throbber
Paper No. 12
` Entered: August 20, 2014
`
`
`
`Trials@uspto.gov
`571.272.7822
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`INDEED, INC., MONSTER WORLDWIDE, INC., and
`THELADDERS.COM, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`CAREER DESTINATION DEVELOPMENT, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case CBM2014-00069
`Patent No. 8,374,901 B2
`____________
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, MEREDITH C. PETRAVICK, and
`JUSTIN BUSCH, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`PETRAVICK, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Covered Business Method Patent Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.208
`
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`A. Background
`Indeed, Inc., Monster Worldwide, Inc., and theLadders.com, Inc.
`
`(collectively, “Petitioner”) filed a Petition (Paper 3, “Pet.”) on February 12,
`
`

`

`Case CBM2014-00069
`Patent 8,374,901 B2
`
`2014, that requests a review under the transitional program for covered
`business method patents of U.S. Patent No. 8,374,901 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the
`’901 patent”). 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.”
`
`Petitioner challenges the patentability of claims 1–33 (“the challenged
`claims”) of the ’901 patent under 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102. We determine that
`the Petition demonstrates that it is more likely than not that all of the
`challenged claims are unpatentable. Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 324, we
`institute a covered business method patent review of all of the challenged
`claims of the ’901 patent.
`
`
`B. Related Matters
`Petitioner and Patent Owner identify three related U.S. District Court
`
`cases, each filed in the District of Kansas: Career Destination Dev., LLC v.
`Monster Worldwide, Inc., No. 2:13-cv-02434 KHV/KGG (D. Kan.); Career
`Destination Dev., LLC v. Indeed, Inc., 1 No. 2:13-cv-02486 JWL/JPO (D.
`Kan.); and Career Destination Dev., LLC v. theLadders.com, Inc., No. 2:13-
`cv-02522 JWL/KGS (D. Kan.). Pet. 3; Paper 8, 2.
`
`
`1 The Petition contains a typographical error that indicates, incorrectly, that
`Monster Worldwide, Inc., instead of Indeed, Inc., is the defendant in case
`No. 2:13-cv-02486 JWL/JP0. Pet. 3.
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case CBM2014-00069
`Patent 8,374,901 B2
`
`
`Further, Petitioner and Patent Owner state that the ’901 patent is the
`subject of another covered business method patent review, CBM2014-
`00070. Pet. 3; Paper 8, 2. In addition, Petitioner states that related U.S.
`Patent No. 7,424,4382 is the subject of two petitions for covered business
`method patent review. Pet. 3. Those petitions are assigned to CBM2014-
`00077 and CBM2014-00068.
`
`
`C. The ’901 Patent (Ex. 1001)
`The ’901 patent is titled “Career and Employment Services System
`
`and Apparatus” and issued February 12, 2013, from Application No.
`12/846,635 filed July 29, 2010. Ex. 1001, 1. Application No. 12/846,635 is
`a divisional of Application No. 10/101,644, filed March 19, 2002. Id.
`
`The ’901 patent discloses a system that matches talent (i.e.,
`employment candidates) with employers based upon information provided
`by each. See id. at col. 5, l. 59 – col. 6, l. 2. Figure 10 is reproduced below.
`
`
`2 The ’901 patent resulted from a divisional application of the application
`that resulted in Patent No. US 7,424,438. Ex. 1001, 1.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case CBM2014-00069
`Patent 8,374,901 B2
`
`
`
`Figure 10 depicts a flow diagram illustrating an employer-initiated search
`for talent. Id. at col. 7, ll. 14–18. The flow diagram begins with stage 1003
`or stage 1004, where the employer performs a self-search or an automatic
`search of the talent profiles for a specific job. Id. at col. 39, ll. 33–42. The
`employer searches by specifying “a geographic point of reference and at
`least one of several non-geographic search parameters, such as industry,
`occupation, license, language, etc.” Id. at col. 39, ll. 43–46. The system
`returns to the employer “blind” talent profiles that satisfy the employer-
`provided search parameters. Id. at col. 43, ll. 37–44, Fig. 10, stage 1008.
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case CBM2014-00069
`Patent 8,374,901 B2
`
`“Blind” talent profiles do not include talent contact or confidential
`information. Id. at col. 41, l. 67–col. 42, l. 1; col. 22, ll. 38–52. The
`employer then selects one or more talent profiles, from the resulting talent
`profiles, for further employment inquires. Id. at col. 43, ll. 48–50; Fig. 10,
`stage 1011. The system then 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 col. 44, ll. 7–10; Fig. 10, stage 1017. If
`maximum compensation and minimum compensation match, the talent is
`contacted to disclose contact information and to provide further information
`and, subsequently, that information is then provided to the employer for a
`fee. See id. at col. 44, ll. 27–29; col. 47, ll. 6–11; Fig. 10, stage 1018; Fig.
`5B. Similar to the above described employer initiated search for talent,
`talent can perform talent initiated searches of employer provided job
`descriptions. See id. at Fig. 4.
`
`Claims 1, 12, and 23 of the ’901 patent are illustrative of the
`challenged claims and are reproduced below:
`1. A method of searching a plurality of candidate profiles
`having respective candidate attributes and threshold
`requirements by a computer system having at least one
`computer comprising at least one processor and storage
`medium within a computer network, said method comprising:
`
`storing candidate attributes received from a candidate in
`a structured format on said at least one storage medium in
`communication with said at least one computer;
`
`receiving by said at least one computer from a
`prospective employer at least one threshold requirement
`selected from said candidate profiles;
`
`identifying at least one candidate profile by said
`computer system based on at least one search parameter
`received from said prospective employer;
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case CBM2014-00069
`Patent 8,374,901 B2
`
`
`comparing said at least one search parameter with said
`
`candidate attributes by said computer system;
`
`determining by said computer system whether at least
`one of said identified candidate profiles matching said at least
`one search parameter meets said threshold requirement, and;
`
`communicating to said prospective employer said at least
`one determined candidate profile.
`
`12. A method of searching a plurality of candidate profiles
`having respective candidate threshold requirements and being
`stored in a computer system having at least one computer
`comprising a processor within a computer network, said method
`comprising:
`
`receiving a request for a search associated with a specific
`job description received from a prospective employer;
`
`identifying at least one candidate profile by said
`computer system based on at least one search parameter;
`
`comparing said job description with at least one of said
`candidate threshold requirements by said computer system
`having at least one computer comprising said processor;
`
`determining by said computer system whether said job
`description matches said at least one candidate threshold
`requirement, and;
`
`communicating to said prospective employer said at least
`one identified candidate profile based upon said search
`parameters.
`
`23. A method of searching a plurality of job descriptions
`having respective employer threshold requirements and being
`stored in a computer system having at least one computer
`comprising at least one processor and storage medium within a
`computer network, said method comprising:
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case CBM2014-00069
`Patent 8,374,901 B2
`
`
`identifying at least one job description by said computer
`system based upon at least one search parameter, said at least
`one search parameter received by said computer system;
`storing attributes of at least one candidate profile
`associated with a candidate in said computer system;
`comparing said candidate profile with said at least one
`employer threshold requirement of said identified job
`description by said computer;
`determining whether said candidate profile matches said
`identified job description based on said at least one employer
`threshold requirement, and;
`
`communicating said identified job description to said
`candidate.
`
`
`
`D. Alleged Grounds of Unpatentability
`Petitioner sets forth grounds of unpatentability of the challenged
`
`claims as follows:
`Ground
`§ 101
`§ 102
`§ 102
`
`Prior Art
`n/a
`Puram3
`America’s Job Bank4
`
`Challenged Claims
`1–33
`1–6, 8–16, and 18–22
`1–6, 8–16, 18–23, and
`25–33
`7, 17, and 24
`
`§ 102
`
`
`Rolleri5
`
`
`3 Puram et al., Int’l Pub. No. WO 01/09772 A1 (Aug. 3, 2000) (Ex. 1022).
`4 AMERICA’S JOB BANK, Occupation Search,
`https://web.archive.org/web/20000817044913/http://www.ajb.org/html/emp
`_menu_ins.html; AMERICA’S JOB BANK, Job Seeker,
`https://web.archive.org/web/20000510060841/http://www.ajb.org/html/skr_s
`erv.html (Ex. 1023, Ex. 1024, collectively “America’s Job Bank”).
`5 Rolleri et al., Int’l Pub. No. WO 01/39078 A1 (Nov. 22, 2000) (Ex. 1026).
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case CBM2014-00069
`Patent 8,374,901 B2
`
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`A. Requirements for Covered Business Method Patent Review
`Section 18 of the AIA6 provides for the creation of a transitional
`program for reviewing covered business method patents. Section 18 limits
`review to persons or their privies that have been sued or charged with
`infringement of a “covered business method patent,” which does not include
`patents for “technological inventions.” AIA §§ 18(a)(1)(B), 18(d)(1); see
`37 C.F.R. § 42.302. Petitioner and Patent Owner indicate that each of
`Monster Worldwide, Inc., theLadders.com, Inc., and Indeed, Inc. were sued
`for infringement of the ’901 patent. Pet. 1–2; Paper 7, 2. For reasons
`discussed below, we find that the ’901 patent is eligible for covered business
`method patent review.
`i. Covered Business Method Patent
`A covered business method 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,
`except that the term does not include patents for technological inventions.”
`AIA § 18(d)(1). The “legislative history explains that the definition of
`covered business method patent was drafted to encompass patents ‘claiming
`activities that are financial in nature.’” 77 Fed. Reg. 48,734, 48,735 (Aug.
`14, 2012) (quoting 157 Cong. Rec. S5432 (daily ed. Sept. 8, 2011)
`(statement of Sen. Schumer)). The legislative history indicates that
`“financial product or service” should be interpreted broadly. Id. A patent
`
`
`6 Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284, 329
`(2011) (“AIA”).
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case CBM2014-00069
`Patent 8,374,901 B2
`
`need have only one claim directed to a covered business method to be
`eligible for review. Id. at 48,736 (Response to Comment 8).
`
`First, Petitioner argues that the ’901 patent is a covered business
`method patent because all of the claims encompass a disclosed embodiment
`in which the disclosed system is operated as a business where employers pay
`fees for information on qualified candidates. Pet. 8. Next, Petitioner argues
`that the ’901 patent is a covered business method patent because the claims
`recite methods of searching for jobs or employment candidates in specified
`industries, including, as disclosed in the ’901 patent, financial service
`industries. Id. at 8–11 (citing Ex. 1001, col. 12, lines 58–60 (describing a
`“Certified Public Accountant” licensing requirement) and claims 3, 10, 15,
`21, 30, and 32 (reciting an “occupational classification system”)). Petitioner
`argues, therefore, that the claimed methods are at least incidental or
`complementary to the management of a financial institution. Id. at 11.
`
`On this record, we are persuaded by Petitioner that the ’901 patent is a
`covered business method patent. All of the claims of the ’901 patent recite a
`method of searching for employment candidates or jobs which, in a
`preferred embodiment, is performed by a career site for a fee. See Ex. 1001,
`col. 9, ll. 12–35; col. 38, ll. 3–6; col. 43, ll. 48–67; col. 47, ll. 6–37.
`Operating a career site for a fee is an activity that is financial in nature. In
`addition we are persuaded by Petitioner that the ’901 patent is a covered
`business method patent, because the claims encompass searching for
`employment candidates that are certified public accountants. A certified
`public accountant job is a job that involves a financial activity. Thus, we
`determine that the ’901 patent is at least incidental and/or complementary to
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case CBM2014-00069
`Patent 8,374,901 B2
`
`a financial activity, and determine, therefore, that the ’901 patent is a
`covered business method patent.
`ii. Not a Technological Invention
`
`The definition of “covered business method patent” in § 18(d)(1) of
`the AIA does not include 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). Both prongs
`must be satisfied in order for the patent to be excluded as a technological
`invention. 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.
`77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,763–64 (Aug. 14, 2012
`Petitioner argues that the ’901 patent is not for a technological
`invention because none of the claims recite a technological feature that is
`novel and unobvious over the prior art. Pet. 11–12. In addition, Petitioner
`argues that the ’901 patent does not solve a technical problem using a
`technical solution, because optimizing employers’ recruiting and hiring
`processes is a business solution to a business problem and not a technical
`solution to a technical problem. Id. at 14–15. Petitioner argues that all of
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case CBM2014-00069
`Patent 8,374,901 B2
`
`the structural elements recited in the claims (e.g., computer, processor,
`computer network) are generic computer parts. Id.
`On this record, we are persuaded by Petitioner that the ’901 patent is
`not for a technological invention. At least independent claims 1, 12, and 23
`do not recite a technological feature that is novel and unobvious over the
`prior art. Independent claims 1, 12, and 23 all recite a method that is
`performed using a “computer system,” “computer,” “processor,” “storage
`medium,” and “computer network.” The ’901 patent discloses that such
`elements were conventional and known at the time the ’901 patent was filed.
`See Ex. 1001, col. 8, ll. 3–67. Because both prongs must be satisfied for a
`patent to be excluded from covered business method patent review for being
`a technological invention, we find that the ’901 patent is eligible for a
`covered business method patent review for at least the reason that claims 1,
`12, and 23 fail to recite a technological feature that is novel and unobvious.
`Notwithstanding our determination above, on this record, we are also
`persuaded by Petitioner that the ’901 patent does not solve a technical
`problem using a technical solution. The ’901 patent solves the business
`problem of ineffective and expensive job recruitment and hiring with a
`central career site that charges fees only for employment candidate/employer
`matches. See id. at col. 5, ll. 53–57, col. 9, l. 1– col. 10, l. 9. Independent
`claims 1, 12, and 23 recite methods for matching employment candidates
`and employers. The methods are computer-implemented through the use of
`a “computer system,” “computer,” “processor,” “storage medium,” and
`“computer network.” As discussed above, the ’901 patent discloses that
`such elements were conventional and known at the time the ’901 patent was
`filed. See id. at col. 8, ll. 3–67. We, therefore, determine that at least claims
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case CBM2014-00069
`Patent 8,374,901 B2
`
`1, 12, and 23 do not solve a technical problem using a technical solution, and
`thus, at least these claims do not satisfy the second prong.
`
`
`B. Ground Under 35 U.S.C. § 101
`Petitioner argues that claims 17–33 recite patent-ineligible subject
`matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claims encompass an abstract
`idea. Pet. 24–35. For the reasons discussed below, we determine that
`Petitioner has demonstrated that claims 1–33 are more likely than not patent-
`ineligible.
`Patent-eligible subject matter is defined in § 101 of the Patent Act,
`which recites:
`Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process,
`machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new
`and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor,
`subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
`There are, however, three judicially created exceptions to the broad
`
`categories of patent-eligible subject matter in § 101: laws of nature, natural
`phenomena, and abstract ideas. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 134
`S. Ct. 2347, 2354 (2014); Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs.,
`Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289, 1293 (2012). Although an abstract idea, itself, is
`patent-ineligible, an application of the abstract idea may be patent-eligible.
`Alice, 132 S. Ct. at 2355. Thus, we must consider “the elements of each
`claim both individually and ‘as an ordered combination’ to determine
`whether the additional elements ‘transform the nature of the claim’ into a
`
`7 In related covered business method proceeding CBM2014-00070 we
`determined that claim 1 was indefinite. CBM2014-00070, Paper 12, 13-15.
`The limitation that causes the indefiniteness does not affect our ability to
`determine the eligibility of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case CBM2014-00069
`Patent 8,374,901 B2
`
`patent-eligible application.” Id. (citing Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1298, 1297).
`The claim must contain elements or a combination of elements that are
`“sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more
`than a patent upon the [abstract idea] itself.” Id. (citing Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at
`1294).
`
`i. Independent Claims 1, 12, and 23
`Petitioner argues that independent claims 1, 12, and 23 of the ’901
`patent are directed to an abstract idea of “matching a candidate, or job-
`seeker, to an employer.” Pet. 28. Petitioner, further, argues that the recited
`computer, processor, storage medium, and computer network are not
`sufficient to make these claims patent-eligible. See Pet. 28–35.
`Claims 1, 12, and 23 each recite a method which falls, nominally, into
`the process category of patent-eligible subject matter recited in § 101.
`Claims 1 and 12 recite a method of searching candidate profiles for profiles
`that match an employer’s job description. Similarly, claim 23 recites a
`method of searching job descriptions for descriptions that match a
`candidate’s profile. On this record, we agree with Petitioner that each of
`these claims is directed, on its face, to the abstract idea of matching
`employment candidates with employers.
`Each of claims 1, 12, and 23 recite a computer system that includes a
`processor, storage medium, and a computer network that perform the steps
`of storing the candidate profiles/job descriptions, identifying matching
`candidate profiles/job descriptions, comparing the candidate profiles/job
`descriptions with threshold requirements, and determining whether the
`candidate profiles/job descriptions match the threshold requirements. Each
`of these steps individually or in combination, require nothing more than a
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case CBM2014-00069
`Patent 8,374,901 B2
`
`conventional generic computer. The ’901 patent discloses that the computer
`system can be implemented as “any type of data processing system capable
`of interacting with a network based application, including conventional
`personal computer (‘PC’) type computer systems . . . .” See Ex. 1001,
`col. 8, ll. 3–6, 16–17. The claims here do no more than simply instruct the
`practitioner to implement the abstract idea of matching employment
`candidates with employers on a generic computer. To be patent-eligible, a
`claim cannot simply state the abstract idea and add the words “apply it.”
`Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294. On this record, we agree with Petitioner that these
`claims do not recite additional elements or combinations of elements that
`add significantly more to the abstract idea so as to claim patent-eligible
`subject matter.
`We thus determine, on this record, that Petitioner has demonstrated
`that it is more likely than not that claims 1, 12, and 23 are directed to patent-
`ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
`ii. Dependent Claims 2–11, 13–22, and 24–33
`Claims 2–4, 10–11, 15–16, 20–22, and 29–33 describe the features of
`the search parameters and candidate threshold requirements. Claims 5–6,
`13–14, and 26–27 recite limitations ranking the candidate profiles. Claims
`7, 17, and 24 recite transmitting a request to a candidate for an interview and
`receiving a request-acceptance indication from said candidate. Claims 8, 18,
`and 25 recite permitting an employer or candidate to modify a search
`parameter. Claims 9, 19, and 28 recite automatically performing the search.
`On this record, Petitioner has demonstrated that nothing in these dependent
`claims adds significantly more to the abstract idea to cause the claims to be
`patent-eligible. We, thus, determine that Petitioner has demonstrated that it
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case CBM2014-00069
`Patent 8,374,901 B2
`
`is more likely than not that dependent claims 2–11, 13–22, and 24–33 are
`patent-ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
`
`
`C. Claim Construction
`Consistent with the statute and legislative history of the AIA, the
`Board interprets claims using the broadest reasonable construction in light of
`the specification of the patent in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.300(b).
`At this stage of the proceeding, no express construction is needed in order to
`resolve the issues in our decision.
`
`
`D. Claims 1–11
`
`As discussed in related covered business method patent review
`CBM2014-00070, Paper 12, we determine that claim 1 is indefinite under 35
`U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph. Because we cannot determine the scope of
`claim 1 and, thus, the scope of claims 2–11, dependent thereon, we cannot
`determine whether Petitioner demonstrates that claims 1–11 are more likely
`than not unpatentable over the asserted grounds under 35 U.S.C. § 102.
`
`
`
`E. Grounds Under 35 U.S.C. § 102
`i. Anticipation of Claims 12–16 and 18–22 by Puram
`Petitioner argues that claims 12–16 and 18–22 are anticipated under
`35 U.S.C. § 102(b)8 by Puram. Pet. 36–48. “A claim is anticipated only if
`each and every element as set forth in the claim is found, either expressly or
`
`
`8 Because the ’901 patent has an effective filing date before September 16,
`2012, we refer to the pre-AIA version of 35 U.S.C. § 102.
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case CBM2014-00069
`Patent 8,374,901 B2
`
`inherently described, in a single prior art reference.” Verdegaal Bros., Inc.
`v. Union Oil Co. of Cal., 814 F.2d 628, 631 (Fed. Cir. 1987).
`a. Independent Claim 12
`Petitioner argues that Puram’s system and method of selecting job
`candidates from a pool of candidates anticipates the method of claim 12.
`Pet. 36–37, 44–45. Puram is titled “Apparatus, System and Method for
`Selecting Candidate from Pool.” Ex. 1022, 1.9 Puram describes a system
`for, and a method of, selecting a candidate from a pool of candidates to fill a
`job position. See Ex. 1022 at 2, ll. 3–9. In Puram’s system, a candidate
`enters identifying information and skills information through a series of
`skills tables and this information is then stored on a storage medium. Id. at
`4, 8–10. An employer enters needs information, for an open job position,
`through a series of needs tables and this information is then stored on the
`storage medium. Id. at 4, 10–12. Puram’s system then automatically
`searches the candidate records to find candidates that match the employer’s
`needs. Id. at 13–17. Figure 3 is reproduced below.
`
`
`9 In our decision, we refer to the original pagination of Puram and not the
`page numbers inserted by Petitioner.
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`
`Casee CBM201
`4-00069
`
`
`Patennt 8,374,9001 B2
`
`
`
`
`Figuure 3 depictts a flow chhart illustrrating the ddata match
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ing phase oof the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`systeem. Id. at 2.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`During ddata matchhing, Puramm’s systemm searches ffor a sub-ppool of
`
`
`
`canddidates. Idd. at 13, Figg. 3, step 2
`
`
`
`05. The seearch incluudes searchhing for
`threshold
`strengths
`
`
`canddidates thatt possess a
`
`
`level of exxperience iin the core
`
`
`
`
`
`
`for thhe job position and ccomparing a candidatte’s prefereence data tto the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`posittion data and the commpany’s hirring rules tto remove
`
`any non-mmatching
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`canddidates. Idd. at 13. Puuram’s systtem then sccores the rremaining ccandidatess
`
`and tthe informmation is provided to tthe employyer. Id. at
`
`
`
`
`14. Upon
`
`review of f
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petittioner’s evidence andd analysis, we are perrsuaded thaat Puram ddescribes a
`ll
`s
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`of thhe limitatioons of claimm 12, and wwe determiine that Peetitioner deemonstrate
`
`
`
`that claim 12 iss more likeely than noot anticipatted under 335 U.S.C. §§ 102(b) byy
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Puraam.
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`

`Case CBM2014-00069
`Patent 8,374,901 B2
`
`
`b. Dependent Claims 13 and 14
`Petitioner argues that Puram describes the additional limitations of
`claims 13 and 14. Pet. 36–37, 44–45. Claim 13 recites “wherein said at
`least one candidate profile is ranked according to its relative extent of
`compatibility with said job description.” Claim 14 depends from claim 13
`and recites “wherein said computer system generates a listing of said at least
`one candidate profile based upon said ranking.” Puram describes scoring
`candidates to determine which candidates have skills and experiences that
`most closely match the needs for the position. Ex. 1022, 14–17, Fig. 3; see
`also id. at Fig. 11a, Fig. 11b (depicting tables that include candidates and
`their scores). Upon review of Petitioner’s evidence and analysis, we are
`persuaded that Puram describes the additional limitations of claims 13 and
`14, and we determine that Petitioner demonstrates that claims 13 and 14 are
`more likely than not anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) by Puram.
`c. Dependent Claims 15, 16, 21, and 22
`Petitioner argues that Puram describes the additional limitations of
`claims 15, 16, 21, and 22. Pet. 36–37, 46–48. Claim 15 depends from claim
`12 and recites “said at least one threshold requirement comprising data
`structured according to an occupational classification system.” Claim 21
`also depends from claim 12 and recites “at least one candidate profile
`comprising data structured according to an occupational classification
`system.” Claims 16 and 22 are similar to claims 15 and 21, respectively,
`except that the data is structured according to an industry classification
`system. Puram describes that a candidate enters skills information regarding
`an industry and roles in which the candidate has experience. Ex. 1022, 7–8,
`
`
`
`18
`
`

`

`Case CBM2014-00069
`Patent 8,374,901 B2
`
`Fig. 6 (depicting a column for “Role” and “Industry”). Puram describes that
`the candidate chooses the role from a pre-defined list. Id. at 8.
`In addition, claim 15 recites that the “at least one candidate threshold
`requirement is received by said employer.” Puram describes that the scored
`candidates are provided to the employer. Ex. 1022, 14, Fig. 11a, Fig. 11b.
`Upon review of Petitioner’s evidence and analysis, we are persuaded
`that Puram describes the additional limitations of claims 15, 16, 21, and 22,
`and we determine that Petitioner demonstrates that claims 15, 16, 21, and 22
`are more likely than not anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) by Puram.
`d. Dependent Claim 18
`Petitioner argues that Puram describes the additional limitation of
`claim 18. Pet. 47. Claim 18 recites “permitting said prospective employer
`to modify said at least one job description in response to said threshold
`determination.” Puram’s system allows an employer to modify their needs
`profile if the sub-pool of candidates is too small or too large. Ex. 1022, 13–
`14, Fig. 4. Upon review of Petitioner’s evidence and analysis, we are
`persuaded that Puram describes the additional limitation of claim 18, and we
`determine that Petitioner demonstrates that claim 18 is more likely than not
`anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) by Puram.
`e. Dependent Claim 19
`Petitioner argues that Puram describes the additional limitation of
`claim 19. Pet. 47. Claim 19 recites that the search is automatically
`performed. Puram states, “[t]hrough automated data processing by a
`computing device, the candidates’ records are searched 205 to find a sub-
`pool of candidates that possess the skills listed by the employer as desired
`for the position.” Ex. 1022, 13. Upon review of Petitioner’s evidence and
`
`
`
`19
`
`

`

`Case CBM2014-00069
`Patent 8,374,901 B2
`
`analysis, we are persuaded that Puram describes the additional limitation of
`claim 19, and we determine that Petitioner demonstrates that claim 19 is
`more likely than not anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) by Puram.
`f. Dependent Claim 20
`Petitioner argues that Puram describes the additional limitation of
`claim 20. Pet. 47–48. Claim 20 recites that the “at least one threshold
`requirement is provided by said candidate.” Puram describes that candidates
`enter information regarding skill level, candidate availability, preferred
`geographic region of employment, willingness to travel, and number of days
`or hours per week the candidate is willing to work. Ex. 1022, 7, 10, Fig. 1c,
`Fig. 2, Figs. 5–9. Upon review of Petitioner’s evidence and analysis, we are
`persuaded that Puram describes the additional limitation of claim 20, and we
`determine that Petitioner demonstrates that claim 20 is more likely than not
`anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) by Puram.
`ii. Anticipation of Claims 12–16, 18–23, and 25–33 by America’s Job Bank
`Petitioner argues that claims 12–16, 18–23, and 25–33 are anticipated
`under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) by America’s Job Bank. Pet. 48–70.
`a. Independent Claims 12 and 23
`Petitioner argues that America’s Job Bank’s system anticipates the
`methods of claims 12 and 23. Pet. 48–51, 59–60, 63–67. America’s Job
`Bank is a web site that allows both employers to search for resumes of job
`seekers and job seekers to search for job listings. Ex. 1023, 1; Ex. 1024, 1.
`An employer can search for job candidates’ resumes by creating a search
`that includes search parameters, such as occupation and location. Ex. 1023,
`1. The employer can then refine the search using search parameters, such as
`education and salary range. Id. at 1–2. A search produces a resume list that
`
`
`
`20
`
`

`

`Case CBM2014-00069
`Patent 8,374,901 B2
`
`contains matched resumes and is displayed to the employer. Id. at 2.
`Similarly, a job seeker can search for job listings and produce a list of job
`openings. See Ex. 1024, 7–9. Upon review of Petitioner’s evidence and
`analysis, we are persuaded that America’s Job Bank describes all the
`limitations of claims 12 and 23, and we determine that Petitioner
`demonstrates that claims 12 and 23 are more likely than not anticipated
`under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) by Am

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


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

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

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

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

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

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

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

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

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

Your account does not support viewing this document.

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

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

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

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

Become a Member

One Moment Please

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

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

Your document is on its way!

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

Sealed Document

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

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


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket