PETITION FOR POST-GRANT REVIEW OF
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,326,924
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`U.S. Class:
`
`Group Art Unit:
`
`Conf. No.:
`
`Petition filed: Oct. 1, 2013
`
`FILED ELECTRONICALLY PER
`37 C.F.R. § 42.6(B)(1)
`
`In re Covered Business Method Post-
`Grant Review of:
`
`U.S. Patent No: 8,326,924
`
`Issued: December 4, 2012
`
`Applicant: Harvey Lunenfeld
`
`Filed: August 1, 2012
`
`Title: METASEARCH ENGINE FOR
`ORDERING AT LEAST ONE
`ITEM RETURNED IN
`SEARCH RESULTS USING
`AT LEAST ONE QUERY ON
`MULTIPLE UNIQUE HOSTS
`AND FOR DISPLAYING AS-
`SOCIATED ADVERTISING
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR POST-GRANT REVIEW OF
`A COVERED BUSINESS METHOD UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 321 AND AIA, § 18
`
`MAIL STOP PATENT BOARD
`PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. BOX 1450
`ALEXANDRIA, VA 22313-1450
`
`

`

`PETITION FOR POST-GRANT REVIEW OF
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,326,924
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`PRELIMINARY STATEMENT ..................................................................... 1
`
`A. Background: Marketing Via Metasearch Web Sites Circa 1996-98 ..... 3
`
`B. The ’924 Patent ..................................................................................... 10
`
`II. GROUNDS FOR STANDING ......................................................................16
`
`A. At Least One Challenged Claim Is Unpatentable ................................. 16
`
`B. Petitioners Have Been Sued For Infringement
`Of The ’924 Patent And Are Not Estopped .......................................... 16
`
`C. Claims 1-12 Are Directed To A Covered Business Method ................ 17
`
`D. Claims 1-12 Are Not Directed To A “Technological Invention”......... 21
`
`III. STATEMENT OF PRECISE RELIEF
`REQUESTED FOR EACH CLAIM CHALLENGED .................................26
`
`A. Claims For Which Review Is Requested .............................................. 26
`
`B. Statutory Grounds Of Challenge .......................................................... 26
`
`C. Person Having Ordinary Skill In The Art In 2000-2012 ...................... 26
`
`D. Claim Construction ............................................................................... 27
`
`1.
`
`Broadest Reasonable Interpretation (BRI) ................................ 27
`
`IV. CLAIMS 1-12 OF THE ’924 PATENT ARE UNPATENTABLE ..............35
`
`A. Claims 1-12 Are Unpatentable Under 35 U.S.C. § 101 ....................... 35
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Introduction ............................................................................... 35
`
`The Supreme Court Guideposts Show That
`These Claims Are Unpatentable Under Sec. 101 ..................... 36
`
`B. Benson ................................................................................................... 36
`
`C. Flook ..................................................................................................... 37
`
`D. Diehr ..................................................................................................... 38
`
`i
`
`

`

`PETITION FOR POST-GRANT REVIEW OF
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,326,924
`
`E. Bilski ..................................................................................................... 39
`
`F.
`
`Prometheus ............................................................................................ 40
`
`1.
`
`These Claims Fail The
`Particular-Machine-or-Transformation “Test” ......................... 42
`
`a) The Claimed Methods Are
`Not Tied To A Particular Machine .................................. 42
`
`b) The Claimed Methods Do Not Transform An Article ..... 45
`
`G. Claims 1-12 Are Unpatentable
`Under 35 U.S.C. § 103, Over Lunenfeld
`PCT And Lunenfeld 2000 App. In View Of Mamma.com .................. 45
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Lunenfeld PCT Is Prima Facie Prior Art Under Sec. 102(b) ... 46
`
`Lunenfeld 2000 App. Is
`Prima Facie Prior Art Under Sec. 102(b) ................................. 46
`
`Claims 1-12 Are Obvious Over Lunenfeld PCT
`And Lunenfeld 2000 App. In View Of Mamma.com ............... 47
`
`a) Lunenfeld PCT And Lunenfeld 2000 App.
`In View Of Mamma.com Renders Claim 1 Obvious ....... 47
`
`b) The Remaining Claims Are
`Obvious For the Same Reasons ....................................... 50
`
`4.
`
`Patent Owner Will Have The
`Burden Of Showing Entitlement To
`A 2001 Effective Filing Date To Avoid This Art ..................... 52
`
`5.
`
`The Claims Are Not Entitled to a 2001 Filing Date ................. 54
`
`a) Claims Sometimes Are Unpatentable Over Disclosures
`That Fail to Support The Same Claim Under Sec. 112 ... 71
`
`V.
`
`CLAIMS 1-12 ARE UNPATENTABLE UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 103,
`OVER KNOWLEDGE BROKER IN VIEW OF MAMMA.COM ..............72
`
`VI. CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................80
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`PETITION FOR POST-GRANT REVIEW OF
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,326,924
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`
`Agilent Techs., Inc. v. Affymetrix, Inc.,
`567 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ..................................................................... 54, 60
`
`Alza Corp. v. Andrx Pharm., LLC,
`603 F.3d 935 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ..............................................................................55
`
`Anascape, Ltd. v. Nintendo of Am., Inc.,
`601 F.3d 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ............................................................................70
`
`Ariad Pharms, Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co.,
`598 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc) ............................................... 55, 67, 68
`
`Atlantic Research Mktg. Sys., Inc. v. Troy,
`659 F.3d 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ............................................................................55
`
`Bilski v. Kappos,
`130 S. Ct. 3218 (2010).................................................................................. passim
`
`Bruckelmyer v. Ground Heaters, Inc.,
`445 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ............................................................................47
`
`Chester v. Miller,
`906 F.2d 1574 (Fed. Cir. 1990) ............................................................................71
`
`Chiron Corp. v. Genentech, Inc.,
`363 F.3d 1247 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ............................................................................65
`
`CRS Advanced Tech., Inc. v. Frontline Tech., Inc.,
`CBM2012-00005 (filed Sept. 21, 2012) ...............................................................18
`
`Dawson v. Dawson,
`710 F.3d 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ............................................................................67
`
`Diamond v. Diehr,
`450 U.S. 175 (1981) ...................................................................................... 38, 39
`
`Gottschalk v. Benson,
`409 U.S. 63 (1972) ........................................................................................ 36, 37
`
`iii
`
`

`

`PETITION FOR POST-GRANT REVIEW OF
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,326,924
`
`Hyatt v. Boone,
`146 F.3d 1348 (Fed. Cir. 1998) ............................................................................55
`
`In re Bilski, 545 F.3d 943 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (en banc),
`aff’d, Bilski v. Kappos, 130 S. Ct. 3218 (2012) ............................................. 42, 43
`
`In re Curry,
`84 USPQ2d 1272 (BPAI 2005) ............................................................................51
`
`In re Flook, 559 F.2d 21 (CCPA 1977),
`rev’d sub nom. Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584 (1978) .........................................38
`
`In re Lukach,
`442 F.2d 967 (CCPA 1971) ..................................................................................72
`
`In re NTP,
`654 F.3d 1268 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ............................................................................53
`
`In re Wyer,
`655 F.2d 221 (CCPA 1981) ..................................................................................47
`
`KJC Corp. v. Kinetic Concepts, Inc.,
`223 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2000) ............................................................................30
`
`Lockwood v. American Airlines, Inc.,
`107 F.3d 1565 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ............................................................................55
`
`Magsil Corp. v. Hitachi Global Storage Tech., Inc.,
`687 F.3d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ......................................................... 56, 62, 63, 64
`
`Mayo Collaborative Serv. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc.,
`132 S. Ct. 1289 (2012).................................................................................. passim
`
`Novozymes A/S v. Dupont Nutrition Biosciences APS,
`2013 WL 3779376 (Fed. Cir. 2013) .....................................................................60
`
`Parker v. Flook,
`437 U.S. 584 (1978) ................................................................................ 37, 38, 41
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) ............................................................26
`
`iv
`
`

`

`PETITION FOR POST-GRANT REVIEW OF
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,326,924
`
`PowerOasis, Inc. v. T-Mobile USA, Inc.,
`522 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ............................................................... 53, 56, 57
`
`Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Faulding Inc.,
`230 F.3d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2000) ............................................................................55
`
`Research Corp. Tech., Inc. v. Microsoft Corp.,
`627 F.3d 859 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ..............................................................................53
`
`SAP Am., Inc. v. Versata Dev. Grp., Inc.,
`CBM2012-00001 (filed Sept. 16, 2012) ...............................................................18
`
`Tech. Licensing Corp. v. Videotek, Inc.,
`545 F.3d 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ............................................................................53
`
`Tronzo v. Biomet, Inc.,
`156 F.3d 1154 (Fed. Cir. 1998) ............................................................................55
`
`Statutes
`
`AIA § 18 .................................................................................................. 1, 17, 21, 26
`
`35 U.S.C. § 101 ................................................................................................ passim
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102 ........................................................................................... 46, 47, 53
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 ................................................................................................ passim
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112 ........................................................................................... 55, 71, 72
`
`35 U.S.C. § 120 ........................................................................................... 29, 54, 61
`
`35 U.S.C. § 321 ....................................................................................................1, 26
`
`35 U.S.C. § 324 ........................................................................................... 16, 54, 80
`
`Rules
`
`37 C.F.R. § 1.14 .......................................................................................................46
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.15 ....................................................................................................... 1
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.300 ...............................................................................................1, 27
`
`v
`
`

`

`PETITION FOR POST-GRANT REVIEW OF
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,326,924
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.301 ............................................................................................ 17, 21
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.302 ...................................................................................................17
`
`Other Authorities
`
`157 Cong. Rec. S1360 (Mar. 8, 2011) .....................................................................18
`
`157 Cong. Rec. S5432 (daily ed. Sept. 8, 2011) ......................................................18
`
`Fed. Reg. Vol. 77, No. 157 (Aug. 14, 2012) ......................................... 17, 20, 22, 34
`
`MPEP § 2163.02 ......................................................................................................55
`
`MPEP § 2106.01 ......................................................................................................51
`
`MPEP § 2114 ...........................................................................................................51
`
`MPEP § 2115 ...........................................................................................................51
`
`MPEP § 901.05 ........................................................................................................47
`
`Nahin, Paul J., Time machines: Time travel in physics, metaphysics, and science
`fiction, Springer, 1999. .........................................................................................78
`
`
`
`
`
`vi
`
`

`

`PETITION FOR POST-GRANT REVIEW OF
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,326,924
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`1001: U.S. Patent No. 8,326,924 (filed Aug. 1, 2012, issued Dec. 4, 2012)
`
`1002: PCT Publication No. WO01/163406 (filed Feb. 22, 2001, published Aug.
`30, 2001)
`
`1003: U.S. Patent Application No. 09/510,749 (filed Feb. 22, 2000)
`
`1004: U.S. Patent Application No. 09/791,264 (filed Feb. 22, 2001)
`
`1005: May 5, 1998, Mamma.com Web site captured by Internet Archives
`
`1006: 1996 Xerox Knowledge Broker (Borghoff, et al., Constraint-based
`Information Gathering for a Network Publication System, Proc. PAAM
`’96, Apr. 22-24, 1996, London, U.K.)
`
`1007: 1997 Xerox Knowledge Broker (Borghoff, et al., Proc. PAAM ‘97, Apr.
`21-23, 1997, London, U. K.)
`
`1008: Declaration of Prof. Oren Etzioni, dated Aug. 28, 2013
`
`1009: Declaration of Gary Liao, dated Sept. 26, 2013
`
`1010: Declaration of Mung Conway, dated Sept. 26, 2013
`
`1011: PCT Publication No. WO98/32289 (filed Jan. 16, 1998, published July 23,
`1998)
`
`1012: Erik Selberg, Towards Comprehensive Web Search, University of
`Washington (1999)
`
`1013: Feb. 13, 1998, Metacrawler Web site captured by Internet Archives
`
`1014: MetaSearch 1st Amended Interrogatory Response to Interrogatory Request
`No. 8, dated Aug. 7, 2013
`
`1015: MetaSearch Systems, LLC v. Am. Express Co. et al., D. Del., Case No.
`1:12-cv-01225-LPS, Complaint filed Sept. 28, 2012 (Dkt. No. 1)
`
`1016: U.S. Patent Application No. 11/866,207, filed Oct. 2, 2007
`
`1017: U.S. Patent Application No. 12/202,430, filed Sept. 1, 2008
`
`1018: May 5, 1998, Mamma.com Web site captured by Internet Archives (Source
`View of portions of Ex. 1005)
`
`vii
`
`

`

`PETITION FOR POST-GRANT REVIEW OF
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,326,924
`
`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., American Express Com-
`
`pany, Expedia, Inc., Orbitz Worldwide, Inc., Priceline.com, Inc., Travelocity.com
`
`LP, and Yahoo! Inc. (“Petitioners”) request post-grant review of claims 1-12 of
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,326,924 (“the ’924 Patent,” attached as Ex. 1001).
`
`An electronic payment in the amount of $12,000 for the post-grant review
`
`fee specified by 37 C.F.R. § 42.15(b)(1) is being paid at the time of filing this peti-
`
`tion, charged to deposit account no. 02-4550.
`
`I.
`
`PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
`
`The ’924 Patent encompasses financial services. It declares that its “inven-
`
`tion” applies to “financial markets,” “stock exchanges,” “clearing firms or other
`
`banking or financial institutions,” “managed futures, risk arbitrage and risk man-
`
`agement businesses,” “electronic communication networks (ECNs), Alternative
`
`Trading Systems (ATS), and electronic trading systems.” (Ex. 1001, 123:62-
`
`124:44).
`
`The patent has a long family tree. It issued from the 13th in a series of appli-
`
`cations, including five CIPs, spanning from February, 2000, to August, 2012. (Ex.
`
`1001, 1:10-38). The first three applications were filed in Feb. 2000, Feb. 2001,
`
`and Dec. 2004, respectively. (Id.) As explained in Sec. IV.F.5, below, the claims
`
`are not entitled to an early filing date.
`
`Petition for Post Grant Review
`
`Page 1
`
`

`

`
`
`The patent relates in part to “metasearch” Web sites. Since about 1994,
`
`PETITION FOR POST-GRANT REVIEW OF
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,326,924
`
`metasearch Web sites have allowed users to submit unstructured keyword searches,
`
`for financial or other information, simultaneously to multiple search engines.
`
`(“Unstructured” means that the search seeks a match for the keyword anywhere in
`
`a document, regardless of the term’s meaning in the document, not just in a partic-
`
`ular field, such as title, author, or price.) The ’924 Patent’s claims are directed to
`
`the business idea of marketing an item, such as a financial security, on a
`
`metasearch Web site with keyword advertisements (triggered by a particular key-
`
`word in an unstructured search query) and some way to order the item through the
`
`site. As explained in Secs. II.D and IV.A.1 below, this idea is abstract and old.
`
`This petition begins with a background summary of some metasearch Web
`
`sites circa 1996-98 and the marketing opportunities they offered. Next, the ’924
`
`Patent and its claims are introduced. This background informs the showing of
`
`Standing addressed next, in section II. The petition then identifies the knowledge
`
`base of a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA), and proposes broadest
`
`reasonable interpretations (BRI) of the challenged claims. The petition then shows
`
`that all 12 claims of the ’924 Patent, under their BRI, are unpatentable because:
`
`1)
`
`They are directed to a patent-ineligible marketing idea and hence are
`
`unpatentable under Sec. 101;
`
`Petition for Post Grant Review
`
`Page 2
`
`

`

`
`
`2)
`
`They are unpatentable for obviousness under Sec. 103 over the patent
`
`PETITION FOR POST-GRANT REVIEW OF
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,326,924
`
`applicant’s own patent applications (Exs. 1002, 1003) published in 2001 (which
`
`are prior art because the claims are not entitled to a 2001 effective filing date) in
`
`view of Mamma.com (Ex. 1005, 1018) (1998); and
`
`3)
`
`They are unpatentable under Sec. 103 over Xerox Knowledge Broker
`
`(Exs. 1006, 1007) (1996 and 1997) in view of Mamma.com (Ex. 1005, 1018)
`
`(1998).
`
`A. Background: Marketing Via Metasearch Web Sites Circa 1996-98
`
`The World Wide Web began around 1990. As Web sites proliferated, Web
`
`search engines soon followed, including Lycos, Webcrawler, Infoseek and Al-
`
`taVista. These search engines periodically collected content from many Web sites,
`
`and indexed that content. Computer users with Web browsers typically entered
`
`keywords into the search engine’s unstructured search form to query the search en-
`
`gine’s index of this Web content. As these Web search engines proliferated,
`
`“metasearch” Web sites soon followed. They allowed computer users to simulta-
`
`neously search multiple search engines. Per the user’s request, they sent a user’s
`
`unstructured keyword(s) query (after some processing) to multiple search engines
`
`and combined the results (after some processing) for display to the user. As de-
`
`scribed below, these metasearch Web sites often also allowed companies to market
`
`Petition for Post Grant Review
`
`Page 3
`
`

`

`
`their items via their metasearch Web site, by placing keyword ads on the site
`
`PETITION FOR POST-GRANT REVIEW OF
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,326,924
`
`and/or by making their items available for ordering via the site.
`
`Metacrawler: An early metasearch Web site, called Metacrawler, was
`
`launched in 1995 at the University of Washington. Its co-developer, Dr. Oren
`
`Etzioni, submits a declaration (Ex. 1008) to the Board to explain the state of the art
`
`in metasearch Web sites circa 1996-2001. (Ex. 1008, ¶¶ 22-51). Metacrawler, by
`
`at least 1998, included keyword ads with its metasearch results. (Id., ¶ 33).
`
`Mamma.com: The Mamma.com metasearch Web site launched in 1996.
`
`Exhibit 1005 is a printout of the archive of the May 5, 1998, Mamma.com web
`
`site. (Ex. 1010). (Ex. 1018 is the HTML source view of portions of this archived
`
`Web site.) Below is its home page:
`
`(Ex. 1005, p.1).
`
`
`
`Petition for Post Grant Review
`
`Page 4
`
`

`

`
`
`The blank box below the word “Search” accepted a user’s keyword query, to
`
`PETITION FOR POST-GRANT REVIEW OF
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,326,924
`
`be posed to the six search engines listed under “Mamma uses:.”
`
`The same May 5, 1998, Web site described its service in part as follows:
`
`
`
`
`
`(Ex. 1005, p. 4).
`
`This May 5, 1998, archived Mamma.com Web site described ways to market
`
`items on this metasearch Web site. It described that companies may purchase tar-
`
`Petition for Post Grant Review
`
`Page 5
`
`

`

`
`geted keyword ads in which their advertisements appear only in response to a
`
`PETITION FOR POST-GRANT REVIEW OF
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,326,924
`
`search using one of the advertiser-selected keywords or keyword phrases:
`
`(Ex. 1005, p. 8).
`
`
`
`The same advertising section of the same archived May 5, 1998, Mam-
`
`ma.com Web site, offers companies an additional marketing opportunity. It de-
`
`scribes how advertisers may reach users by distributing their software applications
`
`via Mamma.com. As depicted below, Mamma.com describes plural advertisers
`
`(Netscape, Shockwave) each providing a download icon for their respective items,
`
`which icon the user clicks to download the software:
`
`Petition for Post Grant Review
`
`Page 6
`
`

`

`
`
`(Id.)
`
`PETITION FOR POST-GRANT REVIEW OF
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,326,924
`
`
`
`In sum, this May 5, 1998, Mamma.com Web site (Ex. 1005, 1018) described
`
`marketing items to users of its metasearch Web site in two ways: (1) by purchas-
`
`ing keyword ads triggered by a keyword used in a user’s search query and (2) by
`
`purchasing space on the Web site to allow users to request and obtain the item via
`
`that metasearch Web site (using a download icon).
`
`Xerox Knowledge Broker Metasearcher: Xerox Research Centre in France
`
`in the mid to late 1990s developed a metasearch Web site that allowed users to or-
`
`der any item identified in the search results for delivery to them, e.g., as a bound
`
`book. A 1996 paper (Ex. 1006) describes one commercialized version of this sys-
`
`tem (id., pp. 5-6) and a 1997 paper (Ex. 1007) describes a revised version. Xerox
`
`Knowledge Broker provided “a uniform meta-search interface” for a user to simul-
`
`taneously search “different search engines.” (Ex. 1007, Sec. 1.4, pp. 4-5). It pro-
`
`Petition for Post Grant Review
`
`Page 7
`
`

`

`
`vided simultaneous searches of “search engines for preprint servers, publishers’
`
`PETITION FOR POST-GRANT REVIEW OF
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,326,924
`
`servers and local department Web-servers” (Id., Sec. 1.2, pp. 2-3), “Webcrawlers”
`
`(id., Fig. 4), and other “heterogeneous Web servers.” (id., Sec. 5, p. 13). The user
`
`could launch one or more simultaneous queries to the plural search engines, includ-
`
`ing “several queries concurrently” (id., Sec. 3, pp. 8-12). The user also could sub-
`
`mit a complex query consisting of a main query with one or more sub queries (id.,
`
`Fig. 4; Sec. 3, pp. 8-12), and choose to view the results for the main query only or
`
`the results for the subqueries (id., Sec. 3, pp. 8-12). Some of these concurrent and
`
`sub-query options are shown in Ex. 1007, Figs. 3 and 4 (excerpts below):
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Post Grant Review
`
`Page 8
`
`

`

`
`
`PETITION FOR POST-GRANT REVIEW OF
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,326,924
`
`
`
`Although most of the query options were structured (i.e., providing values
`
`for particular fields), Knowledge Broker also permitted “simple flat queries” (id.,
`
`p. 11), i.e., unstructured keyword queries. (The 1996 Knowledge Broker refers to
`
`these as “free-text” queries with “untyped keywords.” (Ex. 1006, pp. 6, 11, 12).)
`
`Knowledge Broker also describes two techniques for users to order items de-
`
`scribed in the search results from a user’s query. First, the user may simply select
`
`and order desired items using her Web browser and they will be delivered to the
`
`user in book form. (Ex. 1007, pp. 4, 10, 12). This “printing-on-demand service
`
`can be seamlessly integrated as one backend option of the [search] broker.” (Id.,
`
`Sec. 4, pp. 12-13). This provides the user with “a single user-friendly search inter-
`
`face, and to receive the document readable on his desk, with no effort on his/her
`
`side.” (Id.) More specifically, the integrated online ordering system includes “an
`
`initial Web-form for the order, customer information, and includes the URLs of the
`
`Petition for Post Grant Review
`
`Page 9
`
`

`

`
`documents in question.” (Id.) This allows a user to select results returned by the
`
`PETITION FOR POST-GRANT REVIEW OF
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,326,924
`
`search “for printing, binding in book form, and mailing of the documents finally
`
`selected by the reader.” (Id., Sec. 1.4, pp. 4-5; see also id., Sec. 3, pp. 8-12).
`
`The 1996 Knowledge Broker prototype also allowed ordering the documents
`
`found by the search but delivered those documents by printing at a local copy cen-
`
`ter. (Ex. 1006, pp. 4-5).
`
`In sum, these 1996-97 Knowledge Broker references described marketing
`
`items to users of its metasearch Web site by allowing a user to order, on the Web
`
`site, the items located by the user’s search.
`
`B.
`
`The ’924 Patent
`
`Financial Markets: The ’924 Patent touts its applicability to “financial mar-
`
`kets.” E.g.:
`
`Financial Markets
`
`The present invention has direct applications to financial markets, and
`
`more specifically, the managed futures, risk arbitrage and risk man-
`
`agement businesses. Risk arbitrage is an attempt to profit by exploit-
`
`ing price differentials of identical or similar financial instruments, on
`
`different markets or in different forms, such as simultaneous compari-
`
`son of several financial instruments in multiple markets, in addition to
`
`simultaneously comparing financial instruments in underlying mar-
`
`kets, such as different options, strike prices and exchanges. The pana-
`
`cea would be multiple opposite transactions that take place simultane-
`
`Petition for Post Grant Review
`
`Page 10
`
`

`

`
`
`PETITION FOR POST-GRANT REVIEW OF
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,326,924
`
`ously, generating profits with zero risk. Risk management is the abil-
`
`ity to view financial exposure based upon queries of multiple data
`
`streams, and return information in user friendly formats. The system
`
`can also be used as a compliance monitor for clearing firms or other
`
`banking or financial institutions, where net capital computations are
`
`required on a real-time basis.
`
`Multiple simultaneous buy and sell transactions may be performed
`
`with the present invention, using, for example, multiple order books.
`
`(Ex. 1001, 123:61–124:44).
`
`Existing Metasearch Web Site Capabilities: In part, the ’924 Patent is di-
`
`rected to the idea of marketing an item on a metasearch Web site with keyword ads
`
`and some way to order the item. Much of the patent describes what were already
`
`standard features of existing metasearch Web sites in 1998. Thus, the patent de-
`
`scribes that users send one or more unstructured keyword queries to the site, which
`
`then reformats them as necessary to pose them simultaneously to multiple search
`
`engines, and returns the results to the users, accompanied by advertisements. (E.g.,
`
`Ex. 1001, 5:56-6:3, 127:5-21, 127:33-44). The “process includes single and multi-
`
`ple keyword advertising options.” (Id., 127:7-8). The patent also describes allow-
`
`ing users to order items via the site. It says that a “user may place orders, such as
`
`purchases, and/or other types of orders, payments, confirmations thereof, and/or
`
`combinations thereof, either directly and/or through servers and/or sites on the
`
`Petition for Post Grant Review
`
`Page 11
`
`

`

`
`network.” (Id., 8:25-28). As explained above, all of these capabilities already ex-
`
`PETITION FOR POST-GRANT REVIEW OF
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,326,924
`
`isted in metasearch Web sites by 1998.
`
`Much Science Fiction: But, the ’924 Patent does not merely describe stand-
`
`ard capabilities of prior art metasearch Web sites. Rather, it is full of promises that
`
`are more science fiction than science. It makes hundreds of grandiose boasts of
`
`supposed capabilities, from conducting “an infinite number of simultaneous
`
`searches in multiple languages” to searching servers “the size of a grain of dust”
`
`and searching people linked by “visions” or “thoughts.” Some examples of such
`
`sheer fiction follow, and are discussed in more detail in Sec. IV.G.5 below, in ex-
`
`plaining why these claims cannot be backdated to 2001.
`
`Searching Any Server Chosen By the User: Real-world metasearch Web
`
`sites in the 1990s naturally searched a limited set of search engines and other in-
`
`formation sources that they knew how to search. The ’924 Patent, however, rec-
`
`ognizes no such limits for its “invention.” It states that it is able to search whatever
`
`the user chooses to have searched. Specifically, the patent says that the user can
`
`simply fill in the name of a server of the user’s choice, and the system will do the
`
`rest. (Ex. 1001, 75:3-22). The patent says that it is capable of searching a “sub-
`
`stantially infinite variety” of such servers (id., 109:61-67, 111:9-13), including
`
`servers sized “down to the size of a grain of dust” (id., 139:60-65). But, those
`
`Petition for Post Grant Review
`
`Page 12
`
`

`

`
`skilled in the art in 2001 did not know how to simultaneously search any and all
`
`PETITION FOR POST-GRANT REVIEW OF
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,326,924
`
`information sources of the users’ choosing. (Ex. 1008, ¶¶ 36-38).
`
`Searching People Tied Together By Thoughts: As a second example, the
`
`’924 Patent states that it is able to successfully pose a user’s query to a “server”
`
`that “may comprise one or more social networks and/or one or more small world
`
`networks” (Ex. 1001, 144:11-15), defining “social networks” in part as follows:
`
`“individuals and/or organizations that are tied together by interdependencies, such
`
`as values, friends, relationships, ideas, philosophies, thoughts, trade, financial ex-
`
`change, visions, likes, dislikes, conflicts, links, kinship, disease transmission, travel
`
`routes, technologies, interests, and/or other suitable interdependencies.” (Id.,
`
`142:51-59) (emphases added). This too was science fiction in 2001.
`
`Infinite Number of Simultaneous Searches: As a third example, the ’924 Pa-
`
`tent declares that its “technology is capable of expanding the universe to an infinite
`
`number of simultaneous searches in multiple languages for domestic and interna-
`
`tional markets, and being indexed on other search engines.” (Ex. 1001, 126:17-21)
`
`(emphases added). This too was science fiction in 2001. Section IV.G.5 explains
`
`how these grandiose claims, and other factors, deprive these claims of an effective
`
`filing date in 2001.
`
`No Science: The ’924 Patent is voluminous. It spans 344 sheets of draw-
`
`ings and 150 columns of text. Yet, despite this length, it includes no working ex-
`
`Petition for Post Grant Review
`
`Page 13
`
`

`

`
`amples. It describes no particular structure and no particular programming that
`
`PETITION FOR POST-GRANT REVIEW OF
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,326,924
`
`supposedly achieves the capabilities it promises. It is full of redundant laundry
`
`lists of supposed capabilities, many farfetched, but does not once describe con-
`
`cretely how to achieve those promised results. Sec. IV.G.5 demonstrates the ab-
`
`sence of a single working example in this voluminous patent.
`
`The Patent’s 12 Claims: All 12 claims are independent, with little variation
`
`between them. Each is directed to the business idea of marketing an item on a
`
`metasearch Web site with keyword ads and some way to order the item. Claim 1
`
`first recites steps encompassing searching for some item (which can be ordered),
`
`on a metasearch Web site triggering a keyword ad, such as described on the May 5,
`
`1998, Mamma.com Web site (Ex. 1005, 1018):
`
`1. A process for metasearching on the Internet, wherein the steps of
`
`the process are performed by a metasearch engine executing on a
`
`hardware device, the process comprising the steps of:
`
`(a) receiving a Hypertext Transfer Protocol request from a client de-
`
`vice for the metasearch engine to send at least one search query to a
`
`plurality of unique hosts that provide access to information to be
`
`searched, wherein the Hypertext Transfer Protocol request from the
`
`client device is associated with at least one item that may be ordered
`
`from a plurality of items that may be ordered;
`
`(b) sending the at least one search query to the plurality of unique
`
`hosts in response to the Hypertext Transfer Protocol request received
`
`from the client device;
`
`Petition for Post Grant Review
`
`Page 14
`
`

`

`PETITION FOR POST-GRANT REVIEW OF
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,326,924
`
`
`
`(c) receiving search results from the plurality of unique hosts i