IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`Issue Date: September 9, 2008
`
`Filing: March 19, 2002
`
`Group Art Unit: 705/9
`
`Confirmation Number:
`
`Filed Electronically Per 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.6(b)(1)
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`
`Inventor: Marc Vianello
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No.: Unassigned
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent No. 7,424,438
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Application No. 10/101,644
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`For: APPARATUS AND
`METHODS FOR PROVIDING
`CAREER AND EMPLOYMENT
`SERVICES
`
`
`
`
`
`
`MAIL STOP: Patent Board
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S.P.T.O.
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`PETITION FOR POST-GRANT REVIEW OF A COVERED BUSINESS
`METHOD PATENT UNDER § 18 OF THE LEAHY-SMITH AMERICA
`INVENTS ACT AND 35 U.S.C. § 321
`
`
`
`
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 321, the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”),
`
`Pub L. 112-29, § 18, and 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.300-42.304, Indeed, Inc. (“Indeed”) and
`
`Monster Worldwide Inc. (“Monster”) (collectively “Petitioner”) hereby petition the
`
`United States Patent and Trademark Office Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`
`(“PTAB”) to institute a Covered Business Method patent review (“CBM review”)
`
`of claims 1-25 of U.S. Patent No. 7,424,438 (“the ’438 Patent,” attached as Ex.
`
`1001), which issued to Marc Vianello on September 9, 2008.
`i
`
`
`
`

`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`
`
`PRELIMINARY STATEMENT ................................................................. 1
`I.
`II. REQUIRED DISCLOSURES ..................................................................... 3
`A. Real Parties-in-Interest ...................................................................... 3
`B. Related Matters .................................................................................. 3
`C.
`Lead Counsel and Back-Up Counsel ................................................ 4
`D.
`Service Information ............................................................................ 4
`E.
`Power of Attorney .............................................................................. 4
`F.
`A Legible Copy of Every Exhibit in the Exhibit List ...................... 4
`G. The Complete Covered Business Method Petition Fee ................... 4
`H. Certificate of Service on Patent Owner ............................................ 5
`III. GROUNDS FOR STANDING - 37 C.F.R. § 42.304(a) ............................. 5
`A. At Least One Challenged Claim is Unpatentable ........................... 5
`B. All Claims of The ’438 Patent Are Directed To A Covered
`Business Method ................................................................................. 5
`i.
`Overview of the Claims ........................................................... 7
`ii.
`The ’438 Patent Claims a Method or Apparatus Used
`in the Practice, Administration, or Management of a
`Financial Product or Service................................................. 10
`iii. None of the Claims of the ’438 Patent Are Directed To
`A Technological Invention .................................................... 14
`Petitioner Have Been Sued for Infringement of the ’438
`Patent and Are Not Estopped From Challenging the ’438
`Patent Claims .................................................................................... 18
`Eligibility Based on Time of Filing ................................................. 18
`D.
`IV. STATEMENT OF THE PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED FOR
`EACH CLAIM CHALLENGED .............................................................. 19
`A. Claims for Which Review is Requested ......................................... 19
`B.
`Statutory Grounds of Challenge ..................................................... 19
`
`C.
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`
`
`
`C. Claim Construction .......................................................................... 19
`i.
`Broadest Reasonable Interpretation .................................... 19
`ii.
`Support For The Broadest Reasonable Interpretation ...... 21
`iii. Means-Plus-Function Limitations (Claim 9) ....................... 25
`V. DETAILED EXPLANATION OF REASONS THAT THE
`CHALLENGED ’438 PATENT CLAIMS ARE
`UNPATENTABLE ..................................................................................... 28
`A. Claims 1-25 Are Unpatentable Under 35 U.S.C. § 101 ................. 28
`Independent Method Claim 1 is Directed to an
`i.
`Abstract Idea .......................................................................... 32
`Independent Method Claims 12 and 17 are Directed
`to an Abstract Idea ................................................................. 37
`iii. Claims 9 and 23 Are Unpatentable for the Same
`Reasons as Method Claims 1, 12, and 17 ............................. 38
`iv. The Remaining Claims are Unpatentable ........................... 40
`The Claims Do Not Satisfy the Machine-or
`v.
`Transformation Test .............................................................. 42
`B. Claims 1-5, 9-10, 12, 17, and 23 are Invalid under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 102 ................................................................................................... 44
`VI. CONCLUSION ........................................................................................... 64
`
`ii.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`Cases
`Accenture Global Servs., GmbH v. Guidewire Software, Inc.,
` 728 F.3d 1336, 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2013) .......................................................... passim
`
`Ass’n for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc.,
` 133 S. Ct. 2107, 2116 (2013) ............................................................................... 29
`
`Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assurance Co.,
` 687 F.3d 1266, 1280 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ..................................................... 30, 43, 44
`
`Bilski v. Kappos,
` 130 S. Ct. 3218, 3231 (2010) ....................................................................... passim
`
`CLS Bank Int’l v. Alice Corp.,
` 717 F.3d 1269 at 1287 (Fed. Cir. 2013), cert. granted,
` 82 U.S.L.W. 3131 (U.S. Dec. 6, 2013) (No. 13-95) ..................................... 35, 39
`
`CRS Advanced Tech., Inc. v. Frontline Tech., Inc.,
` CBM2012-00005 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 23, 2013) ................................................... 15, 16
`
`CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc.,
` 654 F. 3d 1366, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2011) .............................................. 29, 34, 37, 42
`
`Dealertrack, Inc. v. Huber,
`
` 674 F. 3d 1315, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ......................................................... 30, 34
`
`Dell Inc. v. Disposition Services LLC,
` CBM2013-00040 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 5, 2014) ........................................................... 38
`
`Fort Properties, Inc. v. American Master Lease LLC
`671 F.3d 1317, 1323–24 (Fed. Cir. 2012)…………………………………….31, 35
`
`Gottschalk v. Benson,
` 409 U.S. 63, 68 (1972) ......................................................................................... 29
`
`Interthinx, Inc. v. Corelogic Solutions, LLC,
` CBM2012-00007 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 31 2013) .................................................... 16, 17
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`
`
`
`
`In re Donaldson,
` 16 F.3d 1189 (Fed. Cir. 1994) .............................................................................. 21
`
`In re Trans Texas Holdings Corp.,
` 498 F.3d 1290, 1297 (Fed. Cir. 2007) .................................................................. 20
`
`LinkedIn Corp. v. Avmarkets, Inc.,
` CBM2013-00025 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 12, 2013) ........................................... 14, 35, 37
`
`Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc.,
` 132 S. Ct. 1289, 1293 (2012) .............................................................. 1, 29, 30, 41
`
`Metavante Corp. v. Checkfree Corp.,
` CBM2013-00032 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 23, 2013) ........................................................ 36
`
`Parker v. Flook,
` 437 U.S. 584, 593 (1978) ..................................................................................... 39
`
`SAP America, Inc. v. Versata Development Group, Inc.,
` CBM2012-00001 (P.T.A.B. June 11, 2013) ......................................................... 19
`
`Volusion, Inc. v. Versata Software, Inc.,
` CBM2013-00017 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 24, 2013) .............................................. 6, 13, 18
`
`Statutes
`35 U.S.C. § 101 ................................................................................................ passim
`35 U.S.C. § 102 ................................................................................................ passim
`35 U.S.C. § 112 ........................................................................................................ 21
`35 U.S.C. § 321(a) ..................................................................................................... 5
`35 U.S.C. § 321(c) ................................................................................................... 18
`35 U.S.C. § 324(a) ..................................................................................................... 5
`35 U.S.C. § 325 ........................................................................................................ 18
`
`Regulations
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b) .................................................................................................. 4
`37 C.F.R. § 42.205(a) ................................................................................................. 5
`37 C.F.R. § 42.300(a) ................................................................................................. 5
`37 C.F.R. § 42.300(b) .............................................................................................. 20
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`
`
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.301(a) .................................................................................... 6, 10, 14
`37 C.F.R. § 42.302(a) ............................................................................................... 18
`37 C.F.R. § 42.303 ................................................................................................... 18
`37 C.F.R. § 42.304 ............................................................................................ 19, 64
`37 C.F.R. § 42.63 ....................................................................................................... 4
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b) .................................................................................................... 3
`
`Other Authorities
`Microsoft Press Computer Dictionary (2d ed.1994) ................................... 22, 23, 24
`The American Heritage College Dictionary (3d ed. 1997) ………………….…...25
`
`
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`
`
`Exhibit 1003
`
`Exhibit 1008
`
`Exhibit 1009
`
`Exhibit 1001 U.S. Patent No. 7,424,438
`Exhibit 1002 Complaint in Career Destination Development LLC v. Indeed,
`Inc., Civil Action No. 13-cv-2486-JWL-JPO (D. Kan. Aug. 26,
`2013)
`SAP Am., Inc. v. Versata Dev. Grp., CBM2012-00001, Decision to
`Institute, Paper No. 36 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 9, 2013)
`Exhibit 1004 Volusion, Inc. v. Versata Software, Inc., CBM2013-00017,
`Decision to Institute, Paper No. 8 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 24, 2013)
`Exhibit 1005 Transitional Program for Covered Business Method Patents-
`Definitions of Covered Business Method Patent and Technological
`Invention, 77 Fed. Reg. 48734 (Aug. 14, 2012)
`Exhibit 1006 Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48756 (Aug. 14,
`2012)
`Exhibit 1007 CRS Advanced Technologies, Inc. v. Frontline Technology, Inc.,
`CBM2012-00005, Paper No. 17 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 23, 2013)
`Interthinx, Inc. v. Corelogic Solutions, LLC, No. CBM2012-00007
`(BJM), Paper 16 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 31 2013)
`SAP America, Inc. v. Versata Development Group, Inc.,
`CBM2012-00001, Final Written Decision, Paper No. 70 (P.T.A.B.
`June 11, 2013)
`Exhibit 1010 Changes to Implement Inter Partes Review Proceedings, Post-
`Grant Review Proceedings, and Transitional Program for Covered
`Business Method Patents, 77 Fed. Reg. 48680 (Aug. 14, 2012)
`
`
`
`vi
`
`

`
`
`
`Exhibit 1011 Microsoft Press Computer Dictionary (2d ed.1994)
`
`Exhibit 1012 The American Heritage College Dictionary (3d ed. 1997)
`Exhibit 1013 LinkedIn Corp. v. Avmarkets, Inc., CBM2013-00025, Decision to
`Institute, Paper No. 13 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 12, 2013)
`Exhibit 1014 Metavante Corp. v. Checkfree Corp., CBM2013-00032, Decision
`to Institute, Paper No. 16 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 23, 2013)
`Exhibit 1015 Dell Inc. v. Disposition Services LLC, CBM2013-00040, Decision
`to Institute, Paper No. 7 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 5, 2014)
`Exhibit 1016 Prosecution File History of U.S. Patent No. 7,424,438 (“File
`History”), Office Action Summary (Mailed July 14, 2005)
`Exhibit 1017 File History, Non-Final Rejection, Final Rejection, Detailed
`Action (June 20, 2003)
`Exhibit 1018 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2002/0002479 (“Almog”)
`
`
`
`vii
`
`

`
`
`
`I. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
`Abstract ideas cannot be patented. Mayo Collaborative Servs. v.
`
`Prometheus Labs., Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289, 1293 (2012); Bilski v. Kappos, 130 S. Ct.
`
`3218, 3231 (2010). Nevertheless, Marc Vianello (and by extension his company,
`
`’438 Patent assignee, Career Destination Development, LLC (“Career
`
`Destination”)), claims to have a monopoly over the fundamental concept of
`
`matching job-seekers and employers to fill job openings. According to Vianello,
`
`he created a novel invention whereby “employers [can] list for free each and every
`
`position whether it is open or not,” “prospective employees can list their
`
`qualifications . . . so they can be found by employers searching for qualified
`
`candidates,” and “[e]mployers can search for prospective employees possessing a
`
`particular level of experience in a particular occupation in a particular industry.”
`
`Ex. 1002 at 8, ¶ 23. Noticeably missing from this alleged invention, however, is
`
`the “inventive concept” needed to make these abstract ideas eligible for patenting.
`
`Mayo at 1293.
`
`Vianello was improperly granted patent rights to his intangible idea
`
`beginning in 2002 with the filing (and subsequent issue) of the ’438 Patent, and the
`
`related patents and patent applications claiming priority thereto. See.e.g., U.S.
`
`Patent No. 8,374,901. Vianello and Career Destination now attempt to assert their
`
`rights to the ’438 Patent against industry-leading companies for their alleged use of
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`
`
`
`business and recruiting tools that have existed for decades. The claims of the ’438
`
`Patent do not add an “inventive concept,” or “something more,” to age-old idea of
`
`matching job-seekers with employers looking to fulfill job openings by providing
`
`them with contact information, where necessary. Instead, the ’438 Patent describes
`
`abstract business tasks, such as saving candidate and employer characteristics (e.g.,
`
`skillsets, education level, and occupation), matching those characteristics against
`
`the relevant employer’s position requirements, and requiring payment in exchange
`
`for contact information from matches. For example, 24 of the 25 claims in the
`
`’438 Patent disclose a method or system that requires the steps of (i) saving
`
`candidate (or employer) identifying information/criteria, (ii) searching for
`
`candidates (or employer), (iii) matching the candidate’s (or employer’s)
`
`information/criteria against the other’s minimum requirements, (iv) receiving a
`
`response from the employer (or candidate), (v) obligating a payment, and (vi)
`
`exchanging contact information between the candidate and the employer. See Ex.
`
`1001, Claims 1-21, 23-25.
`
`Tellingly, each of the above-described steps can be performed manually by
`
`one or both of a job-seeker and/or employer or a third-party. The claims of the
`
`’438 Patent merely add “well-understood, routine, conventional” components, such
`
`as a computer processor, to these abstract ideas. Mayo at 1293. Not only were
`
`these generic components well-understood, but the claimed invention itself was
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`
`
`
`previously described in the prior art. The claims of the ’438 Patent are not eligible
`
`for patenting under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because they embody nothing more than
`
`unpatentable and well-known abstract ideas, namely, matching job-seekers and
`
`employers and providing contact information therein. As discussed below, the
`
`addition of well-understood, conventional elements, such as a computer processor,
`
`to such abstract ideas is simply not enough for patent eligibility. Even if the claims
`
`of the ’901 Patent could survive under § 101, Claims 1-5, 9-10, 12 17, and 23 are
`
`invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 102.
`
`II. REQUIRED DISCLOSURES
`A. Real Parties-in-Interest
`
`Indeed, Inc. and Monster Worldwide, Inc. are the real parties-in-interest for
`
`this Petition under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1).
`
`B. Related Matters
`
`In accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2), Petitioner identifies the following
`
`pending district court and related examination and reexamination proceedings as
`
`related matters: (i) Career Destination Dev. LLC v. Monster Worldwide, Inc., Civil
`
`Action No. 13-cv-2434 KHV/KGG, Dkt. No. 1 (Aug. 26, 2013); (ii) Career
`
`Destination Dev. LLC v. Monster Worldwide, Inc., Civil Action No. 13-cv-2486-
`
`JWL/JPO, Dkt. No. 1 (Sept. 17, 2013). Moreover, two petitions for covered
`
`business method review of U.S. Patent No. 8,374,901, another patent being
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`
`
`
`asserted by Career Destination in the above-referenced civil actions, are
`
`simultaneously being filed by Petitioner.
`
`C. Lead Counsel and Back-Up Counsel
`
`Petitioner designates Brian M. Buroker (Reg. No. 39125) lead counsel and
`
`Peter Weinberg (Reg. No. 40866) back-up counsel.
`
`D. Service Information
`
`Petitioner identifies service information as: Brian Buroker (Gibson, Dunn &
`
`Crutcher LLP, 1050 Connecticut Ave, N.W., Washington D.C., 20036; (202) 955-
`
`8541; Fax: (202) 530-4200; bburoker@gibsondunn.com); and Peter Weinberg
`
`(Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, 1801 California Street, Suite 4200 Denver, CO
`
`80202; (303) 298-5901; Fax: (303) 313-2827; pweinberg@gibsondunn.com).
`
`E. Power of Attorney
`
`Power of attorney is being filed in accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b).
`
`F. A Legible Copy of Every Exhibit in the Exhibit List
`
`In accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 42.63, Petitioner has included exhibit copies
`
`of every piece of evidence relied upon or referenced in this petition, prepared in
`
`accordance with the requirements of 37 C.F.R. § 42.63(c) and (d). The exhibit list
`
`includes a brief description of each exhibit in accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 42.63.
`
`G. The Complete Covered Business Method Petition Fee
`
`Petitioner hereby submits the fee of $36,750.00 (USD) in accordance with
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`
`
`
`35 U.S.C. § 321(a)(1) and 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.300(a), 42.304, 42.203(a), 42.8(a)(1),
`
`42.8(b)(4).
`
`H. Certificate of Service on Patent Owner
`
`A Certificate of Service is attached in accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 42.205(a),
`
`certifying that a copy of the Petition and all supporting evidence is being served on
`
`the patent owner at the correspondence address of record for the ’438 Patent,
`
`including the date, manner of service, name, and address of every person served.
`
`III. GROUNDS FOR STANDING - 37 C.F.R. § 42.304(a)
`A. At Least One Challenged Claim is Unpatentable
`Claims 1-25 of the ’438 Patent are invalid for failure to meet the patent
`
`eligibility requirements under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Also, Claims 1-5, 9-10, 12, 17, and
`
`23 are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 102. For the reasons set forth below, it is more
`
`likely than not that at least one of the claims of the ’438 Patent is unpatentable.
`
`See 35 U.S.C. § 324(a).
`
`B. All Claims of The ’438 Patent Are Directed To A Covered Business
`Method
`
`When considering petitions for covered business method patents, “the
`
`presence of a single [qualifying] claim is sufficient to institute a covered business
`
`method review.” Ex. 1003, SAP Am., Inc. v. Versata Dev. Grp., CBM2012-00001,
`
`Decision to Institute, Paper No. 36 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 9, 2013), at 26. Here, the ’438
`
`Patent qualifies as a “covered business method patent” because at least one claim
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`
`of the ’438 Patent is directed to financial products or services. See Ex. 1001 at 1,
`
`title (“Apparatus and Methods for Providing Career and Employment Services”).
`
`The AIA defines covered business method patents as follows:
`
`
`
`(1) IN GENERAL.—For purposes of this section, the
`term ‘‘covered business method patent’’ means a patent
`that claims a method or corresponding apparatus for
`performing data processing or other operations used in
`the practice, administration, or management of a financial
`product or service, except that the term does not include
`patents for technological inventions.
`
`AIA, § 18(d)(1); see also 37 C.F.R. § 42.301(a). Moreover, the term “financial
`
`product or service” is not “limited to the products or services of the financial
`
`services industry as [this notion] ran contrary to the intent behind § 18(d)(1).” Ex.
`
`1003 at 26. Likewise, the PTAB “do[es] not interpret the statute as requiring the
`
`literal recitation of the terms financial products or services.” Ex. 1003 at 23.
`
`Instead, “[t]he legislative history of the AIA 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.” Ex. 1004, Volusion, Inc. v. Versata Software, Inc., CBM2013-
`
`00017, Decision to Institute, Paper No. 8 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 24, 2013), at 5.
`
`“Financial” under Section 18 of the AIA “is an adjective that simply means
`
`relating to monetary matters.” Ex. 1003 at 23.
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`
`
`
`i. Overview of the Claims
`
`The claims of the ’438 Patent generally recite methods and/or systems for
`
`authorizing, facilitating, or coordinating the exchange of contact information
`
`between job-seekers (also called “candidates” and/or “talent”) and employers.
`
`More specifically, the claims recite the steps of receiving search requests for either
`
`candidates or employers and determining whether the candidates’ or employers’
`
`attributes meet minimum requirements, to match candidates and employers’ for the
`
`potential exchange of contact information for payment. See Ex. 1001, col. 10:53-
`
`60. Claim 1 is exemplary:
`
`1. A method executed by a computer processor for authorizing
`
`information exchange between at least one of a plurality of candidates and at
`
`least one of a plurality of employers prior to any direct contact between said
`
`candidate and said employer, said candidate having one or more candidate
`
`attributes including candidate minimum requirements, said employer having
`
`one or more employer attributes including employer minimum requirements,
`
`said one or more candidate attributes and minimum requirements including a
`
`searchable profile being stored in a candidate database, and said one or more
`
`employer attributes and minimum requirements including a searchable
`
`profile being stored in an employer database, said method comprising:
`
`Receiving a search request from either said candidate or said employer to
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`
`
`
`search the searchable profile of one of the candidate and employer databases for a
`
`possible employment opportunity based upon certain search parameters;
`
`processing the search request and providing the results to the requesting one
`
`of said candidate and said employer;
`
`
`
`receiving a at least one request for release of contact information from the
`
`requesting one of said candidate and said employer based upon the search results;
`
`determining that the attributes of the requesting one of said candidate and
`
`said employer satisfy the minimum requirements of a non-requesting candidate or
`
`employer stored in the candidate and employer databases;
`
`receiving a response from said non-requesting candidate or employer
`
`consenting to the release of the contact information of said candidate or said
`
`employer to said requesting party;
`
`obligating a payment due in real time based on the response to said request
`
`for release of contact information wherein said payment due is a fee to a career site
`
`operator; and
`
`providing exchange of contact information in real time prior to any direct
`
`contact between said candidate and said employer.
`
`Ex. 1001, col. 52:29-67. The same basic steps of the claimed methods and systems
`
`are repeated (with slight variation) across twenty-four of the twenty-five claims of
`
`the ’438 Patent: (i) “receiving a search request from either said candidate or said
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`
`
`
`employer,” (ii) “processing the search request and providing the results,” (iii)
`
`“determining that the attributes of the requesting [user] satisfy the minimum
`
`requirements of a non-requesting [user],” (iv) “receiving at least one request for
`
`release of contact information,” (v) “receiving a response from said non-requesting
`
`[user] consenting to the release of contact information,” (vi) “obligating a payment
`
`due in real time,” and (vii) “providing exchange of contact information in real
`
`time.” Ex. 1001, Claims 1-21, 23-25. Claim 22, moreover, claims a method for
`
`authorizing the exchange of contact information between job-seeks and employers
`
`wherein the method include the steps of “determining if either said employer or
`
`said candidate has not yet responded to a request for release of contact
`
`information,” “precluding said employer or candidate [who has not yet responded]
`
`from further interaction with the computer system,” “communicating to said
`
`employer or candidate [who has not yet responded] that a response to a request for
`
`release of contact information is required,” “offering the opportunity to said
`
`employer or candidate [who has not yet responded] to respond,” “determining that
`
`there is mutual consent for the release of contact information,” “obligating a
`
`payment due in real time,” and “providing exchange of contact information in real
`
`time.” Ex. 1001, col. 57:15-42.
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`
`
`
`ii. The ’438 Patent Claims a Method or Apparatus Used in the
`Practice, Administration, or Management of a Financial
`Product or Service
`
`All of the claims of the ’438 Patent are directed to a “method … for
`
`performing data processing … used in the practice, administration, or management
`
`of a financial … service.” AIA § 18(d)(1); see also 37 C.F.R. § 42.301(a). First,
`
`the ’438 Patent is classified in the 705 art group, (see Ex. 1001, ’438 Patent cover
`
`(citing “U.S. Cl. 705/9”)), and “patents subject to covered business method patent
`
`review are anticipated to be typically classifiable in Class 705.” Ex. 1005 at 7.
`
`Second, all of the claims of the ’438 Patent recite the step of either “obligating a
`
`payment due in real time,” (see Ex. 1001, Claims 1, 12 17, 22, 23), or “obligating
`
`the payment fee,” (see Ex. 1001, Claim 9), as part of “a method . . . for authorizing
`
`information exchange between . . . candidates and . . . employers” (see Ex. 1001,
`
`Claims 1-8, 12-22), “a distributed network for facilitating the exchange of contact
`
`information between . . . candidates and . . . employers” (see Ex. 1001, Claim 9-
`
`11), or “a computer system for coordinating information exchange between . . .
`
`candidates and . . . employers.” (see Ex. 1001, Claim 23-25). Thus, the claimed
`
`methods and systems for matching job-seekers and employers are used directly in
`
`practicing a “financial service” because they are provided for a fee and therefore
`
`relate to monetary matters. See AIA § 18(d)(1); see also Ex. 1001, col. 4:64-5:9.
`
`For example, Claim 1 is directed toward “a method . . . for authorizing information
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`
`
`
`exchange between . . . candidates . . . employers . . . the method comprising . . .
`
`obligating a payment due in real time based on the response to said request for
`
`release of contact information wherein said payment due is a fee to a career site
`
`operator.” Ex. 1001, col. 52:61-64. Tellingly, the ’438 Patent specification
`
`explains that, “after . . . mutual consent [to the exchange of talent contact
`
`information] has been granted, a financial transaction is consummated wherein the
`
`employer pays a fee to the career site operator.” Ex. 1001, col. 5:61-64 (emphasis
`
`added); see also col. 9:3-23 (“In one embodiment, the amount of the fee paid by an
`
`employer to the career site before obtaining contact information is related to the
`
`educational level of a particular talent . . . For example, in one embodiment, the
`
`charge for talent contact info is mapped to the highest education level as follows:
`
`(i) GED costs $30; (ii) high school costs $40; (iii) vocational educational training
`
`costs $50; (iv) associate’s degree costs $50; (v) bachelor’s degree costs $65; (vi)
`
`master’s degree costs $80; and (vii) doctorate costs $100. In another embodiment,
`
`a flat fee, such as, for example $50 is charged for all talent contact information
`
`regardless of education level or required compensation.”).
`
`Third, the claimed methods and systems are, at minimum, “incidental … or
`
`complementary to a financial activity” because they disclose methods and systems
`
`for practicing job hunting and employer recruiting, both inherently financial
`
`activities involving compensation. See Ex. 1003 at 23 (finding a patent eligible for
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`
`
`
`CBM review where the “patent claims methods and products for determining a
`
`price and [] these claims, which are complementary to a financial activity and
`
`relate to monetary matters, are considered financial products and services under §
`
`18(d)(1).”). For example, Claim 1 recites a method for authorizing information
`
`exchange between candidates and employers, the method comprising “receiving a
`
`search request from either said candidate or said employer to search the searchable
`
`profile of one of the candidate and employer databases for a possible employment
`
`opportunity,” and “determining that the attributes of the requesting one of said
`
`candidate and said employer satisfy the minimum requirements of a non-requesting
`
`candidate or employer.” Ex. 1001, col. 52:29-67 (emphasis added). Twenty-four
`
`of the twenty-five claims in the ’438 Patent require this “determining . . . minimum
`
`requirements” step. As explained in the specification, “the system compares the
`
`parameters of the talent profile and the job listing involved in the initiating party’s
`
`inquiry, including comparing the minimum required compensation of the talent
`
`with the maximum provided compensation of the job position.” Ex. 1001, col.
`
`10:24-32 (emphasis added). Thus, at minimum, these claims are directed to
`
`methods and systems where job-seekers and employers may be matched for an
`
`employment opportunity based on “compensation” (e.g., salary) requirements,
`
`which certainly relate to “monetary matters.”
`
`Fourth, the claimed invention has application in the field of e-commerce and
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`
`
`
`recruiting, for example, financial services companies (e.g., firms involved in the
`
`financial services industry) and the job-seekers interested in working thereto could
`
`practice the methods of the ’438 Patent to search for employment opportunities or
`
`recruit qualified professionals. See Ex. 1004 at 6 (“[T]he claimed invention has
`
`application in the field of e-commerce, in the form of e-catalogs used by potential
`
`buyers. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the items
`
`that can be displayed to a user may be associated with financial services.”). More
`
`specifically, the claimed invention is directed to any employer, including “large
`
`enterprises,” and said employers can “rent ‘storefronts’ which are sections of the
`
`career site devoted to the particular employer.” Ex. 1001, col. 51:50-51. For
`
`example, the “method . . . for authorizing information exchanged” recited in Claim
`
`1 would cover candidates searching for job openings in the financial services
`
`industry and/or employers in the financial services industry searching for qualified
`
`candidates. In fact, the ’438 Patent specification specifically enumerates the title
`
`of “Certified Public Accountant” as an candidate characteristic that can be saved in
`
`that candidate’s user profile. Id., col. 12:46-48.
`
`Finally, matching job-seekers to job openings is a fundamental business
`
`practice directed at marketing candidates and employers to each other—this is
`
`certainly directed to a financial activity. See, e.g., Exhibit 1013, LinkedIn Corp. v.
`
`Avmarkets, Inc., CBM2013-00025, Decision to Institute, Paper No. 13 (P.T.A.B.
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`
`
`
`Nov. 12, 2013), at 15-16 (“Listing items online so that the intended customers can
`
`find them more easily is, therefore, a marketing technique in the sale of products.
`
`Accordingly, the su