throbber
Covered Business Method Patent Review CBM2013-00021
`United States Patent No. 5,966,440
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`Petitioner: Apple Inc.
`
`Attorney Docket No.:
`
` 104677-5005-803
`Customer No. 28120
`

`Inventor: Hair
`United States Patent No.: 5,966,440 §
`Formerly Application No.: 08/471,964 §
`Issue Date: October 12, 1999

`Filing Date: June 6, 1995

`Former Group Art Unit: 2785

`Former Examiner: Hoa T. Nguyen

`
`For: System and Method for Transmitting Desired Digital Video or Digital Audio
`Signals
`
`MAIL STOP PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`Post Office Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
`
`PETITION FOR COVERED BUSINESS METHOD PATENT REVIEW OF
`UNITED STATES PATENT NO. 5,966,440 PURSUANT TO 35 U.S.C. § 321,
`37 C.F.R. § 42.3041
`
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 321 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.304, the undersigned, on behalf
`
`of and acting in a representative capacity for petitioner, Apple Inc. (“Petitioner” and
`
`the real party in interest), hereby petitions for review under the transitional program
`
`for covered business method patents of claims 1, 64, and 95 of U.S. Patent No.
`
`5,966,440 (“the ’440 Patent”), issued to Arthur R. Hair and currently assigned to
`
`SightSound LLC (“SightSound,” also referred to as “Applicant,” “Patent Owner,” or
`
`“Patentee”). Petitioner hereby asserts that it is more likely than not that at least one
`
`1 As directed by the Board in Paper No. 7, Petitioner hereby resubmits the Petition
`
`and accompanying Exhibits to address formality issues identified therein.
`
`
`
`

`
` Covered Business Method Patent Review – CBM2013-00021
`United States Patent No. 5,966,440
`
`of the challenged claims is unpatentable for the reasons set forth herein and
`
`respectfully requests review of, and judgment against, claims 1, 64, and 95 as
`
`unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and for obviousness-type double patenting.
`
`As discussed in Section I, infra, Petitioner has concurrently filed a Petition
`
`seeking covered business method review of the ‘440 Patent, requesting judgment
`
`against these same claims under §§ 102 and 103. Petitioner has additionally filed
`
`Petitions seeking covered business method reviews of the (related) ’573 Patent
`
`requesting judgment against claims in that patent under §§ 101 and 112 in one
`
`Petition, and under §§ 102 and 103 in a second concurrent Petition. Petitioner notes
`
`that the Director, pursuant to Rule 325(c), may determine at the proper time that
`
`merger or other coordination of these proceedings,
`
`including at minimum
`
`coordination of proceedings
`
`involving
`
`the
`
`same patent,
`
`is appropriate.
`
`ii
`
`

`
` Covered Business Method Patent Review – CBM2013-00021
`United States Patent No. 5,966,440
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`V. 
`
`B. 
`
`INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................... 1 
`I. 
`II.  OVERVIEW OF FIELD OF THE CLAIMED INVENTION ......................... 4 
`III.  PETITIONER HAS STANDING ............................................................................ 8 
`A. 
`The ’440 Patent Is a Covered Business Method Patent ............................... 8 
`B. 
`Related Matters; Petitioner Is a Real Party In Interest Sued for and
`Charged With Infringement ........................................................................... 14 
`IV.  OVERVIEW OF SPECIFIC GROUNDS FOR WHICH IT IS MORE
`LIKELY THAN NOT THAT THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS
`(1, 64, and 95) OF THE ’440 PATENT ARE UNPATENTABLE .................. 15 
`BACKGROUND INFORMATION FOR THE ’440 PATENT ...................... 15 
`A. 
`The ’440 Patent and Its Prosecution History .............................................. 16 
`1. 
`The ’440 Patent Family ....................................................................... 16 
`2. 
`File History of the Parent ’573 Patent .............................................. 17 
`3. 
`File History of the ’440 Patent ........................................................... 20 
`Reexamination History of the ’440 Patent and Related Patents ............... 24 
`1. 
`Reexamination of the Parent ’573 Patent ......................................... 24 
`2. 
`Reexamination of the ’440 Patent...................................................... 27 
`VI.  DETAILED EXPLANATION OF REASONS FOR RELIEF REQUESTED,
`SHOWING IT IS MORE LIKELY THAN NOT THAT AT LEAST ONE
`OF THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS IS UNPATENTABLE ............................ 31 
`A. 
`Claim Construction .......................................................................................... 31 
`B. 
`The Challenged Claims Are Invalid Under § 101 ....................................... 37 
`1. 
`The Challenged Claims Are Directed To An Abstract Idea
`With No Inventive Concept ............................................................... 37 
`The Challenged Claims Are Directed to An Abstract Idea
`that Preempts the Field of Electronic Sale of Digital Music ......... 39 
`The Internet and General Purpose Computer Features in
`the Challenged Claims Do Not Render Them Patentable ............ 44 
`The Challenged Claims Do Not Satisfy the Machine or
`Transformation Test ............................................................................ 49 
`
`2. 
`
`3. 
`
`4. 
`
`iii
`
`

`
` Covered Business Method Patent Review – CBM2013-00021
`United States Patent No. 5,966,440
`
`C.  Obviousness-Type Double Patenting ........................................................... 52 
`1. 
`Obviousness-Type Double Patenting May Be Raised Here .......... 52 
`2. 
`ODP Applies to the Challenged Claims ........................................... 54 
`3. 
`The Challenged Claims Are At Most Obvious Variants of
`Claim 3 of the ’573 Patent and of Claim 3 of the ’734
`Patent ..................................................................................................... 56 
`VII.  CONCLUSION........................................................................................................... 79 
`
`
`iv
`
`

`
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`Exhibit 1201
`
`Exhibit 1202
`
`Exhibit 1203
`
`Exhibit 1204
`
`Exhibit 1205
`
`Exhibit 1206
`
`Exhibit 1207
`
`Exhibit 1208
`
`Exhibit 1209
`
`Exhibit 1210
`
`Exhibit 1211
`
`Exhibit 1212
`
`Exhibit 1213
`
`Exhibit 1214
`
`Exhibit 1215
`
`Exhibit 1216
`
`Exhibit 1217
`
` Covered Business Method Patent Review – CBM2013-00021
`United States Patent No. 5,966,440
`
`
`United States Patent No. 5,966,440
`
`United States Patent No. 5,966,440 File History
`
`Application No. 90/007,407 (’440 Patent Reexamination)
`
`United States Patent No. 5,191,573
`
`United States Patent No. 5,191,573 File History
`
`Application No. 90/007,402 (’573 Patent Reexamination).
`
`United States Patent No. 5,675,734 File History
`
`Application No. 90/007,403 (’734 Patent Reexamination)
`
`United States Patent No. 5,675,734
`
`10/10/1985 CompuSonics Letter from David Schwartz to
`Shareholders
`International Patent Application WO85/02310, filed on Nov.
`14, 1984, and published on May 23, 1985 (“Softnet”)
`United States Patent No. 4,506,387, filed on May 25, 1983,
`issued on Mar. 19, 1985 (“Walter”)
`United States Patent No. 4,124,773, filed on Nov. 26, 1976,
`issued on Nov. 7, 1978 (“Elkins”)
`2/13/13 Order re Claim Construction (D.I. 175), SightSound
`Techs., LLC v. Apple Inc., No. 11-1292 (W.D. Pa.)
`11/19/12 Special Master’s Report and Recommendation on
`Claim Construction (D.I. 142), SightSound Techs., LLC v. Apple
`Inc., No. 11-1292 (W.D. Pa.)
`Excerpt from Benjamin Krepack and Rod Firestone, Start Me
`Up! the music biz meets the personal computer, pages 126-
`127 (Mediac Press May 1986)
`David Needle, “From the News Desk: Audio/digital interface
`for the IBM PC?,” InfoWorld, vol. 6, no. 23, p. 9, June 4,
`1984
`
`v
`
`

`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`Exhibit 1218
`
`Exhibit 1219
`
`Exhibit 1220
`
`Exhibit 1221
`
`Exhibit 1222
`
`Exhibit 1223
`
`Exhibit 1224
`
`Exhibit 1225
`
`Exhibit 1226
`
`Exhibit 1227
`
`Exhibit 1228
`
`Exhibit 1229
`
`Exhibit 1230
`
`Exhibit 1231
`
`Exhibit 1232
`
`Exhibit 1233
`
`Exhibit 1234
`
` Covered Business Method Patent Review – CBM2013-00021
`United States Patent No. 5,966,440
`
`
`Excerpt of Plaintiff SightSound Techs., LLC’s Expert Report
`of Dr. J. Douglas Tygar Regarding Infringement, dated April
`22, 2013
`Deposition Transcript of Arthur Hair, dated Dec. 11, 2012
`
`Deposition Transcript of Scott Sander, dated Dec. 18, 2012
`
`United States Patent No. 4,682,248, filed on Sept. 17, 1985,
`issued on July 21, 1987 (“Schwartz”)
`Excerpt of Expert Report of Mark M. Gleason,
`CPA/ABV/CFF, CVA, CLP, dated April 22, 2013
`Declaration of Dr. John P.J. Kelly, dated Sept. 7, 2012
`
`7/16/84 CompuSonics Letter from David Schwartz to
`Shareholders
`Excerpt from, Larry Israelite, “Home Computing Scenarios
`for Success,” Billboard Magazine Charts the Future (Dec.
`1984)
`Excerpt from Chambers Science and Technology Dictionary (1988)
`
`Excerpt from Webster’s II New Riverside University Dictionary
`(1988)
`Excerpt from, Steve Dupler, “Compusonics, AT&T Link,”
`Billboard Newspaper, vol. 97 no. 40 (Oct. 5, 1985)
`United States Patent No. 4,528, 643, filed on Jan. 10, 1983,
`issued on July 9,1985 (“Freeny”)
`United States Patent No. 4,789,863, filed on Jan. 13, 1988,
`issued on Dec. 6, 1988 (“Bush”)
`“Inside Macintosh,” Volumes I, II, and III, Addison-Wesley
`Publishing Company, Inc. (1985)
`Craig Partridge, “The Technical Development of Internet
`Email,” BBN Technologies
`United States Patent No. 4,667,088 filed on November 1,
`1982, issued on May 19, 1987 (“Kramer et al.”)
`Photo of CompuSonics Equipment
`
`vi
`
`

`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`Exhibit 1235
`
`Exhibit 1236
`
`Exhibit 1237
`
`Exhibit 1238
`
`Exhibit 1239
`
`Exhibit 1240
`
`Exhibit 1241
`
`Exhibit 1242
`
`Exhibit 1243
`
`Exhibit 1244
`
` Covered Business Method Patent Review – CBM2013-00021
`United States Patent No. 5,966,440
`
`
`Hyun Heinz Sohn, “A High Speed Telecommunications
`Interface for Digital Audio Transmission and Reception,”
`presented at the 76th AES Convention, October 8-11, 1984
`Excerpts of Lecture at Stanford by D. Schwartz
`and J. Stautner, 1987 (video)
`Jennifer Sullivan, “The Battle Over Online Music,”
`Wired.com (Jan. 29, 1999), available at
`http://www.wired.com/techbiz/media/news/1999/01/1760
`9
`Excerpt of Plaintiff Sightsound Technologies, LLC’s Expert
`Report of John Snell dated April 22, 2013
`Declaration of Flora D. Elias-Mique In Support of Petition
`for Covered Business Method Patent Review
`Declaration of David Schwartz In Support of Petition for
`Covered Business Method Patent Review
`Declaration of Roberto J. Gonzalez In Support of Petition for
`Covered Business Method Patent Review
`Declaration of Megan F. Raymond In Support of Petition for
`Covered Business Method Patent Review
`Declaration of Ching-Lee Fukuda In Support of Petition for
`Covered Business Method Patent Review
`Declaration of Dr. John P.J. Kelly In Support of Petition for
`Covered Business Method Patent Review
`
`vii
`
`

`
` Covered Business Method Patent Review CBM2013-00021
`United States Patent No. 5,966,440
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`The three challenged claims of the ’440 Patent—all method claims—represent
`
`nothing more than an attempt to patent a well-known and unpatentable abstract idea:
`
`selling digital music electronically in a series of rudimentary steps between a buyer and
`
`seller. Independent Claim 1, for example, requires (A) forming a connection between
`
`the buyer’s device and seller’s device; (B) selling and charging electronically for the
`
`desired digital video or audio signal; (C, D, F) transferring the desired signal from the
`
`seller’s device to the buyer’s device (not a tape or CD); and (E) playing the signal
`
`through speakers:
`
`1. A method for transferring desired digital video or digital audio signals
`comprising the steps of:
`
`[A] forming a connection through telecommunications lines between a
`first memory of a first party and a second memory of a second party
`control unit of a second party, said first memory having said desired
`digital video or digital audio signals;
`
`[B] selling electronically by the first party to the second party through
`telecommunications lines, the desired digital video or digital audio
`signals in the first memory, the second party is at a second party location
`and the step of selling electronically includes the step of charging a fee
`via telecommunications lines by the first party to the second party at a
`first party location remote from the second party location, the second
`party has an account and the step of charging a fee includes the step of
`charging the account of the second party; and
`
`[C] transferring the desired digital video or digital audio signals from the
`
`
`
`

`
` Covered Business Method Patent Review – CBM2013-00021
`United States Patent No. 5,966,440
`
`
`first memory of the first party to the second memory of the second party
`control unit of the second party through telecommunications lines while
`the second party control unit with the second memory is in possession
`and control of the second party;
`
`[D] storing the desired digital video or digital audio signals in a non-
`volatile storage portion the second memory;
`
`[E] and playing through speakers of the second party control unit the
`digital video or digital audio signals stored in the second memory, said
`speakers of the second party control unit connected with the second
`memory of the second party control unit;
`
`[F] wherein the non-volatile storage portion is not a tape or CD.2
`
`Ex. 1201. It is hard to imagine a more basic description of selling music electronically.
`
`Moreover, it is clear that broad control over this abstract principle is precisely what
`
`was intended in these claims: in litigation to enforce this patent, SightSound’s own
`
`expert asserted that “there was no way to purchase digital music for download over
`
`telecommunications lines, including the Internet that would not infringe the Patents-
`
`in-Suit.” Ex. 1222 ¶ 193. This is also precisely the sort of preemption of a basic
`
`concept that is prohibited by 35 U.S.C. § 101—a prohibition that cannot be avoided
`
`by claiming the abstract idea with multiple steps or by claiming performance by a
`
`general purpose computer. E.g., Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 64, 71-72 (1972)
`
`
`2 As discussed below, Claims 64 and 95 are similar.
`
`2
`
`

`
` Covered Business Method Patent Review – CBM2013-00021
`United States Patent No. 5,966,440
`
`(claim for converting binary-coded decimals to binary through seven separate steps
`
`including storing, shifting, and adding was invalid for claiming an unpatentable
`
`abstract idea); DealerTrack, Inc. v. Huber, 674 F.3d 1315, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
`
`
`
`The three challenged claims of the ’440 Patent all recite nothing more than the
`
`abstract idea of selling music electronically, combined at most with conventional,
`
`routine hardware that applicant Arthur Hair (“Applicant”) himself admitted was
`
`already known and available (“a first memory” and “a second memory of a second
`
`party control unit,” “telecommunications lines,” and “speakers”), and this hardware
`
`appears in the claims only to perform rudimentary, extra-solution activities—storing,
`
`transmitting and playing electronic signals. See generally Ex. 1244 ¶¶ 63-77, 79. The
`
`patent never describes, let alone claims, anything special about this storage,
`
`transmission or playing, and these cannot and do not lend patentability to the
`
`unpatentable abstract idea Applicant has claimed. Nor does the “control unit”
`
`mentioned in the claims as associated with the conventional “second” memory: this is
`
`described as a functional feature that can be implemented with a general purpose
`
`computer, and the mere performance of otherwise abstract methods by a general
`
`purpose computer cannot render the claims patentable. Accordingly, each challenged
`
`claim is invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
`
`The claims at issue are also all invalid for a second, independent reason
`
`3
`
`

`
` Covered Business Method Patent Review – CBM2013-00021
`United States Patent No. 5,966,440
`
`addressed in this Petition:3 the challenged claims of the ’440 Patent are all at most
`
`obvious variants of claims found in the ’440 Patent’s two expired predecessor patents,
`
`and are therefore invalid for violating the prohibition on obviousness-type double
`
`patenting drawn by the courts from 35 U.S.C. § 101.4
`
`II. OVERVIEW OF FIELD OF THE CLAIMED INVENTION
`Applicant’s failure in the ’440 Patent to claim anything but an abstract idea,
`
`accompanied by at most routine, well-known, commercially available hardware such
`
`as memory, telephone lines, speakers and a general purpose computer, is underscored
`
`by the repeated appearance of that same idea (with the same generic hardware)
`
`throughout the prior art leading to his so-called invention.5 The idea of selling and
`
`distributing digital audio and video over telephone lines was well known long before
`
`the ’440 Patent’s claimed June 13, 1988 priority date—and, as noted above and
`
`detailed below in Sections III.A and VI.B, the ’440 Patent’s Applicant disclosed no
`
`3 As noted supra, Petitioner is demonstrating in a contemporaneous Petition that these
`
`claims are invalid under §§ 102 and 103. Petitioner is also demonstrating, in pending
`
`litigation, that these claims are invalid for numerous additional reasons.
`
`4 See infra n.30.
`
`5 While Petitioner is separately addressing the anticipation and obviousness of these
`
`claims, Petitioner includes this information here to provide context for its
`
`demonstration that the challenged claims are invalid under § 101.
`
`4
`
`

`
` Covered Business Method Patent Review – CBM2013-00021
`United States Patent No. 5,966,440
`
`new technology for doing so. The commonplace notion of selling and transmitting
`
`digital audio over phone lines from a seller to a buyer’s remote computer system—the
`
`sum and substance of what the ’440 Patent Applicant would later seek to claim as his
`
`sole property—was discussed, for example, in a May 1986 book, Start Me Up! The
`
`music biz meets the personal computer: “The way we purchase music may change, too. We
`
`may see a dial-up service for home computers that we could use to select the titles we
`
`want. The songs would be downloaded as digital information into our home
`
`entertainment systems that could play them back in perfect fidelity.” See Ex. 1216 at 5.
`
`Indeed, this idea was well known far earlier. A May 1984 InfoWorld piece, for
`
`example, reported that CompuSonics was also considering commercializing this same
`
`concept, “looking at potential electronic distribution of music whereby you would be
`
`able to download music onto your PC in the same manner as other digital
`
`information. The CompuSonic system has a built-in communications device that
`
`receives information via an existing phone line.” See Ex. 1217 at 1. A few months
`
`later, a December 1984 Billboard article similarly described various scenarios for selling
`
`and distributing music over telephone and cable lines, and again discussed
`
`commercialization of
`
`the
`
`idea,
`
`including
`
`introduction of a “digital audio
`
`recording/playback system” that could be used to record digital data sent into the
`
`home and would provide for the sale and distribution of digital audio over telephone
`
`and cable lines. See Ex. 1225 at 4. That article further explained these same scenarios
`
`5
`
`

`
` Covered Business Method Patent Review – CBM2013-00021
`United States Patent No. 5,966,440
`
`
`would likewise be available for other forms of digital data, such as digital video:
`
`First, although the scenarios presented above relate only to music, the
`same data-transmission techniques will be available for all digital data.
`Thus, as other forms of entertainment (e.g., video) are digitized, they,
`too, will become candidates for these scenarios. Very simply, music (and
`other home entertainment options) will become just another type of
`computer software.
`
`See id. Similarly, an October 5, 1985 Billboard article reported a proposed partnership
`
`between companies to sell and transmit digital audio to create an “electronic record
`
`store,” as well as a press demonstration in which “CompuSonics made use of AT&T’s
`
`land-based telephone data transmission system to digitally transmit and receive music
`
`between Chicago and New York.” See Ex. 1228 at 3
`
`As the article recognized, the “electronic record store” concept was well-known:
`
`“David Schwartz, the president of CompuSonics, is a strong proponent of the
`
`‘electronic record store’ concept, an idea that has been bandied about for some time,
`
`but which Schwartz says is now poised to ‘become a reality.’” See id. This would
`
`“allow music software dealers to receive an album master via a digital transmission
`
`from the record company,” and “[t]he retailers would then be able, in turn to digitally
`
`transmit the music to consumers who would use credit cards to charge their purchases
`
`over the phone lines.” The consumer digital audio recorder/player would record the
`
`purchased music onto disk. See id. As Mr. Schwartz explained in 1984 and 1985
`
`letters to CompuSonics shareholders:
`
`6
`
`

`
` Covered Business Method Patent Review – CBM2013-00021
`United States Patent No. 5,966,440
`
`
`A successful test of the digital transmission of high fidelity music over
`telephone lines will be followed by a joint press conference of
`CompuSonics, CMI Labs, and AT&T, heralding the dawn of a new era
`in the music industry. In the not too distant future consumers will be
`able to purchase digital recordings of their favorite artists directly from
`the production studio’s dial-up data base and record them on blank
`SuperFloppies in a DSP-1000. [ See Ex. 1224 at 1.]
`
`AT&T’s commitment to telerecording may hasten the arrival of that day,
`in the not too distant future, when the technology will filter down to the
`consumer level, allowing all-electronic purchases, transfers and digital
`recording of high fidelity audio from any music dealer’s DSP-2000 to the
`DSP-1000 in your living room. [ See Ex. 1210 at 1.]
`
`Moreover, the sale of digital products in general over telephone lines was also
`
`known in the art. For instance, WO85/02310 (“Softnet”), published May 23, 1985,
`
`discloses the sale of digital products—and in particular, software—over telephone
`
`lines. Ex. 1211. Softnet describes allowing a user to connect his or her computer, via
`
`a modem and telephone lines, to a host computer. Id. at 11-12. The user can then
`
`use a menu to select a software package for purchase, and—after the host computer
`
`performs a credit card authorization—the purchased software package is transmitted
`
`to the user’s computer for storage to a disk. Id. The user’s computer can then
`
`execute the purchased software from the disk. Id. at 13.
`
`Other elements of the ’440 Patent claims, such as a speaker, were similarly
`
`known in the art, as the specification itself concedes. See, e.g., Ex. 1201 at 4:33-38
`
`7
`
`

`
` Covered Business Method Patent Review – CBM2013-00021
`United States Patent No. 5,966,440
`
`
`(“Stereo Speakers” are “already commercially available”).
`
`Thus, a number of companies were well aware of (and, indeed, were publicly
`
`discussing strategies for commercializing) the same supposed “invention” now
`
`memorialized in the challenged claims of the ’440 Patent. The prior art—long before
`
`the ’440 Patent’s first purported priority date—was full of disclosures of the very
`
`same abstract notion that Applicant later sought to claim as his exclusive property, as
`
`well as disclosures of the very same conventional hardware Applicant would later
`
`recite in the challenged claims. Although a full discussion of the invalidity of the
`
`challenged claims under §§ 102 and 103 is reserved for the separate Petition filed
`
`concurrently herewith, these prior art teachings certainly bar any claim by the Patent
`
`Owner that the challenged claims of the ’440 Patent recite anything other than an
`
`abstract idea with, at most, the addition of routine and conventional hardware, or that
`
`the challenged claims recite anything remotely resembling a “technological invention.”
`
`III. PETITIONER HAS STANDING
`A.
`The ’440 Patent is a “covered business method patent” under § 18(d)(1) of the
`
`The ’440 Patent Is a Covered Business Method Patent
`
`Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, Pub. L. 112-29 (“AIA”) and § 42.301. As
`
`discussed above, the ’440 Patent is directed to activities that are financial in nature—
`
`the electronic sale of digital music or video. See AIA § 18(d)(1); 37 C.F.R. § 42.301(a).
`
`See also 77 Fed. Reg. 48,734, 48,735 (Aug. 14, 2012) (“[T]he definition of covered
`
`8
`
`

`
` Covered Business Method Patent Review – CBM2013-00021
`United States Patent No. 5,966,440
`
`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.’”) (citation omitted). The patent states, for example, that “it is an
`
`objective . . . to provide a new and improved methodology/system to electronically
`
`sell and distribute Digital Audio Music or digital video,” Ex. 1201 at 2:22-25, and
`
`explains that “[t]he method comprises the steps of transferring money via
`
`telecommunications lines to the first party from the second party or electronically
`
`selling to the second party by the first party.” Id. at 5:46-49. 6 Applicant confirmed
`
`again during prosecution that the invention relates to a “method for the electronic
`
`sales and distribution of digital audio or video signals . . . [in] which a user may
`
`purchase and receive digital audio or video signal from any location which the user
`
`has access to telecommunications lines.” Ex. 1202 (6/11/98 Petition at 33). See also
`
`Ex. 1219 at 33:1-11. Another SightSound executive similarly described the invention
`
`as nothing more than “a method for selling a desired digital audio or digital video
`
`signal over networks versus the old way of distributing hard media on trucks through
`
`stores.” Ex. 1220 at 36:23-37:5. Indeed, SightSound has taken the same view in
`
`seeking to enforce the ’440 Patent in litigation, with its own experts stating that
`
`6 While the specification also speaks vaguely of manipulation of digital music (sorting,
`
`selection, etc.) and protection from unauthorized copying (e.g., Ex. 1201 at 2:17-24),
`
`these do not appear in any challenged claim, and in any event were not inventive.
`
`9
`
`

`
` Covered Business Method Patent Review – CBM2013-00021
`United States Patent No. 5,966,440
`
`the ’440 Patent “generally relate[s] to the field of electronic sale and distribution of
`
`digital audio or digital video. More specifically, the patented technology pertains to
`
`selling or purchasing digital audio or video via telecommunications lines.” Ex. 1218 ¶
`
`22. See also id. ¶ 24.
`
`While the claims at issue reference certain conventional components, the ’440
`
`Patent is not a “technological invention” because it does not claim “subject matter as
`
`a whole [that] recites a technological feature that is novel and unobvious over the
`
`prior art[] and solves a technical problem using a technical solution.” § 42.301(b).7
`
`First, no “technological feature” of the ’440 Patent is novel and unobvious. Claim 1 is
`
`exemplary:
`
`1. A method for transferring desired digital video or digital audio signals
`comprising the steps of:
`
`[A] forming a connection through telecommunications lines between a
`first memory of a first party and a second memory of a second party
`control unit of a second party, said first memory having said desired
`digital video or digital audio signals;
`
`[B] selling electronically by the first party to the second party through
`telecommunications lines, the desired digital video or digital audio
`signals in the first memory, the second party is at a second party location
`and the step of selling electronically includes the step of charging a fee
`via telecommunications lines by the first party to the second party at a
`first party location remote from the second party location, the second
`
`7 All emphasis herein added unless otherwise noted.
`
`10
`
`

`
` Covered Business Method Patent Review – CBM2013-00021
`United States Patent No. 5,966,440
`
`
`party has an account and the step of charging a fee includes the step of
`charging the account of the second party; and
`
`[C] transferring the desired digital video or digital audio signals from the
`first memory of the first party to the second memory of the second party
`control unit of the second party through telecommunications lines while
`the second party control unit with the second memory is in possession
`and control of the second party;
`
`[D] storing the desired digital video or digital audio signals in a non-
`volatile storage portion the second memory;
`
`[E] and playing through speakers of the second party control unit the
`digital video or digital audio signals stored in the second memory, said
`speakers of the second party control unit connected with the second
`memory of the second party control unit;
`
`[F] wherein the non-volatile storage portion is not a tape or CD.
`
`The PTO has confirmed that “[m]ere 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,” or “[r]eciting the use
`
`of known prior art technology to accomplish a process or method, even if that
`
`process or method is novel and non-obvious” will “not typically render a patent a
`
`technological invention.” See, e.g., 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756 48,764 (Aug. 14, 2012).
`
`Indeed, as its language makes clear, Claim 1 involves no “technology” at all
`
`other than “a first memory” and “a second memory of a second party control unit,”
`
`11
`
`

`
` Covered Business Method Patent Review – CBM2013-00021
`United States Patent No. 5,966,440
`
`“telecommunications lines,” and “speakers.” And the patent itself concedes these
`
`were all well known and entirely commonplace at the time, stating that the first and
`
`second parties’ memories
`
`(“agent’s Hard Disk” and “user’s Hard Disk”),
`
`telecommunication lines (“Telephone Lines”) and speakers (“Stereo Speakers”) are
`
`“already commercially available.”8 Ex. 1201 at 4:33-38. Further, the “control unit”
`
`mentioned in the claims as associated with the conventional “second” memory is
`
`described as a functional feature that can be implemented with a general purpose
`
`computer: the patent provides no disclosure of specific algorithms, and expressly
`
`states that the specification’s description of such a “unit” does not indicate any
`
`particular requirements—it “is not restrictive with respect to the exact number of
`
`components and/or its actual design.” Ex. 1201 at 4:65-67; Ex. 1215 at 19-20.
`
`Indeed, during prosecution of the ’440 Patent Applicant himself equated the control
`
`unit in the claims to a generic computer, arguing that Napster and N2K copied the
`
`claimed invention when they enabled a generic computer (equated by Applicant to the
`
`second control unit) to access a website and purchase digital audio signals. Ex. 1202
`
`(1/08/98 Decl. at 2-3). Thus, as the intrinsic record reflects, Claim 1 recites nothing
`
`more than a method for electronically selling digital audio or video between a seller
`
`8 A SightSound executive has similarly admitted that Applicant did not invent
`
`computers, computer networks, the Internet, telephone lines, or telecommunications
`
`lines. Ex. 1220 at 42:12-44:5.
`
`12
`
`

`
` Covered Business Method Patent Review – CBM2013-00021
`United States Patent No. 5,966,440
`
`and buyer, using conventional, commercially available hardware and a general purpose
`
`computer with no specific algorithm. 9 The generic level at which this hardware is
`
`disclosed is further illustrated in the patent’s Figure 1 (Ex. 1201):
`
`
`
`The subject matter as a whole also solves no “technical problem” because there
`
`was no technical problem to begin with: those of ordinary skill certainly already knew
`
`how to sell digital products over telephone line

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket