` 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