Petition for Covered Business Method Patent Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 6,834,282
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`VOLUSION, INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`VERSATA SOFTWARE, INC. AND
`VERSATA DEVELOPMENT GROUP, INC.
`Patent Owner
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,834,282
`Issue date: December 21, 2004
`Title: LOGICAL AND CONSTRAINT BASED BROWSE HIERARCHY
`WITH PROPAGATION FEATURES
`
`Covered Business Method Patent Review No. Unassigned
`
`PETITION FOR POST-GRANT REVIEW UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 321
`AND §18 OF THE LEAHY-SMITH AMERICA INVENTS ACT
`
`

`

`Petition for Covered Business Method Patent Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 6,834,282
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................................................................................... iii
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS................................................................................................ vi
`
`I.
`
`FILING DATE REQUIREMENTS ................................................................1
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`G.
`
`H.
`
`I.
`
`J.
`
`K.
`
`L.
`
`M.
`
`Real Party in Interest .............................................................................1
`
`Related Matters......................................................................................1
`
`Eligibility Based on Infringement Suit .................................................2
`
`Eligibility Based on Lack of Estoppel ..................................................3
`
`Eligibility Based on Time of Filing ......................................................3
`
`Patent is a Covered Business Method Patent ........................................3
`
`Specific Identification of Challenges....................................................3
`
`A Legible Copy of Every Exhibit in the Exhibit List ...........................4
`
`The Complete Covered Business Method Patent Petition Fee .............4
`
`Mandatory Notice – Lead and Back-Up Counsel .................................4
`
`Power of Attorney .................................................................................4
`
`Mandatory Notice – Service Information .............................................5
`
`Certificate of Service on Patent Owner.................................................5
`
`II.
`
`PRELIMINARY STATEMENT .....................................................................5
`
`III. GROUNDS FOR STANDING........................................................................6
`
`A.
`
`At Least One Challenged Claim is Unpatentable. ................................6
`
`i
`
`

`

`Petition for Covered Business Method Patent Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 6,834,282
`
`B.
`
`Claims 1 through 23 of the ’282 Patent are Directed to a
`Covered Business Method Patent..........................................................7
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`The ’282 Patent Claims Methods Used in the Practice,
`Administration, or Management of Financial Products or
`Services. ......................................................................................8
`
`Claims 1-23 are Not Directed to a “Technological
`Invention”..................................................................................11
`
`IV.
`
`STATEMENT OF PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED FOR EACH
`CLAIM CHALLENGED. .............................................................................17
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Claims for Which Review is Requested..............................................17
`
`Statutory Grounds of Challenge..........................................................17
`
`Claim Construction..............................................................................19
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Overview of the Claims ............................................................19
`
`Broadest Reasonable Interpretation..........................................20
`
`V.
`
`CLAIMS 1-23 OF THE ’282 PATENT ARE UNPATENTABLE
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 101...............................................................................21
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`The ’282 Patent is Unpatentably Abstract. .........................................22
`
`The ’282 Patent Does Not Satisfy the Machine-or-
`Transformation Test. ...........................................................................26
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`The claims of the ’282 patent are not tied to any
`particular machine.....................................................................27
`
`The claims of the ’282 patent do not transform any
`article.........................................................................................29
`
`VI. CONCLUSION..............................................................................................31
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Petition for Covered Business Method Patent Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 6,834,282
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`Accenture Global Servs., GmbH v. Guidewire Software, Inc.,
`800 F. Supp. 2d 613 (D. Del. 2011) ....................................................... 23, 29
`
`Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada (U.S.),
`687 F.3d 1266 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ........................................................ 25, 26, 30
`
`Bilski v. Kappos,
`130 S. Ct. 3218, 3230 (2010).............................................................. 7, 22, 26
`
`CyberFone Sys., LLC. v. Cellco P’ship,
`885 F. Supp. 2d 710 (D. Del. 2012) ................................................. 23, 28, 30
`
`CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc.,
`654 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ........................................................ 22, 24, 30
`
`Dealertrack, Inc. v. Huber,
`674 F.3d 13153 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ............................................................ 15, 29
`
`Ex Parte Choo,
`No. 2009-004228, 2010 WL 2985362 (B.P.A.I., July 28, 2010)..................30
`
`Ex Parte Gutta,
`No. 2008-3000, 2009 WL 112393 (B.P.A.I., Jan. 15, 2009) ........................31
`
`Ex Parte Langemyr,
`No. 2008-1495, 2008 WL 5206740 (B.P.A.I., May 28, 2008) .....................31
`
`Ex Parte Mahadevan,
`No. 2009-004228, 2010 WL 1064492 (B.P.A.I., March 23, 2010) ..............30
`
`Ex Parte Vogel,
`No. 2010-005339, 2011 WL 6012447 (B.P.A.I., Nov. 21, 2011).................30
`
`Fort Props., Inc. v. Am. Master Lease, LLC,
`671 F.3d 1317, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ...........................................................28
`
`Gottschalk v. Benson,
`409 U.S. 63 (1972).........................................................................................28
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Petition for Covered Business Method Patent Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 6,834,282
`
`In re Bilski,
`545 F.3d 943 (Fed. Cir. 2008) .......................................................... 27, 28, 29
`
`In re Ferguson,
`558 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2009) .....................................................................27
`
`In re Grams,
`888 F.2d 835 (Fed. Cir. 1989) .......................................................................23
`
`In re Lowry,
`32 F.3d 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1994) .......................................................................22
`
`In re Warmerdam,
`33 F.3d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 1994) .......................................................................22
`
`In re Yamamoto,
`740 F.2d 1569 (Fed. Cir. 1984) .....................................................................20
`
`Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc.,
`132 S. Ct. 1289 (2012)...................................................................... 21, 22, 23
`
`Parker v. Flook,
`437 U.S. 584 (1978).......................................................................................21
`
`Other Authorities
`
`35 U.S.C. § 101................................................................................................ passim
`
`35 U.S.C. § 321........................................................................................... 1, 3, 4, 17
`
`35 U.S.C. § 324..........................................................................................................7
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10 .......................................................................................................4
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.15 .......................................................................................................4
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.203 .....................................................................................................4
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.205 .....................................................................................................5
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.300 ...................................................................................... 1, 3, 4, 20
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.301 ...............................................................................................3, 11
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Petition for Covered Business Method Patent Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 6,834,282
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.302 .................................................................................................2, 3
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.303 .....................................................................................................3
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.304 .................................................................................................3, 4
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.6 .........................................................................................................5
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.63 .......................................................................................................4
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8 .....................................................................................................4, 5
`
`77 Fed. Reg. 48612 ....................................................................................................1
`
`77 Fed. Reg. 48680 ....................................................................................................1
`
`77 Fed. Reg. 48734 ....................................................................................................1
`
`Leahy-Smith America Invents Act,
`Pub. L. No. 112-29, §18, 125 Stat. 284 (2011) .............................. 1, 7, 11, 17
`
`v
`
`

`

`Petition for Covered Business Method Patent Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 6,834,282
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`Volusion Exhibit 1001: U.S. Patent No. 6,834,282
`
`Volusion Exhibit 1002:
`
`Transitional Programs for Covered Business Method
`Patents – Definitions of Covered Business Method
`Patent and Technological Invention, 77 Fed. Reg. 157
`(August 14, 2012)
`
`Volusion Exhibit 1003: United States Patent and Trademark Office –
`Classification Definitions, Class 705
`
`Volusion Exhibit 1004: A Guide to the Legislative History of the America
`Invents Act; Part II of II, 21 Fed. Cir. Bar. J. No. 4
`
`Volusion Exhibit 1005: Complaint for Patent Infringement, Versata Software,
`Inc., et al. v. Volusion, Inc., Civil Action No. 1:12-cv-
`893-SS (W.D. Tex.), filed September 25, 2012
`
`Volusion Exhibit 1006: Changes to Implement Inter Partes Review Proceedings,
`Post-Grant Review Proceedings, and Transitional
`Program for Covered Business Method Patents, 77 Fed.
`Reg. 157 (August 14, 2012)
`
`Volusion Exhibit 1007: Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 157
`(August 14, 2012)
`
`Volusion Exhibit 1008: Order Instituting Certain Business Method Patent
`Review, SAP America, Inc. v. Versata Development
`Grp., Inc., CBM2012-00001, Paper No. 36
`
`Volusion Exhibit 1009: Order Instituting Certain Business Method Patent
`Review, Interthinx, Inc. v. Corelogic Solutions, Inc.,
`CBM2012-000007, Paper No. 15
`
`Volusion Exhibit 1010: USPTO Docket No. PTO-P-2011-0087, Final Rule,
`Definitions of Covered Business Method Patent and
`Technological Invention
`
`vi
`
`

`

`Petition for Covered Business Method Patent Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 6,834,282
`
`Volusion Exhibit 1011:
`
`Prosecution History for U.S. Patent No. 6,834,282
`
`Volusion Exhibit 1012:
`
`Power of Attorney
`
`Volusion Exhibit 1013: Certificate of Service
`
`vii
`
`

`

`Petition for Covered Business Method Patent Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 6,834,282
`
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 321 and § 18 of the Leahy-Smith America Invents
`
`Act (“AIA”) and pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.300 et seq., the undersigned hereby
`
`requests post-grant review of claims 1-23 of U.S. Patent No. 6,834,282 (“the ’282
`
`patent,” attached as Ex. 1001), which issued to Scott Bonneau, Michael
`
`Nonemacher, and Jeremy Weinrib on December 21, 2004.
`
`I.
`
`FILING DATE REQUIREMENTS
`
`Petitioner sets forth below the filing date requirements for its Covered
`
`Business Method Patent Review Petition as required by 77 Fed. Reg. 48612, 77
`
`Fed. Reg. 48680, and 77 Fed. Reg. 48734.
`
`A.
`
`Real Party in Interest
`
`The real party-in-interest for this Petition is Volusion, Inc. (“Petitioner”),
`
`1835-A Kramer Lane, Suite 100 Austin, TX 78758.
`
`B.
`
`Related Matters
`
`Petitioner has not been a party to any other post-grant review of the
`
`challenged claims. Petitioner notes that the following current proceedings may
`
`affect or be affected by a decision in this proceeding:
`
`In the United States Patent and Trademark Office: Petitioner has filed a
`
`Petition for Covered Business Method Patent Review for U.S. Patent No.
`
`7,426,481, which is also owned by Patent Owner and asserted against Petitioner in
`
`1
`
`

`

`Petition for Covered Business Method Patent Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 6,834,282
`
`Versata Software, Inc. et al. v. Volusion, Inc., Civil Action No. 1:12-cv-00893-SS
`
`(W.D. Tex.) (Ex. 1005).
`
`Petitioner notes that U.S. Patent No. 6,834,282 is involved in the following
`
`current proceedings that may affect or be affected by a decision in this proceeding:
`
`In the Western District of Texas: Versata Software, Inc. et al. v. Volusion,
`
`Inc., Civil Action No. 1:12-cv-00893-SS (Ex. 1005).
`
`In the District of Delaware: Versata Software, Inc. et al. v. Cloud9 Analytics,
`
`Inc., Civil Action No. 1:12-cv-00925-LPS (D. Del. July 19, 2012); Versata
`
`Software, Inc. et al. v. Nehanet Corporation, Civil Action No. 1:12-cv-00926-LPS
`
`(D. Del. July 19, 2012); Versata Software, Inc. et al. v. NetBrain Technologies,
`
`Inc., Civil Action No. 1:13-cv-00676-UNA (D. Del. Apr. 16, 2013); and Versata
`
`Software, Inc. et al. v. Infoblox, Inc., Civil Action No. 1:13-cv-00678-UNA (D.
`
`Del. Apr. 16, 2013).
`
`In the District of New Jersey: Versata Software, Inc. et al. v. Planisware
`
`USA, Inc., Civil Action No. 1:13-cv-00302-JBS-AMD (D. N.J. Jan. 15, 2013).
`
`C.
`
`Eligibility Based on Infringement Suit
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.302(a), Petitioner is eligible to file this petition
`
`because Versata Development Group, Inc. and Versata Software, Inc. (together,
`
`“Patent Owner”) asserted U.S. Patent No. 6,834,282, among others, against
`
`2
`
`

`

`Petition for Covered Business Method Patent Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 6,834,282
`
`Petitioner in a litigation styled Versata Software, Inc. et al. v. Volusion, Inc., Civil
`
`Action No. 1:12-cv-00893-SS (W.D. Tex. Sept. 25, 2012) (Ex. 1005).
`
`D.
`
`Eligibility Based on Lack of Estoppel
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.302(b), Petitioner certifies that estoppel does not
`
`prohibit review on the grounds identified in the petition.
`
`E.
`
`Eligibility Based on Time of Filing
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.303 and 35 U.S.C. § 321(c), this Petition is not
`
`filed in a period during which a petition for a post-grant review of the patent would
`
`satisfy the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 321(c).
`
`F.
`
`Patent is a Covered Business Method Patent
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.301 and 42.304(a), the ’282 patent meets the
`
`definition of a covered business method (“CBM”) patent and does not qualify as a
`
`patent for a technological invention as explained in Section III.B.
`
`G.
`
`Specific Identification of Challenges
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.304(b)(1)-(2), (4)-(5) and 35 U.S.C. § 321(b),
`
`Petitioner identifies the challenged claims, the grounds on which the challenge to
`
`the claims are based, and the evidence that supports the grounds in Sections IV.A
`
`and IV.B. Consistent with 37 C.F.R. § 42.300(b) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.304(b)(3),
`
`Petitioner includes the appropriate construction for the challenged claims in
`
`Section IV.C.2.
`
`3
`
`

`

`Petition for Covered Business Method Patent Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 6,834,282
`
`H.
`
`A Legible Copy of Every Exhibit in the Exhibit List
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.63, a copy of every piece of evidence relied upon
`
`or referred to is provided as an Exhibit (Volusion Exhibits 1001-1013), prepared
`
`according to the requirements of 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.63(c) and 42.63(d). Because all
`
`exhibits are written in English, no translations are required. Pursuant to 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.63(e), an Exhibit List including a brief description of each exhibit is filed
`
`herewith.
`
`I.
`
`The Complete Covered Business Method Patent Petition
`Fee
`
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 321(a) and 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.300(a), 42.304,
`
`42.203(a), 42.8(a)(1), 42.8(b)(4), and 42.15(b), Volusion is submitting a fee of
`
`$34,400.00. To the extent that any additional fees are required to complete this
`
`Petition, the Patent Office is hereby authorized by the undersigned to charge
`
`Deposit Account No. 160605.
`
`J.
`
`Mandatory Notice – Lead and Back-Up Counsel
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.304(a)(1), and 42.8(b)(3), Volusion states that
`
`the lead counsel is Keith E. Broyles (Reg. No. 42,365), and the back-up counsel
`
`are Jason P. Cooper (Reg. No. 38,114) and David S. Frist (Reg. No. 60,511), all of
`
`Alston & Bird LLP.
`
`K.
`
`Power of Attorney
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b), a power of attorney (Ex. 1012) is attached.
`4
`
`

`

`Petition for Covered Business Method Patent Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 6,834,282
`
`L.
`
`Mandatory Notice – Service Information
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.304, 42.8(a)(1), and 42.8(b)(4), service
`
`information is provided as follows: Keith E. Broyles (Alston & Bird LLP, One
`
`Atlantic Center, 1201 West Peachtree Street, Atlanta, Georgia 30309-3424;
`
`Telephone: 404-881-7000; Fax: 404-253-8895; keith.broyles@alston.com).
`
`M.
`
`Certificate of Service on Patent Owner
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.205(a), Petitioner attaches a Certificate of
`
`Service (Ex. 1013) certifying that a copy of the petition and supporting evidence is
`
`being served in its entirety on the patent owner at the correspondence address of
`
`record for the subject patent, and indicating, pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e)(4)(iii),
`
`the date and manner of service and the name and address of every person served.
`
`II.
`
`PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
`
`Versata Software, Inc. and Versata Development Group, Inc. sued Volusion,
`
`Inc. in the Western District of Texas on September 25, 2012, alleging that
`
`Volusion’s e-commerce software infringes the claims of the ’282 patent, among
`
`others.
`
`The ’282 patent relates to the use of rules-based browsing hierarchies for
`
`online catalogs and websites. The patent specification provides that “[t]he
`
`invention is a hierarchy for representing a plurality of catalog items stored in a
`
`catalog database” (Ex. 1001, Col. 3:44-45). The patent specification admits that
`
`5
`
`

`

`Petition for Covered Business Method Patent Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 6,834,282
`
`the use of hierarchies to organize and browse catalog items in a database was not
`
`new at the time of filing, explaining that online sellers often organized their catalog
`
`data in hierarchies to facilitate customer browsing. The purported invention of the
`
`’282 patent was to provide a more flexible and expressive hierarchy, allowing the
`
`seller to organize its products in an arbitrary manner.
`
`The claims of the ’282 patent are unpatentable because they claim nothing
`
`more than abstract ideas –hierarchies and methods of displaying them– without
`
`adding anything more than routine, conventional features. By its own admission,
`
`the alleged invention of the ’282 patent may be implemented using any
`
`conventional computer environment and is not limited to the use of any particular
`
`type of hardware. In fact, most of the claims fail to recite any hardware while
`
`others recite general purpose computer components for basic computer functions,
`
`like storing to a database and displaying results. These bare recitations are
`
`insufficient to transform the unpatentable abstract ideas into patentable subject
`
`matter.
`
`III. GROUNDS FOR STANDING
`
`A.
`
`At Least One Challenged Claim is Unpatentable.
`
`As further detailed below, claims 1-23 of the ’282 patent are invalid under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 101. Thus, for the reasons set forth below, it is “more likely than not
`
`6
`
`

`

`Petition for Covered Business Method Patent Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 6,834,282
`
`that at least one of the claims [of the ’282 patent] is unpatentable,” as required by
`
`35 U.S.C. § 324(a).
`
`B.
`
`Claims 1 through 23 of the ’282 Patent are Directed to a
`Covered Business Method Patent.
`
`Section 18 of the AIA was designed to address patents like the ’282 patent.
`
`Following the Supreme Court’s decision in Bilski v. Kappos and to address the
`
`many patents that issued during the late 1990s and early 2000s that were directed
`
`to ideas that are too abstract to be patentable, Congress enacted Section 18 of the
`
`AIA which provides for covered business method patent review. Under Section
`
`18,
`
`the term ‘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 18(d)(1). To institute a covered business method (“CBM”) post-grant
`
`review, a patent need only have one claim directed to a CBM, and not a
`
`technological invention, even if the patent includes additional claims directed to
`
`technological inventions (see Ex. 1002, p. 48736). However, as discussed below,
`
`all of the claims of the ’282 patent are directed to methods for organizing product
`
`related data to facilitate browsing of electronic catalogs, relate to management of e-
`
`commerce, and do not claim a technological invention. Thus, the ’282 patent is a
`
`CBM patent subject to Section 18 review.
`7
`
`

`

`Petition for Covered Business Method Patent Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 6,834,282
`
`1. The ’282 Patent Claims Methods Used in the Practice,
`Administration, or Management of Financial Products
`or Services.
`
`The ’282 patent falls squarely within Section 18’s “financial products or
`
`services” requirement because it claims hierarchies for organizing products for use
`
`in e-commerce. Although the statute does not require “the literal recitation of the
`
`terms financial products or services” (Ex. 1008, p. 23), the ’282 patent explicitly
`
`states that “[m]any embodiments of the present invention have application to a
`
`wide range of industries including the following: computer hardware and software
`
`manufacturing and sales, professional services, financial services, automotive sales
`
`and manufacturing, telecommunications sales and manufacturing, medical and
`
`pharmaceutical sales and manufacturing, and construction industries” (Ex. 1001,
`
`Col. 10:37-43 (emphasis added)).
`
`The “financial product or service” requirement should be “interpreted
`
`broadly,” to encompass patents “claiming activities that are financial in nature,
`
`incidental to a financial activity or complementary to a financial activity” (Ex.
`
`1002, p. 48735; Ex. 1008, p. 21-22). Thus, the requirement is not limited to
`
`products and services in the financial services industry (Ex. 1002, p. 48736).
`
`Rather, “[t]he term financial is an adjective that simply means relating to monetary
`
`matters” (Ex. 1008, p. 23). The remainder of the statutory language describing
`
`this particular requirement is similarly broad (see Ex. 1004, p. 635-36 (the
`
`8
`
`

`

`Petition for Covered Business Method Patent Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 6,834,282
`
`language “practice, administration, or management” is “intended to cover any
`
`ancillary activities related to a financial product or service, including . . .
`
`marketing, customer interfaces [and] management of data . . . .”); id., p. 638.
`
`(“The phrase ‘method or corresponding apparatus’ is intended to encompass, but
`
`not be limited to, any type of claim contained in a patent, including, method
`
`claims, system claims, apparatus claims . . . and set of instructions on storage
`
`media claims.”)).
`
`The ’282 patent recites hierarchies for organizing products in an electronic
`
`catalog database (and methods of representing catalog products in a hierarchy) and
`
`is precisely the type of patent contemplated for review under Section 18 (see, e.g.,
`
`Ex. 1001, claims 1-23). The ’282 patent’s specification discusses application of
`
`the invention in the field of e-commerce, particularly “electronic catalogs by which
`
`potential buyers can receive and display information regarding the goods and
`
`services offered by the seller, including descriptive information, pictures and
`
`prices” (Ex. 1001, Col. 1:46-51). The claimed “method and apparatus for
`
`hierarchically representing items in a database provides a highly flexible and
`
`expressive catalog browsing hierarchy by which a buyer can navigate the items in a
`
`seller’s catalog database” (Ex. 1001, Col. 4:44-47; see also id., Col. 10:8-10 (“the
`
`method and apparatus of the present invention makes it far easier on the seller to
`
`publish custom catalogs for its various buyers”)).
`
`9
`
`

`

`Petition for Covered Business Method Patent Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 6,834,282
`
`Indeed the ’282 patent claims subject matter in the very class expressly
`
`identified by Congress and the USPTO as being subject to CBM review, i.e., class
`
`705 (subclass 27, “Presentation of image or description of sales item (e.g.,
`
`electronic catalog browsing))” (Ex. 1003, p. 705-52 (emphasis added)). “[P]atents
`
`subject to covered business method patent review are anticipated to be typically
`
`classifiable in Class 705” (see Ex. 1010, p. 26). The USPTO has reiterated this
`
`expectation (see Ex. 1002, p. 48739 (“patents subject to covered business method
`
`patent review are anticipated to be typically classifiable in Class 705”)).
`
`The ’282 patent is also classified in class 707, subclass 100 entitled DATA
`
`PROCESSING ….” (see Ex. 1001). The ’282 patent has another classification in
`
`class 345, subclass 843 entitled “COMPUTER GRAPHICS PROCESSING …”
`
`(see Ex. 1001). Ironically, the purportedly novel hierarchy of the ’282 patent is
`
`seemingly no different that the USPTO’s own classification system, which has
`
`been used for hundreds of years. The USPTO assigns each patent a unique
`
`identifier at issuance (its patent number), which is similar to the seller assigning a
`
`SKU ID for each product as set forth in the ’282 patent. The USPTO (seller) then
`
`associates each patent (product) in the USPTO classification hierarchy with one or
`
`more classes (e.g., 705), and then one or more subclasses (e.g., 27) within each
`
`class. The USPTO classification hierarchy then makes it easier for searchers
`
`(buyers) to find patents related to a certain subject matter by searching within an
`
`10
`
`

`

`Petition for Covered Business Method Patent Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 6,834,282
`
`appropriate class/subclass. However, the same patent could alternatively be
`
`located by searching in another class/subclass. Indeed, the entire USPTO
`
`classification database could be drawn out with pencil and paper just like Figure 3
`
`in the ’282 patent.
`
`2. Claims 1-23 are Not Directed to a “Technological
`Invention”
`
`The claims of the ’282 patent also meet Section 18’s threshold requirement
`
`that a CBM patent must have at least one claim that is not directed to a
`
`“technological invention.” See AIA § 18(d)(2). To qualify as a technological
`
`invention, a patent must have a novel, unobvious technological feature and a
`
`technical problem solved by a technical solution. 37 C.F.R. § 42.301.
`
`The legislative history of Section 18 indicates that the regulations for this
`
`determination should exclude only “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” (see Ex. 1002, p.
`
`48735 (citing legislative history)).
`
`Accordingly, the USPTO has provided guidance regarding claim language
`
`that would not typically render a patent a technological invention under 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.301(b):
`
`11
`
`

`

`Petition for Covered Business Method Patent Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 6,834,282
`
`(a) Mere recitation of known technologies, such as computer
`hardware, communication or computer networks, software,
`memory, computer readable storage medium, scanners, display
`devices or databases, or specialized machines, such as an ATM or
`point of sale device.
`
`(b)Reciting the use of known prior art technology to accomplish a
`process or method, even if that process or method is novel and
`non-obvious.
`
`(c) Combining prior art structures to achieve a normal, expected, or
`predictable result of that combination.
`
`(Ex. 1007, p. 48763-64.)
`
`Recently, the PTAB held that another, similar Versata patent was not
`
`directed to a technological invention (see Ex. 1008, p. 28). The patent at issue
`
`there managed information related to customers and products by grouping it in
`
`hierarchical arrangements (see Ex. 1008, pp. 3-5). Because that patent, like the
`
`’282 patent, “state[d] that its invention may be implemented in any type of
`
`computer system or programming or processing environment,” the PTAB held that
`
`at least one claim of that patent lacks a novel and unobvious technological feature
`
`(see Ex. 1008, pp. 27-29). Moreover, the PTAB held that “organizing data into
`
`hierarchies, however, is not a technical solution, as this is akin to creating
`
`organizational management charts” (Ex. 1008, p. 28).
`
`The same reasoning from this prior review of a similar Versata patent
`
`applies to claims 1-23 of the ’282 patent and thus, CBM review is appropriate here.
`
`“The invention [of the ’282 patent] is a hierarchy for representing a plurality of
`
`12
`
`

`

`Petition for Covered Business Method Patent Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 6,834,282
`
`items stored in a catalog database” (Ex. 1001, Col. 3:44-45). The ’282 patent is
`
`thus nothing more than the use of known technologies – general purpose
`
`computers and the use of hierarchies to organize product data – to accomplish a
`
`purportedly novel process of arranging data to facilitate electronic catalog
`
`browsing. The inventors did not claim to have invented the use of hierarchies to
`
`organize products in databases, as the specification notes that the prior art teaches
`
`the use of hierarchies for organizing product data for electronic catalogs (see Ex.
`
`1001, Col. 2:16-18 (“one way sellers have been known to hierarchically organize
`
`their catalog data for browsing is in accordance with a ‘classification-category-
`
`vendor’ hierarchy”)). Rather, the inventors stated that the alleged invention of the
`
`’282 patent was “a more flexible and expressive browse hierarchy that permits the
`
`seller the freedom to organize the browsing history in an arbitrary manner” (Ex.
`
`1001, Col. 3:29-32).
`
`Even if this claimed arrangement of data were novel (which it is not), that
`
`novelty would not be enough to qualify it as a technological invention within the
`
`meaning of Section 18 (see, e.g., Ex. 1004, p. 634 (Congress explained that
`
`accomplishing a business process or method is not technological, regardless of
`
`whether that process or method is novel)). In fact, although claims 1-20 of the
`
`’282 patent recite “[a] hierarchy for representing a plurality of items stored in a
`
`database,” and “method[s] of representing a plurality of items in a database
`
`13
`
`

`

`Petition for Covered Business Method Patent Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 6,834,282
`
`hierarchically,” nothing in these claims requires the use of a computer (Ex. 1001,
`
`Cols. 10:47-48; 11:26-27). For example, claim 1 can be practiced by a human
`
`being with a pen and paper, i.e., a person could manually draw the claimed
`
`hierarchy for representing items stored in a database on paper. In fact, Figure 3 of
`
`the ’282 patent contains just such a drawing:
`
`(Ex. 1001, Fig. 3.)
`
`Moreover, although all of the claims of the ’282 patent recite a “database,”
`
`and claims 21-23 recite a “computer terminal,” Congress has explained that simply
`
`reciting technology like “software, memory, computer-readable storage medium,
`
`[or] databases” does not make a patent a technological invention (Ex. 1004 at p.
`
`635). Here, despite the passing reference to a “database,” claims 1-20 do not even
`
`14
`
`

`

`Petition for Covered Business Method Patent Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 6,834,282
`
`require the use of any hardware (Ex. 1001, Col. 10:47 – 12:56). The preamble of
`
`these claims includes the term “database,” but the database is only referenced as
`
`containing information that will be represented hierarchically, not as technology
`
`which must be used to practice the claims (Ex. 1001, Cols. 10:47-48; 11:18-19, 25-
`
`28; 12:11-13, 19-22, 53-54).
`
`Further, claims 1-23 do not require, and the inventors did not claim to have
`
`conceived, any novel computer software or hardware. To the contrary, the
`
`specification explicitly states that the