Transitional Program for Covered Business Method..., 77 FR 48734-01
`
`77 FR 48734-01
`RULES and REGULATIONS
`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
`
`Tuesday, August 14, 2012
`
`AGENCY: United States Patent and Trademark Office, Commerce.
`
`*48734 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`that this provision and any regulations issued under the provision will be repealed on September 16, 2020, with respect to any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 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).
`
` © 2013 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.
`
`1
`
`Ex. 1006 01/35
`
`

`
`Transitional Program for Covered Business Method..., 77 FR 48734-01
`
`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 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 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 *48735 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.
`
`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
`
` © 2013 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.
`
`2
`
`Ex. 1006 02/35
`
`

`
`Transitional Program for Covered Business Method..., 77 FR 48734-01
`
`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 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 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.”).
`
`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:
`
` © 2013 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.
`
`3
`
`Ex. 1006 03/35
`
`

`
`Transitional Program for Covered Business Method..., 77 FR 48734-01
`
`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.
`
`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 *48736 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.
`
`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 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.
`
` © 2013 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.
`
`4
`
`Ex. 1006 04/35
`
`

`
`Transitional Program for Covered Business Method..., 77 FR 48734-01
`
`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.
`
`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 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.
`
` © 2013 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.
`
`5
`
`Ex. 1006 05/35
`
`

`
`Transitional Program for Covered Business Method..., 77 FR 48734-01
`
`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 *48737 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).
`
`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.
`
`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
`
` © 2013 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.
`
`6
`
`Ex. 1006 06/35
`
`

`
`Transitional Program for Covered Business Method..., 77 FR 48734-01
`
`§ 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 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.
`
`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.
`
`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 *48738 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
`
` © 2013 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.
`
`7
`
`Ex. 1006 07/35
`
`

`
`Transitional Program for Covered Business Method..., 77 FR 48734-01
`
`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, 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 change the substantive criteria of patentability. These changes involve rules
`of agency practice, including related standards. See, e.g., 35 U.S.C. 316(a)(5), as amended. These rules are procedur