changes in this final rule apply to any covered business method
`
`patent issued before, on, or after September 16, 2012.
`
`
`
`FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sally C. Medley, Administrative
`
`Patent Judge; Michael P. Tierney, Lead Administrative Patent Judge; Robert A. Clarke,
`
`Administrative Patent Judge; and Joni Y. Chang, Administrative Patent Judge; Board of
`
`Patent Appeals and Interferences, by telephone at (571) 272-9797.
`
`
`
`SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
`
`Executive Summary: Purpose: On September 16, 2011, the AIA was enacted into law
`
`(Pub. L. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284 (2011)). The purpose of the AIA and this final rule is to
`
`establish a more efficient and streamlined patent system that will improve patent quality
`
`and limit unnecessary and counterproductive litigation costs. The preamble of this notice
`
`sets forth in detail the definitions of the terms “covered business method patent” and
`
`“technological invention” that the Board will use in conducting transitional covered
`
`business method patent review proceedings. The USPTO is engaged in a transparent
`
`process to create a timely, cost-effective alternative to litigation. Moreover, this
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`rulemaking process is designed to ensure the integrity of the trial procedures. See
`
`35 U.S.C. 326(b).
`
`
`
`Summary of Major Provisions: This final rule sets forth the definitions of the terms
`
`“covered business method patent” and “technological invention” that the Office will use
`
`in conducting transitional covered business method patent review proceedings.
`
`
`
`Costs and Benefits: This rulemaking is not economically significant, but is significant,
`
`under Executive Order 12866 (Sept. 30, 1993), as amended by Executive Order 13258
`
`(Feb. 26, 2002) and Executive Order 13422 (Jan. 18, 2007).
`
`
`
`Background: To implement sections 6 and 18 of the AIA, the Office published the
`
`following notices of proposed rulemaking: (1) Rules of Practice for Trials before the
`
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board and Judicial Review of Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`
`Decisions, 77 FR 6879 (Feb. 9, 2012), to provide a consolidated set of rules relating to
`
`Board trial practice for inter partes review, post-grant review, derivation proceedings, and
`
`the transitional program for covered business method patents, and judicial review of
`
`Board decisions by adding new parts 42 and 90 including a new subpart A to title 37 of
`
`the Code of Federal Regulations (RIN 0651-AC70); (2) Changes to Implement Inter
`
`Partes Review Proceedings, 77 FR 7041 (Feb. 10, 2012), to provide rules specific to inter
`
`partes review by adding a new subpart B to 37 CFR part 42 (RIN 0651-AC71);
`
`(3) Changes to Implement Post-Grant Review Proceedings, 77 FR 7060 (Feb. 10, 2012),
`
`to provide rules specific to post-grant review by adding a new subpart C to 37 CFR part
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`42 (RIN 0651-AC72); (4) Changes to Implement Transitional Program for Covered
`
`Business Method Patents, 77 FR 7080 (Feb. 10, 2012), to provide rules specific to the
`
`transitional program for covered business method patents by adding a new subpart D to
`
`37 CFR part 42 (RIN 0651-AC73); (5) Transitional Program for Covered Business
`
`Method Patents—Definition of Technological Invention, 77 FR 7095 (Feb. 10, 2012), to
`
`add a new rule that sets forth the definition of technological invention for determining
`
`whether a patent is for a technological invention for purposes of the transitional program
`
`for covered business method patents (RIN 0651-AC75); and (6) Changes to Implement
`
`Derivation Proceedings, 77 FR 7028 (Feb. 10, 2012), to provide rules specific to
`
`derivation proceedings by adding a new subpart E to 37 CFR part 42 (RIN 0651-AC74).
`
`
`
`Additionally, the Office published a Patent Trial Practice Guide for the proposed rules in
`
`the Federal Register to provide the public an opportunity to comment. Practice Guide for
`
`Proposed Trial Rules, 77 FR 6868 (Feb. 9, 2012) (Request for Comments) (hereafter
`
`“Practice Guide” or “Office Patent Trial Practice Guide”). The Office envisions
`
`publishing a revised Patent Trial Practice Guide for the final rules. The Office also
`
`hosted a series of public educational roadshows, across the country, regarding the
`
`proposed rules for the implementation of the AIA.
`
`
`
`In response to the notices of proposed rulemaking and the Practice Guide notice, the
`
`Office received 251 submissions offering written comments from intellectual property
`
`organizations, businesses, law firms, patent practitioners, and others, including a United
`
`Stated senator who was a principal author of section 18 of the AIA. The comments
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`provided support for, opposition to, and diverse recommendations on the proposed rules.
`
`The Office appreciates the thoughtful comments, and has considered and analyzed the
`
`comments thoroughly. The Office’s responses to the comments are provided in the 124
`
`separate responses based on the topics raised in the 251 comments in the Response to
`
`Comments section infra.
`
`
`
`Section 18 of the AIA provides that the Director may institute a transitional proceeding
`
`only for a patent that is a covered business method patent. In particular, section 18(d)(1)
`
`of the AIA specifies that a covered business method patent is 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.
`
`Section 18(d)(2) of the AIA provides that the Director will issue regulations for
`
`determining whether a patent is for a technological invention. Consistent with these
`
`statutory provisions, this rulemaking provides regulations for determining whether a
`
`patent is for a technological invention. The AIA provides that the transitional program
`
`for the review of covered business method patents will take effect on
`
`September 16, 2012, one year after the date of enactment, and applies to any covered
`
`business method patent issued before, on, or after September 16, 2012. Section 18 of the
`
`AIA and the regulations issued under this provision will be repealed on September 16,
`
`2020. Section 18 of the AIA and the regulations issued will continue to apply after
`
`September 16, 2020, to any petition for a transitional proceeding that is filed before
`
`September 16, 2020.
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Pursuant to section 18(d) of the AIA, the Office is prescribing regulations to set forth the
`
`definitions of the terms “covered business method patent” and “technological invention”
`
`in its regulation. In February 2012, the Office published two notices proposing changes
`
`to 37 CFR chapter I to implement sections 18(d)(1) and (d)(2) of the AIA. See Changes
`
`to Implement Transitional Program for Covered Business Method Patents, 77 FR 7080
`
`(Feb. 10, 2012) and Transitional Program for Covered Business Method Patents—
`
`Definition of Technological Invention, 77 FR 7095 (Feb. 10, 2012).
`
`
`
`This final rule revises the rules of practice to implement section 18(d)(1) of the AIA that
`
`provides the definition of the term “covered business method patent” and section 18(d)(2)
`
`of the AIA that provides that the Director will issue regulations for determining whether a
`
`patent is for a technological invention. This final rule sets forth the definitions in new
`
`subpart D of 37 CFR 42, specifically in § 42.301.
`
`
`
`This rulemaking is one of a series of rules that the Office is promulgating directed to the
`
`new trials that were created by the AIA. The Office, in a separate rulemaking, revises the
`
`rules of practice to provide a consolidated set of rules relating to Board trial practice,
`
`adding part 42, including subpart A (RIN 0651-AC70). More specifically, subpart A of
`
`part 42 sets forth the policies, practices, and definitions common to all trial proceedings
`
`before the Board. In another separate rulemaking, the Office revises the rules of practice
`
`to implement the provisions of the AIA for the transitional program for covered business
`
`method patents (RIN 0651-AC71). In particular, that separate final rule adds a new
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`subpart D to 37 CFR part 42 to provide rules specific to transitional post-grant review of
`
`covered business method patents. Further, that separate final rule adds a new subpart B
`
`to 37 CFR part 42 to provide rules specific to inter partes review, and a new subpart C to
`
`37 CFR part 42 to provide rules specific to post-grant review. The notices are available
`
`on the USPTO Internet Web site at www.uspto.gov.
`
`
`
`Discussion of Specific Rules
`
`
`
`Title 37 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Chapter I, Part 42, Subpart D, Section
`
`42.301, entitled “Definitions” is added as follows:
`
`
`
`Section 42.301: Section 42.301 provides definitions specific to covered business method
`
`patent reviews.
`
`Section 42.301(a) adopts the definition for covered business method patents
`
`provided in section 18(d)(1) of the AIA. Specifically, the definition provides that a
`
`covered business method patent means 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.
`
`Section 42.301(b) sets forth the definition for technological invention for covered
`
`business method patent review proceedings. The definition of technological invention
`
`provides that in determining whether a patent is for a technological invention solely for
`
`purposes of the Transitional Program for Covered Business Methods, the following will
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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. The Office recognizes that, in prescribing a
`
`regulation to define technological invention, the Office must consider the efficient
`
`administration of the proceedings by the Office, and its ability to complete them timely,
`
`consistent with 35 U.S.C. 326(b).
`
`The definition is consistent with the legislative history of the AIA. See, e.g., 157
`
`CONG. REC. S1364 (daily ed. Mar. 8, 2011) (statement of Sen. Schumer) (“The ‘patents
`
`for technological inventions’ exception only excludes those patents whose novelty turns
`
`on a technological innovation over the prior art and are concerned with a technical
`
`problem which is solved with a technical solution and which requires the claims to state
`
`the technical features which the inventor desires to protect.”); 157 CONG. REC. H4497
`
`(daily ed. June 23, 2011) (statement of Rep. Smith) (“Patents for technological inventions
`
`are those patents whose novelty turns on a technological innovation over the prior art and
`
`are concerned with a technical problem which is solved with a technical solution.”); 157
`
`CONG. REC. S5428 (daily ed. Sept. 8, 2011) (statement of Sen. Coburn) (“Patents for
`
`technological inventions are those patents whose novelty turns on a technological
`
`innovation over the prior art and are concerned with a technical problem which is solved
`
`with a technical solution.”).
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`Response to Comments
`
`
`
`The Office received about 47 written submissions of comments (from intellectual
`
`property organizations, businesses, law firms, patent practitioners, and others) in response
`
`to the proposed definitions. The Office appreciates the thoughtful comments, and has
`
`considered and analyzed the comments thoroughly. The Office’s responses to the
`
`comments that are germane to the definitions adopted in this final rule are provided
`
`below:
`
`
`
`Section 42.301(a)
`
`Comment 1: Several comments suggested that the Office interpret “financial product or
`
`service” broadly.
`
`
`
`Response: The definition set forth in § 42.301(a) for covered business method patent
`
`adopts the definition for covered business method patent provided in section 18(d)(1) of
`
`the AIA. In administering the program, the Office will consider the legislative intent and
`
`history behind the public law definition and the transitional program itself. For example,
`
`the legislative history explains that the definition of covered business method patent was
`
`drafted to encompass patents “claiming activities that are financial in nature, incidental to
`
`a financial activity or complementary to a financial activity.” 157 CONG. REC. S5432
`
`(daily ed. Sept. 8, 2011) (statement of Sen. Schumer). This remark tends to support the
`
`notion that “financial product or service” should be interpreted broadly.
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`Comment 2: One comment noted that there is no proposed definition of the term
`
`“financial product or service” and suggested amending the proposed rule for covered
`
`business method patent to include two factors to consider on a case-by-case basis:
`
`(1) whether the claimed subject matter is directed to an agreement between two parties
`
`stipulating the movement of money or other consideration now or in the future; and
`
`(2) whether the claimed subject matter is particular to the characteristics of financial
`
`institutions. Still other comments supported the Office’s definition of a covered business
`
`method patent as is.
`
`
`
`Response: The definition suggested by the comment for “financial product or service” is
`
`not adopted. That suggestion would appear to limit the scope of the definition of covered
`
`business method patents provided in section 18(d)(1) of the AIA, particularly the second
`
`prong of the proposed definition. In addition, the Office has considered the comment
`
`seeking to change the definition of a covered business method patent against the
`
`comments in support of the definition set forth in the proposed § 42.301(a) and in section
`
`18(d)(1) of the AIA. Upon consideration of the diverging comments, and the definition
`
`provided in the public law, the Office adopts proposed § 42.301(a), in this final rule,
`
`without any alterations.
`
`
`
`Comment 3: One comment suggested that the Office should clarify that the term
`
`“financial product or service” should be limited to the products or services of the
`
`financial services industry. Still another comment stated that the term “financial product
`
`or service” is not limited to the products of the financial services industry.
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Response: The suggestion to clarify that the term “financial product or service” is limited
`
`to the products or services of the financial services industry is not adopted. Such a
`
`narrow construction of the term would limit the scope of the definition of covered
`
`business method patents beyond the intent of section 18(d)(1) of the AIA. For example,
`
`the legislative history reveals that “[t]he plain meaning of ‘financial product or service’
`
`demonstrates that section 18 is not limited to the financial services industry.” 157 CONG.
`
`REC. S5432 (daily ed. Sept. 8, 2011) (statement of Sen. Schumer). This remark tends to
`
`support the notion that “financial product or service” is not limited to the products or
`
`services of the financial services industry.
`
`
`
`Comment 4: One comment suggested that the Office revise proposed § 42.301(a) to
`
`clarify that the determination of a “covered business method patent” would not be
`
`satisfied by merely reciting an operating environment related to data processing or
`
`management of a financial product or service, but that eligibility should be determined by
`
`what the patent claims.
`
`
`
`Response: This suggestion is not adopted. The definition set forth in § 42.301(a) adopts
`
`the definition for a covered business method patent provided in section 18(d)(1) of the
`
`AIA. Specifically, the statutory language states that a covered business method patent is
`
`“a patent that claims a method or corresponding apparatus for performing data
`
`processing . . . , except that the term does not include patents for technological
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`inventions.” (Emphasis added.) Consistent with the AIA, the definition set forth in
`
`§ 42.301(a), as adopted in this final rule, is based on what the patent claims.
`
`
`
`
`
`Comment 5: One comment suggested that the proposed definition is based on Class 705
`
`of the United States Classification System and that the definition should be amended to
`
`include a specific reference to Class 705, including systems.
`
`
`
`Response: The definition set forth in § 42.301(a) adopts the definition for covered
`
`business method patents provided in section 18(d)(1) of the AIA. The definition set forth
`
`in § 42.301(a) will not be altered to make reference to Class 705 of the United
`
`Classification System since doing so would be contrary to the definition set out in the
`
`public law. The legislative history reveals that
`
`[o]riginally, class 705 was used as the template for the definition of
`business method patents in section 18. However, after the bill passed the
`Senate, it became clear that some offending business method patents are
`issued in other sections. So the House bill changes the definition only
`slightly so that it does not directly track the class 705 language.
`
`157 CONG. REC. S5410 (daily ed. Sept. 8, 2011) (statement of Sen. Schumer). This
`
`remark tends to support the notion that the definition of a covered business method patent
`
`should not be changed to refer to Class 705 of the United States Classification System.
`
`In addition, the Office received comments in support of the definition set forth in the
`
`proposed rule. Upon considering the AIA and legislative history, as well as those
`
`supporting comments in favor of the definition against the comment to change the
`
`definition, the Office has decided to adopt proposed § 42.301(a) in this final rule, without
`
`altering the proposed definition.
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Section 42.301(b)
`
`Comment 6: One comment asked whether it is the novel and unobvious technological
`
`feature that provides the technical solution to a technical problem or that the novel and
`
`unobvious technological feature does not necessarily need to be the technical solution to
`
`the technical problem.
`
`
`
`Response: The definition in § 42.301(b) includes considering 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. The reference
`
`“and solves a technical problem using a technical solution” is with respect to “the
`
`claimed subject matter as a whole.”
`
`
`
`Comment 7: One comment suggested that the definition is not actually a definition as it
`
`only states two factors to be considered, and that the Office did not have to use legislative
`
`history for the rule because Congress instructed the Office to use its own expertise. Still
`
`another comment suggested that the Office should not have based the definition on the
`
`legislative history.
`
`
`
`Response: Section 18(d)(2) of the AIA provides that “[t]o assist in implementing the
`
`transitional proceeding authorized by this subsection, the Director shall issue regulations
`
`for determining whether a patent is for a technological invention.” Consistent with the
`
`AIA, the definition for technological invention, as adopted in this final rule, sets forth
`13
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`what is to be considered in determining whether a patent is for a technological invention.
`
`The Office disagrees that it should not have looked to the legislative history in
`
`formulating the definition. The Office, in determining the best approach for defining the
`
`term “technological invention,” concluded that the relied upon portion of the legislative
`
`history represented the best policy choice.
`
`
`
`Comment 8: Several comments sought clarification on whether a single claim can make
`
`the patent a covered business method patent or whether it is the subject matter as a whole
`
`that is considered.
`
`
`
`Response: The definition set forth in § 42.301(b) for a covered business method patent
`
`adopts the definition for covered business method patents provided in section 18(d)(1) of
`
`the AIA. Specifically, the language states that a covered business method patent is “a
`
`patent that claims a method or corresponding apparatus for performing data
`
`processing . . . , except that the term does not include patents for technological
`
`inventions.” (Emphasis added.) Consistent with the AIA, the definition, as adopted,
`
`therefore is based on what the patent claims. Determination of whether a patent is a
`
`covered business method patent will be made based on the claims. Similarly,
`
`determination of whether a patent is to a technological invention will be determined
`
`based on the claims of the patent. A patent having one or more claims directed to a
`
`covered business method is a covered business method patent for purposes of the review,
`
`even if the patent includes additional claims.
`
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`
`Comment 9: Several comments suggested that the definition should not be based on
`
`novelty or nonobviousness; some proposed a definition that eliminates “novel and
`
`unobvious.” Other comments fully supported the proposed definition set forth in the
`
`proposed rule.
`
`
`
`Response: Under § 42.301(b), in determining whether a patent is for a technological
`
`invention solely for purposes of the Transitional Program for Covered Business Methods,
`
`the Office will consider whether the claimed subject matter as a whole recites a
`
`technological feature that is novel and unobvious over the prior art. Therefore, the
`
`definition in § 42.301(b) is consistent with the AIA and the legislative history.
`
`Moreover, several comments supported the definition set forth in proposed § 42.301(b).
`
`Upon considering the AIA and the legislative history as well as the supporting comments
`
`in favor of the definition balanced against the comments to change the definition, the
`
`Office adopts the definition in proposed § 42.301(b), in this final rule, without alterations.
`
`Therefore, the Office did not adopt a definition that is not based on novelty or
`
`nonobviousness.
`
`
`
`Comment 10: Several comments proposed using the standards of patent subject matter
`
`eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101 to define whether a patent is for a technological invention.
`
`Still other comments opposed using a 35 U.S.C. 101 standard. Moreover, several
`
`comments fully supported the definition in proposed § 42.301(b).
`
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`Response: The definition in proposed § 42.301(b) is consistent with the AIA and the
`
`legislative history as discussed above. The suggestions to change the definition using the
`
`standards of patent subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101 will not be adopted.
`
`Several comments supported the definition set forth in proposed § 42.301(b) while other
`
`comments opposed changing the definition based on the standards of patent subject
`
`matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101. Upon considering the AIA and the legislative
`
`history as well as the comments in favor of the definition balanced against the comments
`
`to change the definition, the Office decided to adopt proposed § 42.301(b), in this final
`
`rule.
`
`
`
`Comment 11: Several comments suggested applying the definition to limit reviews under
`
`the program while others suggested applying the definition not to limit reviews under the
`
`program.
`
`
`
`Response: The Office will consider whether a patent is for a technological invention on a
`
`case-by-case basis and will take into consideration the facts of a particular case.
`
`Therefore, the Office did not adopt the suggestions to apply a definition to limit, or not to
`
`limit, reviews without considering the factors as applied to all of the reviews.
`
`
`
`Comment 12: Several comments stated that the definition in proposed § 42.301(b) is
`
`confusing, circular, and ambiguous. Other comments fully supported the definition set
`
`forth in the proposed rule.
`
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`
`Response: The definition adopted in § 42.301(b) is based upon the legislative history of
`
`the AIA. The Office believes that the definition provides appropriate guidance to the
`
`public, taken in light of the legislative history, as well as the Supreme Court case law on
`
`patent eligible subject matter and the Office’s existing guidelines. See, e.g., Interim
`
`Guidance for Determining Subject Matter Eligibility for Process Claims in View of Bilski
`
`v. Kappos, 75 FR 43922 (Jul. 27, 2010). The Office will consider whether a patent is for
`
`a technological invention on a case-by-case basis and will take into consideration the
`
`facts of a particular case. As applied to a particular case, only one result will occur.
`
`Moreover, additional guidance will be provided to the public as decisions are rendered
`
`applying the definition as they become available. Many comments fully supported the
`
`definition. Upon considering the AIA and the legislative history as well as the supporting
`
`comments in favor of the definition balanced against the comments to change the
`
`definition, the Office decided to adopt proposed § 42.301(b) in this final rule, and not to
`
`alter the definition as requested.
`
`
`
`
`
`Comment 13: Several comments proposed various different definitions for technological
`
`invention. Other comments fully supported the definition set forth in the proposed rule.
`
`
`
`Response: The Office appreciates and has considered the suggested definitions.
`
`Although the definitions have been considered, the Office is not adopting the definitions
`
`suggested in the comments. Specifically, the Office believes that the definition in
`
`§ 42.301(b) is consistent with the legislative history of the AIA and more narrowly tailors
`
`the reviews that are instituted in view of that history. Moreover, several comments
`17
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`supported the definition set forth in the proposed rule. Upon considering the comments
`
`in favor of the definition balanced against those comments to change the definition, the
`
`Office has decided to adopt proposed § 42.301(b), in this final rule, and not alter the
`
`definition as requested.
`
`
`
`Comment 14: One comment supported the definition set forth in proposed § 42.301(b),
`
`but encouraged the Office to include in the preamble of the final rule notice a reference to
`
`remarks made by Senator Durbin from the legislative history. One other comment
`
`suggested that the remarks of Senators Schumer and Coburn and Representative Smith
`
`should not be given controlling weight and in any event their remarks should be balanced
`
`against the remarks of others, including Senator Durbin. Both comments refer to the
`
`remarks made by Senator Durbin on September 8, 2011. 157 CONG. REC. S5433 (daily
`
`ed. Sept. 8, 2011).
`
`
`
`Response: The Office appreciates the comments. However, the specific remarks of
`
`Senator Durbin to which the Office is directed will not be included in the preamble as
`
`suggested. In the testimony to which the Office is directed, Senator Durbin provided
`
`broad examples of the kinds of patents that would not be subject to a transitional covered
`
`business method patent review. Although the comments are instructive, the comments
`
`identify very specific examples that are not necessarily suited for the preamble but are
`
`better addressed when reviewing the merits of a case.
`
`
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`
`
`Comment 15: Several comments suggested that the case-by-case approach is not specific
`
`enough and could create uncertainty. Other comments fully supported the definition set
`
`forth in proposed § 42.301(b).
`
`
`
`Response: The definition in proposed § 42.301(b) was drafted to ensure flexibility in
`
`administering the transitional covered business method review program. In determining
`
`whether a patent is for a technological invention, the particular facts of a case will be
`
`considered. Additionally, more information on how the rule applies to specific factual
`
`situations will be available as decisions are issued. Therefore, the Office adopts proposed
`
`§ 42.301(b) in this final rule without any alteration.
`
`
`
`Office Patent Trial Practice Guide
`
`Comment 16: Several comments suggested that the Office provide additional examples
`
`for what is a covered business method patent and what is a technological invention.
`
`
`
`Response: The Office agrees that more examples would be helpful to the public.
`
`The Office anticipates publishing written decisions as soon as practical, after which more
`
`examples likely will be provided in the Office Patent Trial Practice Guide. The Office
`
`will make cases publicly available to provide more guidance in the future.
`
`
`
`Comment 17: One comment stated that the provided examples in the Practice Guide for
`
`Proposed Trial Rules are inconsistent because a hedging machine and credit card reader
`
`are computers using known technologies.
`
`19
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Response: The Office disagrees that the examples of covered business method patents
`
`that are subject to a covered business method patent review are inconsistent with the
`
`examples of patents that claim a technological invention. The Practice Guide for
`
`Proposed Trial Rules provides examples of covered business method patents that are
`
`subject to a covered business method patent review. One example is a patent that claims
`
`a method for hedging risk in the field of commodities trading. Another example is a
`
`patent that claims a method for verifying validity of a credit card transaction. Still other
`
`examples are given of a patent that claims a technological invention that would not be
`
`subject to a covered business method patent review. One example is a patent that claims
`
`a novel and nonobvious hedging machine for hedging risk in the field of commodities
`
`trading. Another example is a patent that claims a novel and nonobvious credit card
`
`reader for verifying the validity of a credit card transaction. The comment assumes that
`
`in all examples the machine or card reader is a computer using known technologies.
`
`However, no such qualifications were provided in the examples.
`
`
`
`Rulemaking Considerations
`
`The rulemaking considerations for the series of final rules implementing the
`
`administrative patent trials as required by the AIA have been considered together and are
`
`based upon the same assumptions, except where differences between the regulations and
`
`proceedings that they implement require additional or different information. Notably,
`
`this final rule is directed to the covered business method patent provision, and therefore,
`
`does not depend on or discuss the responses or information related to inter partes reviews,
`20
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`post-grant reviews other than covered business method patent reviews, and derivations.
`
`This final rule also provides the alternatives considered for the technological invention
`
`for the purposes of the covered business method patent review, provided in section B(6)
`
`below.
`
`
`
`A. Administrative Procedure Act (APA): This final rule revises the rules
`
`of practice concerning the procedure for requesting a covered business
`
`method patent review. The changes being adopted in this notice do not
`
`