Trials@uspto.gov
`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper 11
`Entered: August 20, 2014
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`
`INDEED, INC. and MONSTER WORLDWIDE INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`CAREER DESTINATION DEVELOPMENT, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case CBM2014-00068
`Patent 7,424,438 B2
`____________
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, MEREDITH C. PETRAVICK, and
`JUSTIN BUSCH, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`BUSCH, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Covered Business Method Patent Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.208
`
`
`
`
`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper 11
`Entered: August 20, 2014
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`
`INDEED, INC. and MONSTER WORLDWIDE INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`CAREER DESTINATION DEVELOPMENT, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case CBM2014-00068
`Patent 7,424,438 B2
`____________
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, MEREDITH C. PETRAVICK, and
`JUSTIN BUSCH, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`BUSCH, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Covered Business Method Patent Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.208
`
`
`
`
`
`CBM2014-00068
`Patent 7,424,438 B2
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`A. Background
`On February 12, 2014, Indeed, Inc. (“Indeed”) and Monster
`Worldwide Inc. (“Monster”) (collectively “Petitioner”) filed a Petition
`(Paper 3) requesting review of claims 1–25 of U.S. Patent No. 7,424,438 B2
`(Ex. 1001, “the ’438 patent”) under the transitional program for covered
`business method patents.1 Career Destination Development, LLC (“Patent
`Owner”) did not file a preliminary response.
`We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 324, which provides that a
`post-grant review may not be instituted “unless . . . the information
`presented in the petition . . . would demonstrate that it is more likely than not
`that at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition is unpatentable.”
`B. Standing
`Section 18 of the AIA governs the transitional program for covered
`business method patent reviews. Section 18(a)(1)(B) of the AIA limits such
`reviews to persons or their privies that have been sued or charged with
`infringement of a covered business method patent.
`Petitioner and Patent Owner indicate that the ’438 patent was asserted
`against Monster and Indeed in Career Destination Dev. LLC v. Monster
`Worldwide, Inc., Case No. 13-CV-2434 (D. Kan. filed Aug. 26, 2013) and
`Career Destination Dev. LLC v. Indeed, Inc., Case No. 13-CV-2486 (D.
`
`
`1 See § 18(a) of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, Pub. L. No. 112-29,
`125 Stat. 284, 329 (2011) (“AIA”).
`
` 2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CBM2014-00068
`Patent 7,424,438 B2
`
`Kan. filed Sep. 17, 2013),2 respectively. Pet. 3; Mandatory Notice of Patent
`Owner (Paper 7), 2.
`C. Related Proceedings
`Petitioner filed a second petition for covered business method patent
`review of the ’438 patent (Monster Worldwide Inc. v. Career Destination
`Dev., LLC, Case CBM2014-00077 (PTAB Feb. 21, 2014)). Additionally,
`two petitions for covered business method patent review of U.S. Patent No.
`8,374,901 B2 (Indeed, Inc. v. Career Destination Dev., LLC, Case
`CBM2014-00069 (PTAB Feb. 12, 2014) and Monster Worldwide Inc. v.
`Career Destination Dev., LLC, Case CBM2014-00070 (PTAB Feb. 12,
`2014)), which is a divisional application of the application resulting in the
`’438 patent and also allegedly asserted by Patent Owner in the identified
`litigations, were filed simultaneously.
`D. The ’438 Patent (Ex. 1001)
`The invention of the ʼ438 patent relates generally to methods and
`systems for facilitating contact information exchange between employers
`and candidates (interchangeably referred to throughout the ’438 patent as
`“talent” or “job-seekers”) when a potential match is found. Ex. 1001, 5:53–
`6:11. The ’438 patent discloses that there are various ways of identifying
`prospective matches and that a request for exchange of contact information
`may be initiated by either the employer or the candidate. Id.
`The ’438 patent describes conventional computers, networks, personal
`digital assistants (“PDAs”), and web applications that may include the use of
`conventional web, database, and email servers, which may be individual or
`
`2 The Petition contains a typo in the case name, erroneously identifying
`Monster as the defendant. The defendant in the case is Indeed.
`
` 3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CBM2014-00068
`Patent 7,424,438 B2
`
`integrated servers. Id. at 7:49–8:53. The ’438 patent also describes various
`methods of charging for the exchange of contact information. One disclosed
`embodiment charges an employer a fee prior to providing a candidate’s
`contact information based on the education level of the candidate. Id. at
`9:3–14. Another embodiment charges an employer a flat fee, regardless of
`the education level of the candidate or compensation required by the
`candidate, prior to releasing contact information. Id. at 9:14–16. Yet
`another embodiment discloses charging an employer a fee based on the
`maximum offered compensation before providing the employer with the
`candidate’s contact information. Id. at 9:17–19. Another embodiment may
`use a combination of factors to determine the fee charged to an employer
`prior to releasing the candidate’s contact information. Id. at 9:19–23.
`When the employer searches for candidate profiles matching certain
`criteria, the employer may initiate the transactions resulting in an exchange
`of contact information. Id. at 10:16–20. When a candidate searches for
`employment opportunities, the candidate may initiate the transactions
`resulting in an exchange of contact information. Id. at 10:20–23. As part of
`the process leading to the exchange of contact information, the system
`compares various parameters of the candidate and job listing to determine if
`there is a match. Id. at 10:24–32. In some embodiments, once a pool of
`prospective matches are identified, the system determines whether a
`maximum compensation the employer is willing to pay is greater than the
`minimum compensation the talent is willing to accept. Id. at 44:14–17; Fig.
`10, item 1017; see also Fig. 4, item 417. If there is not a match, the system
`may offer the opportunity for the searcher to alter parameters (either for the
`candidate herself or for the employer’s job posting) in an attempt to generate
`
` 4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CBM2014-00068
`Patent 7,424,438 B2
`
`a match with the identified job listing or candidate profile. Id. at 10:33–
`11:2.
`
`If the candidate initiates the request for an exchange of contact
`information, that action serves as the candidate’s authorization for releasing
`her contact information, and the transaction is completed if the employer
`then elects to purchase the contact information. Id. at 11:8–15. If the
`employer initiates the request for an exchange of contact information, that
`action serves as the employer’s consent to purchase the contact information,
`and the transaction is completed if the candidate then indicates interest in the
`job opportunity. Id. at 11:26–32. If the non-initiating party does not
`respond, their account may be suspended. Id. at 29:52–65, 35:39–65. The
`system may transmit contact information by any communications means,
`including fax, e-mail, or an authenticated web page. Id. at 11:56–60. An
`employer may pay for the exchange of contact information with a credit
`card, a prepaid account, or by invoice. Id. at 47:31–35.
`E. Illustrative Claim
`All of the claims of the ’438 patent are challenged and, of those
`claims, claims 1, 9, 12, 17, 22, and 23 are independent claims. Claim 1 is
`illustrative of the claimed subject matter of the ’438 patent, and is
`reproduced as follows:
`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
`
` 5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CBM2014-00068
`Patent 7,424,438 B2
`
`
`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 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.
`F. Covered Business Method Patent
`Under § 18(a)(1)(E) of the AIA, the Director may institute a
`transitional proceeding only for a patent that is a covered business method
`
` 6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CBM2014-00068
`Patent 7,424,438 B2
`
`patent, defined as “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).
`The determination of whether a patent is eligible for covered business
`method patent review is based on what the patent claims. A patent having
`just one claim directed to a covered business method is eligible for review
`even if the patent includes additional claims that are not directed to a
`covered business method. Transitional Program for Covered Business
`Method Patents – Definitions of Covered Business Method Patent and
`Technological Invention; Final Rule, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,734, 48,736 (Aug. 14,
`2012) (Response to Comment 8).
`1. Financial Product or Service
`The “legislative history explains that the definition of a 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’” and that “financial product or
`service” should be interpreted broadly. 77 Fed. Reg. 48,734, 48,735 (Aug.
`14, 2012) (quoting 157 Cong. Rec. S5432 (daily ed. Sept. 8, 2011)
`(statement of Sen. Schumer)).
`Petitioner argues that “the ’438 patent is classified in the 705 art group
`and ‘patents subject to covered business method patent review are
`anticipated to be typically classifiable in Class 705.’” Pet. 10 (quoting Final
`Rule, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,734, 48,739 (Aug. 14, 2012)). Petitioner asserts that
`each of the claims of the ’438 patent recite a method or system for
`
` 7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CBM2014-00068
`Patent 7,424,438 B2
`
`authorizing exchange of contact information between an employer and a
`candidate, including a step related to obligating a payment due in real time
`in order to release the contact information and “the specification explains
`that . . . ‘a financial transaction is consummated wherein the employer pays
`a fee to the career site operator.’” Id. at 10–11 (quoting Ex. 1001, 5:61–64).
`Petitioner also argues the claims are at least complementary or incidental to
`a financial activity because the claims are directed to steps involved in job
`hunting and employer recruiting, which are “both inherently financial
`activities involving compensation.” Id. at 11. Petitioner asserts that the
`claims relate to monetary matters because the claims recite steps that may
`include matching employers and candidates for a possible employment
`opportunity based on salary requirements. Id. at 12. Petitioner also argues
`the system and methods claimed in the ’438 patent are at least incidental to a
`financial activity because they could be used in e-commerce and recruiting
`for financial services companies or for candidates seeking jobs at financial
`services companies. Id. at 13. Finally, Petitioner argues “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.” Id.
`The legislative history states, “[a]t its most basic, a financial product
`is an agreement between two parties stipulating movements of money.” 157
`Cong. Rec. S5432 (daily ed. Sept. 8, 2011) (statement of Sen. Schumer).
`The payment of a fee in exchange for assistance in matching an employer
`and a candidate is a financial activity, and claim 1, which “obligat[es] a
`payment due” from an employer, is at least incidental or complementary to
`that financial activity and, thus, is directed to a financial product or service.
`
` 8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CBM2014-00068
`Patent 7,424,438 B2
`
`
`Accordingly, the’438 patent 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.
`2. Technological Invention
`The definition of “covered business method patent” in Section
`18(d)(1) of the AIA excludes patents for “technological inventions.” To
`determine whether a patent is for a technological invention, we consider
`“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.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.301(b). The following
`claim drafting techniques, for example, typically do not render a patent a
`“technological invention”:
`(a) Mere recitation of known technologies, such as
`computer hardware, communication or computer networks,
`software, memory, computer-readable
`storage medium,
`scanners, display devices or databases, or specialized machines,
`such as an ATM or point of sale device.
`(b) Reciting the use of known prior art technology to
`accomplish a process or method, even if that process or method
`is novel and non-obvious.
`(c) Combining prior art structures to achieve the normal,
`expected, or predictable result of that combination.
`Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. at 48,763–64. Therefore, to
`qualify under the “technological invention” exception to covered business
`method patent review, it is not enough that the invention makes use of
`technological systems, features, or components. Use of technology is
`ubiquitous and underlies virtually every invention.
`Claim 1 recites “[a] method executed by a computer processor” to
`authorize the exchange of information between a candidate an employer.
`
` 9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CBM2014-00068
`Patent 7,424,438 B2
`
`The claimed invention as a whole has no use other than to receive and
`process search requests, determine matches between employers and
`candidates based on various parameters, receive authorizations for release of
`information and/or payment of a fee in exchange for such information,
`obligate a payment due, and exchange contact information. The claim
`recites only generic and well-known components used in the ordinary
`manner to achieve a predictable result, such as using a computer processor to
`execute the method steps and a candidate database and/or an employer
`database to aid in storing and searching profiles.
`The subject matter of claim 1 does not use a technical solution to
`solve a technical problem. According to the field of the invention of the
`’438 patent, the invention relates to “optimizing individuals’ employment
`searches and career opportunities, and optimizing employers’ recruiting and
`hiring processes and decisions.” Ex. 1001, 1:10–12. The ’438 patent
`indicates that “a system is needed that . . . encourages the participation of all
`employers and all talent in an economically efficient, on-going process of
`optimizing the use of available skills.” Id. at 5:44–48. However, creating a
`centralized location for all employers and candidates to search, and releasing
`contact information only with both parties’ consent, could be done by a third
`party without the assistance of computing technologies. No technical
`problem has been identified that is solved by the subject matter of claim 1.
`In order to be an exception to qualifying as a covered business method
`patent, a claim must both “recite[] a technological feature that is novel and
`unobvious over the prior art; and solve[] a technical problem using a
`technical solution.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.301(b) (emphasis added). Because we
`are persuaded that at least claim 1 is a method used in the practice,
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`CBM2014-00068
`Patent 7,424,438 B2
`
`administration, or management of a financial product or service and neither
`recites a technological feature nor offers a technical solution to a technical
`problem, we determine that the claims of the ’438 patent are eligible for
`covered business method patent review.
`G. Asserted Grounds
`Petitioner challenges claims 1–25 (the “challenged claims”) as
`unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §§ 101 and 102 based on the following
`specific grounds (Pet. 28–64):
`Basis
`Reference(s)
`§ 101
`N/A
`
`Claims challenged
`1–25
`1–5, 9, 10, 12, 17, and
`23
`
`§ 102(a)
`
`Almog3
`
`We determine the information presented in the Petition demonstrates
`it is more likely than not that the challenged claims are unpatentable.
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 324 and § 18(a) of the AIA, we authorize a covered
`business method patent review to be instituted as to claims 1–25 of the ’438
`patent, to the extent and for the reasons described below.
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`
`A. Claim Construction
`As a step in our analysis, we determine the meaning of the claims that
`are necessary for purposes of this decision. At this time, it is only necessary
`to provide a construction for the means-plus-function limitations to the
`extent necessary to evaluate the challenges raised. Petitioner asserts each
`
`
`3 U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2002/0002479 A1, published Jan. 3, 2002 (Ex. 1018)
`(“Almog”).
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`CBM2014-00068
`Patent 7,424,438 B2
`
`term in claim 9 should be construed as a means-plus-function term and,
`accordingly, identifies the function and structure of each limitation in claim
`9, including citations to the specification of the ’438 patent purported to
`support the proposed constructions. Pet. 25–28. Patent Owner has not filed
`a preliminary response and, therefore, has not proposed a construction for
`any claim terms at this time.
`We agree with Petitioner that each of the limitations in claim 9 should
`be construed in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6.4 “[T]he
`corresponding structure for a § 112, ¶ 6 claim for a computer-implemented
`function is the algorithm disclosed in the specification.” Aristocrat Techs.
`Austl. Party. Ltd. vs. Int’l Game Tech., 521 F.3d 1328, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2008)
`(quoting Harris Corp. v. Ericsson Inc., 417 F.3d 1241, 1249 (Fed. Cir.
`2005)). However, when the function of a means-plus-function limitation is
`coextensive with a general purpose processor and can be achieved by any
`general purpose computer without special programming, it may not be
`necessary to disclose more than a general purpose processor that performs
`those functions. In re Katz, 639 F.3d 1303, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
`Petitioner repeats the portion of each limitation following the
`language “means for” as the proposed construction for the function of the
`respective limitations. Pet. 25–28. On this record, we agree that the
`function of each of the means-plus-function limitations is stated clearly in
`the claim and needs no further explanation.
`Petitioner points to various respective portions of the specification of
`
`4 AIA § 4(c) re-designated 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6, as 35 U.S.C. § 112(f).
`Because the ’736 patent has a filing date before September 16, 2012
`(effective date of AIA), we use the citation § 112, ¶ 6.
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`CBM2014-00068
`Patent 7,424,438 B2
`
`the ’438 patent as support for identifying the corresponding structure for
`each of the limitations in claim 9. Pet. 25–28. A review of the ’438 patent
`and, in particular the portions cited by Petitioner, reveals that the function
`for each of the means limitations recited in claim 9 are performed by: a
`general purpose processor without special programming (e.g., “means for
`computing a payment fee”), off-the-shelf software (e.g., “means for
`managing enterprise database resources”), or an algorithm to be executed by
`a general purpose processor (e.g., “means for determining that there is
`mutual consent”).
`Similarly, the corresponding structures for the means limitations in
`dependent claims 10 and 11, which depend from independent claim 9, are
`algorithms to be executed by a general purpose processor. Claim 10 recites
`that the means for determining if there is mutual consent further comprises a
`means for receiving a response from the non-requesting party. Claim 11
`recites additional means for communicating to the requesting party that there
`is no match, offering an opportunity to change an attribute causing the lack
`of a match, and determining mutual consent between the parties. Thus, the
`additional means limitations recited in claims 10 and 11 are either included
`as a part of an algorithm meeting the structure of claim 9 or merely involve
`algorithms for communicating with a party in well-understood, routine and
`conventional ways. Therefore, the corresponding structure for each of the
`means limitations in claims 9–11 is merely routine and conventional
`processors and software for performing the functions recited in each
`respective means limitation.
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`
`CBM2014-00068
`Patent 7,424,438 B2
`
`
`B. Asserted Ground Based on 35 U.S.C. § 101
`The statute states that a new and useful “process, machine,
`manufacture, or composition of matter” is eligible for patent protection.
`35 U.S.C. § 101. There are, however, three limited, judicially-created
`exceptions to the broad categories of patent-eligible subject matter in § 101:
`laws of nature; natural phenomena; and abstract ideas. Mayo Collaborative
`Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289, 1293 (2012). Although a
`law of nature or an abstract idea by itself is not patentable, a practical
`application of the law of nature or abstract idea may be deserving of patent
`protection. Id. at 1293–94. However, the Supreme Court further noted that
`limiting an abstract idea to one field of use or adding token postsolution
`components does not make the concept patentable. Bilski v. Kappos, 130 S.
`Ct. 3218, 3231 (2010) (“These claims attempt to patent the use of the
`abstract idea of hedging risk in the energy market and then instruct the use
`of well-known random analysis techniques to help establish some of the
`inputs into the equation.”); see also Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l,
`134 S.Ct. 2347, 2352 (2014) (“We hold that the claims at issue are drawn to
`the abstract idea of intermediated settlement, and that merely requiring
`generic computer implementation fails to transform that abstract idea into a
`patent-eligible invention.”).
`Petitioner asserts that claims 1–25 of the ’438 patent are unpatentable,
`under 35 U.S.C. § 101, because they are directed to abstract ideas. Pet. 28–
`44. Specifically, Petitioner argues claim 1 is directed to the abstract concept
`of “matching a candidate, or job-seeker, to an employer for the potential
`exchange of contact information for a fee, or, in the patent’s parlance,
`exchanging contact information between candidates and employers that each
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`
`CBM2014-00068
`Patent 7,424,438 B2
`
`meet minimum requirements for a fee.” Pet. 32–34. Petitioner states that
`the recited steps of the claims either can be performed in the human mind or
`with pencil and paper, and are, thus, abstract ideas that are not patentable.
`Pet. 34 (citing Cybersource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366,
`1372 (Fed. Cir. 2011)). Petitioner further argues that beyond the abstract
`idea of exchanging information for a fee, claim 1 “rel[ies] on generic, well-
`known computer elements to survive, namely a ‘computer processor’ and a
`‘database.’” Pet. 34–35.
`Petitioner asserts claims 12 and 17 “are nearly identical [to each
`other], only in one the method is directed at candidates to be matched with
`employers, while the other is directed at employers to be matched with
`candidates.” Id. at 37. Petitioner states that “both Claims 12 and 17 repeat
`the same steps (a)-(g) as described in Claim 1, but recite a ‘computer
`system,’ rather than a ‘computer processor’” and merely add steps storing
`the candidate and employer attributes and requirements in respective
`databases and establishing a portion of a database to be searchable. Id. at
`37–38. Petitioner argues claims 12 and 17 are unpatentable as being
`directed to an abstract idea for the same reasons as asserted with respect to
`claim 1 and because the additional limitations are, at most, insignificant
`extra-solution activity that does not render otherwise-ineligible subject
`matter patent eligible. Id. at 38.
`Petitioner asserts that claims 9 and 23 are unpatentable for the same
`reasons as asserted with respect to claims 1, 12, and 17 because claims 9 and
`23 recite the same substantive limitations and are merely presented in
`different formats (i.e., as a means-plus-function claim and a system claim,
`respectively). Id. at 38–40. Petitioner also argues that the additional
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`CBM2014-00068
`Patent 7,424,438 B2
`
`limitations in claims 2–8, 10, 11, 13–16, 18–22, 24, and 25 “do not add any
`significant tangible subject matter.” Id. at 40.
`On this record, we are persuaded that each of the challenged claims is
`directed to the abstract idea of matching a candidate with an employer and
`releasing the contact information upon consent from both parties and
`payment of a fee by the employer.
`Although the challenged claims include references to computer
`processors or computer systems, databases or memory, and distributed
`networks, we are persuaded, based on the record before us, that they are
`insignificant, conventional, and routine, not meaningful limitations beyond
`the abstract idea. See Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs, Inc.,
`132 S. Ct. 1289, 1300 (2012) (“[S]imply appending conventional steps,
`specified at a high level of generality, to laws of nature, natural phenomena,
`and abstract ideas cannot make those laws, phenomena and ideas
`patentable.”). In particular, the claims merely recite using the well-known
`components to process or store data. The recited steps (processing,
`receiving requests, storing, determining matches, and obligating payments)
`performed by a processor or in a computer system are routine and
`conventional activities that were previously known in the industry. See
`Alice, 134 S.Ct. at 2359. The fact that the processor or computer systems
`recited may perform the recited steps more quickly than a human could does
`not render the abstract idea patent-eligible because “each step does no more
`than require a generic computer to perform generic computer functions.” Id.
`Regarding claims 9–11, which recite means-plus-function limitations
`that are otherwise similar in scope to claim 1, we are also persuaded that, on
`this record, claims 9–11 are directed to abstract ideas. As discussed above,
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`
`CBM2014-00068
`Patent 7,424,438 B2
`
`the corresponding structure for the means limitations of claims 9–11 are
`merely well-understood, routine and conventional processors and software.
`Thus, viewed as a whole, claims 9–11 merely recite performing the abstract
`idea of matching a candidate with an employer and releasing the contact
`information upon consent from both parties and payment of a fee by the
`employer using generic components and software.
`In view of Petitioner’s unchallenged arguments and declaration, we
`are persuaded that Petitioner has shown that it is more likely than not that
`claims 1–25 of the ’438 patent are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 101,
`because they are directed to non-statutory subject matter.
`C. Asserted Anticipation Ground Based on Almog
`1. Overview of Almog (Ex. 1018)
`Almog is directed to methods and systems relating to job placement,
`with steps including storing records of candidates and jobs in databases and
`determining matches between candidates and jobs. Ex. 1018, Abs. Almog
`discloses using a real time database, which makes data available as it is
`accumulated and allows queries “left at the database” to find newly entered
`records in real time. Id. at ¶¶ 8–10. Almog explains that an employer
`seeking candidates may request a search of candidate records fulfilling a
`desired profile (which may include salary information) (id. at ¶ 15) and that
`the system may determine whether a candidate’s profile and a job profile
`match based on the similarity of the two profiles. Id. at ¶¶ 19, 20. Almog
`explains that candidates or employers may search for job openings or
`candidates, respectively, using a search engine. Id. at ¶¶ 30, 37, 40.
`Employers may indicate interest in candidates by marking their profiles,
`which may including sending the identified candidates messages. Id. at
`
`17
`
`
`
`
`
`CBM2014-00068
`Patent 7,424,438 B2
`
`¶ 19. Almog discloses embodiments that hide the candidates’ information
`and require the employer to request that information, but Almog does not
`disclose to whom that request is sent or whether a response from any party is
`necessary in order to release that information. Id. at ¶ 134.
`2. Analysis of Asserted Anticipation Ground based on Almog
`(Claims 1–5, 9, 10, 12, 17, and 23)
`Petitioner argues that claims 1–5, 9, 10, 12, 17, and 23 are anticipated
`by Almog. Pet. 44–45. Petitioner provides claim charts, specifying where
`the limitations of claims 1–5, 9, 10, 12, 17, and 23 can be found in Almog.
`Id. at 44–64 (quoting Ex. 1018 ¶¶ 9, 14–20, 24, 25, 35–37, 40, 49–52, 55,
`61, 101, 110, 114, 133, 134, Figs. 1–4). Based on the information presented,
`Petitioner has not established it is more likely than not that claims 1–5, 9, 10,
`12, 17, and 23 are anticipated by Almog.
`Independent claim 1 recites “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.”
`Independent claims 9, 12, 17, and 23 each recite a limitation similar in scope
`to that limitation of claim 1, and dependent claims 2–5 and 10 depend from
`claims 1 and 9, respectively, thus incorporating the relevant limitation from
`claim 1 or claim 9. Petitioner cites the portion of Almog describing the fact
`that the system allows users to participate anonymously or pseudonymously.
`Pet. 49–50 (citing Ex. 1018 ¶ 49). For the similar limitations in claims 9, 12,
`17, and 23, Petitioner refers back to the portion of the claim chart regarding
`the similar limitation in claim 1. Petitioner also quotes the portion of Almog
`stating that users may receive a mailbox on a server so that the user does not
`need to use their own private mailbox. Id. at 54, 57, 59–60, 63. Regarding
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`
`
`CBM2014-00068
`Patent 7,424,438 B2
`
`the limitation relating to receiving a request for contact information,
`Petitioner explains that search results may be presented without personal
`information, preventing an employer from contacting the candidate absent a
`request by the employer for the personal information. Id. at 49 (citing Ex.
`1018 ¶ 134).
`The relevant embodiment relied upon by Petitioner relates to an
`employer searching for candidates and, when the employer identifies a
`candidate that the employer is interested in contacting, requesting the
`candidate’s contact information. Id. Thus, in such an embodiment where
`the employer is the requesting party, the limitation Petitioner identified as
`Claim 1[vii][e] recites that the system “receiv[es] a response from [the
`candidate] consenting to the release of the contact information of said
`candidate . . . to” the employer. See Pet. 49–50. While Almog discloses an
`employer requestin
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
