IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`___________________________
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`___________________________
`
`Monster Worldwide, Inc. and Indeed, Inc.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`Career Destination Development, LLC,
`Patent Owner
`
`___________________________
`Case CBM: Unassigned
`_________________________
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. MARTIN G. WALKER CONCERNING THE
`INVALIDITY OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,424,438
`
`- i -
`
`Monster Worldwide, Inc. Exhibit 1005 (p.1/117)
`
`
`___________________________
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`___________________________
`
`Monster Worldwide, Inc. and Indeed, Inc.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`Career Destination Development, LLC,
`Patent Owner
`
`___________________________
`Case CBM: Unassigned
`_________________________
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. MARTIN G. WALKER CONCERNING THE
`INVALIDITY OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,424,438
`
`- i -
`
`Monster Worldwide, Inc. Exhibit 1005 (p.1/117)
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF MARTIN G. WALKER
`I, MARTIN G. WALKER, declare:
`
`1.
`
`I am a United States citizen, and the following is based on my
`
`personal knowledge, education, and experience. If called upon to testify, I am
`
`prepared to testify as to the matters set forth herein.
`
`2.
`
`I have been retained by Dechert LLP on behalf of Petitioner Monster
`
`Worldwide, Inc. (“Monster”), in connection with the petition for Covered Business
`
`Method Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,424,438 (“`438 Patent”). Ex. 1001. I am
`
`informed that Career Destination Development LLC has asserted the `438 Patent
`
`against Monster Worldwide, Inc. and also against Indeed, Inc. See Ex. 1002.
`
`Although I am being compensated at my rate of $450 per hour for time spent on
`
`this matter, my compensation does not depend on the outcome of this proceeding,
`
`and I have no other interest in this proceeding.
`
`I.
`
`EDUCATION AND EXPERIENCE
`3.
`I received a B.S. in electrical engineering from the Massachusetts
`
`Institute of Technology (“MIT”) in 1973, an M.S. in electrical engineering from
`
`Stanford University in 1976, and a Ph.D. in electrical engineering from Stanford in
`
`1979. My curriculum vitae (“CV”), a true and correct copy of which is attached as
`
`Appendix 1, provides a summary of my experience in the fields of Internet
`
`websites and applications.
`
`1
`
`Monster Worldwide, Inc. Exhibit 1005 (p.2/117)
`
`
`
`4.
`
`I have experience in the fields of database schema, mail-list
`
`processing software, and stock brokerage software. For example, in 2000-2001, I
`
`served as Chief Technology Officer (“CTO”) of Knowledge Networks, a company
`
`which leveraged Internet technology to enhance market research. While at
`
`Knowledge Networks, I gained experience managing high-availability web-based
`
`systems for fielding interviews.
`
`5. While CTO at Knowledge Networks, I was responsible for the
`
`development and deployment of a web-based product designed to conduct
`
`interviews of a panel of consumers for the purpose of determining consumer
`
`behavior, including, for instance, preferences for candidates in general elections,
`
`brand awareness, and incidence of disease symptoms.
`
`6.
`
`The system that was developed by Knowledge Networks was
`
`entirely web-based. It included an email server, web server, dedicated application
`
`servers, and a database server. Consumer characteristics were maintained in the
`
`database. These characteristics were searchable based on a multitude of
`
`requirements. Searching against minimum requirements was routinely performed
`
`to determine which panelists to interview for particular topics. All interaction with
`
`panelists was automated through the web-based application servers and web
`
`servers. Interview responses were logged in the online database. Requests for
`
`interviews were sent to panelists using the integrated email server.
`
`2
`
`Monster Worldwide, Inc. Exhibit 1005 (p.3/117)
`
`
`
`7.
`
`The system developed and deployed by Knowledge Networks in the
`
`2000-2001 time period had functions and features similar to those described and
`
`claimed in the `438 Patent. During the 2000-2001 time period, therefore, I gained
`
`first-hand experience in design, deployment, and operation of systems of the type
`
`described in the `438 Patent.
`
`8.
`
`In addition, I personally used various employment websites during the
`
`2000-2001 time period, while I was CTO of Knowledge Networks, to hire software
`
`developers. Therefore, I was at least familiar with the functions and features used
`
`by employment websites in the 2000-2001 time period.
`
`II. MATERIALS CONSIDERED
`9.
`In forming the opinions herein, I considered the following materials:
`
` Monster Worldwide Inc. and Indeed, Inc. v Career Destination
`Development LLC, Petition for Covered Business Method Patent Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 8,374,901 Under 35 U.S.C. § 321 and § 18 of the
`Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (hereinafter “Petition”);
`
` U.S. Patent No. 7,424,438 ( the “`438 Patent”) (Ex. 1001);
`
` Complete file history of U.S. Patent No. 7,424,438 (Ex. 1010), including
`the following documents contained therein:
`o Original U.S. Patent Application No. 10/101,644, filed Mar. 19,
`2002 (Ex. 1011);
`o Office Action Mailed May 19, 2004 (Ex. 1012);
`o Response to Office Action Mailed May 19, 2004 (Ex. 1013);
`o Office Action Mailed Jan. 12, 2005 (Ex. 1014);
`o Response to Office Action Mailed Jan. 12, 2005 (Ex. 1015);
`3
`
`Monster Worldwide, Inc. Exhibit 1005 (p.4/117)
`
`
`
`o Office Action Mailed July 14, 2005 (Ex. 1016);
`o Response to Office Action Mailed July 14, 2005 (Ex. 1017);
`o Office Action Mailed Nov. 10, 2005 (Ex. 1018);
`o Response to Office Action Mailed Nov. 10, 2005 (Ex. 1019);
`o Office Action Mailed Nov. 8, 2006 (Ex. 1020);
`o Amended Appeal Brief to Board of Patent Appeals and
`Interferences Under 37 C.F.R. Section 41.37, filed Oct. 31, 2007
`(Ex. 1021);
`
` U.S. Patent No. 5,884,270, filed Sept. 6, 1996, and issued Mar. 6, 1999 to
`Walker et al. (“Walker”) (Ex. 1022);
`
` PCT Patent Pub. No. WO 99/17242 by Cooper et al, published Apr. 8,
`1999 (“Cooper”) (Ex. 1023);
`
` PCT Patent Pub. No. WO 99/01834 by Coueignoux, published Jan. 14,
`1999 (“Coueignoux”) (Ex. 1024); and
`
` PCT Patent Pub. No. WO 00/58866 by Litvak, et al., published Oct. 5,
`2000 (“Litvak”) (Ex. 1025).
`
`III.
`
`ISSUES PRESENTED
`10.
`I understand that Petitioner challenges the validity of claims 1-5, 9-10,
`
`12, 17, and 23-24 of the `438 Patent, but makes no argument regarding claims 6-8,
`
`11, 13-16, 18-21, and 25. The table below summarizes all of the issues presented.
`
`Issues
`
`Basis
`
`References
`
`Claims
`
`1
`
`2
`
`§ 102
`
`§ 103
`
`1-2, 4, 17, 23
`
`12
`
`Cooper
`
`Cooper
`
`4
`
`Monster Worldwide, Inc. Exhibit 1005 (p.5/117)
`
`
`
`Issues
`
`Basis
`
`References
`
`Claims
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`§ 103
`
`§ 103
`
`§ 103
`
`§ 103
`
`Cooper, Walker
`
`1-5, 9-10, 17, 23-24
`
`Cooper, Litvak
`
`1-2, 4, 17, 23
`
`Cooper, Litvak, Walker
`
`1-5, 9-10, 17, 23-24
`
`Cooper, Coueignoux
`
`1-2, 4, 17, 23
`
`§ 103
`
`Cooper, Coueignoux, Walker
`
`1-5, 9-10, 17, 23-24
`
`IV.
`
`INVALIDITY ANALYSIS FRAMEWORK
`11.
`I have been asked to analyze the validity of claims 1-5, 9-10, 12, 17,
`
`and 23-24 of the `438 Patent in light the prior art materials listed above and the
`
`legal standards that have been described to me.
`
`A.
`12.
`
`The Filing Date is March 19, 2002.
`The earliest filing date on the face of the `438 Patent is March 19,
`
`2002, which is the filing date of U.S. Patent Application No. 10/101,644. Nothing
`
`on the face of the patent suggests that any of its claims might be entitled to an
`
`earlier priority date. For purposes of my analysis, I will assume that the effective
`
`priority date for all claims of the `438 Patent is March 19, 2002. I reserve the right
`
`to supplement my opinions if it is later established that any claims of the`438
`
`Patent are entitled to an earlier priority date.
`
`5
`
`Monster Worldwide, Inc. Exhibit 1005 (p.6/117)
`
`
`
`B.
`13.
`
`The `438 Patent Relates to the Field of Employment Websites.
`The `438 Patent relates to design and development of employment
`
`websites (also referred to as “on-line jobsites” or “job-placement websites”). The
`
``438 Patent describes the “Field of the Invention” as relating to “network
`
`connected information systems” used for “optimizing individuals’ employment
`
`searches and career opportunities, and optimizing employers’ recruiting and hiring
`
`processes and decisions.” See Ex. 1001 at 1:7-12; see also id. at 1001, 4:5-60
`
`(discussing prior art “on-line job sites” including “HotJobs.com” and
`
`“Monster.com”), 8:55-14:23 (describing a “Career Site”). An employment website
`
`is an Internet website that both job-seekers (i.e., “candidates”) and employers (i.e.,
`
`“recruiters” or “hiring managers”) may access, the object of which is to match
`
`qualified candidates with suitable employers. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 4:23-56. By the
`
`late 1990s, numerous employment websites like monster.com were being used to
`
`match job-seekers with employers. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 4:32-40.
`
`14.
`
`The `438 Patent is one of many patents filed in the late 1990s and
`
`early 2000s that describe common features of employment websites. See. e.g., Ex.
`
`1001, 4:18-20 (stating that “the Monster.com site indicates that it is covered by
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,832,497”); Ex. 1022, Abstract (disclosing a “system for
`
`facilitating employment searches”); Ex. 1023, 2:21-31 (describing a “network
`
`based recruiting system”); Ex. 1025, 4:1-9 (describing an “on-line Internet match-
`
`6
`
`Monster Worldwide, Inc. Exhibit 1005 (p.7/117)
`
`
`
`making service … used as an employment service”). These patents were filed
`
`during a time period when many different companies were racing to develop
`
`employment websites to take advantage of the new electronic marketplace created
`
`by the proliferation of the Internet. Id. During this time period, employment
`
`websites began to compete directly with newspaper employment advertising
`
`sections. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 4:5-10 (describing online recruiting systems that
`
`were “basically improvements to the newspaper-based classified ad systems”).
`
`Many (if not all) of the functions performed by employment websites are simply
`
`computer-automated versions of methodologies that had been performed by job-
`
`seekers, recruiters, and human resources (“HR”) professionals for countless years
`
`before the development of computers and the Internet.
`
`15.
`
`The specification of the `438 Patent (the “Specification”) describes a
`
`“career site,” (Ex. 1001 at 5:9, 6:2-3, 8:55-14:23), in which information related to
`
`“talent-capability attributes is received from talent,” and “[j]ob description
`
`information is received from employers,” and in which “matches are identified
`
`between employers and talent.” Id., Abstract. As described in the `438 Patent, the
`
`“career site” merely performs computer automated versions of the same services
`
`that job recruiters and HR professionals had been providing for decades using pen
`
`and paper. Id., 3:3-14 (“Known methods of recruiting include the process by
`
`which a manager will prepare a job description, and send the description to a
`
`7
`
`Monster Worldwide, Inc. Exhibit 1005 (p.8/117)
`
`
`
`human resources (‘HR’) department, which may check its files of resumes[.]”).
`
`16.
`
`The `438 Patent includes 25 claims. Of these, claims 1, 9, 12, 17, 22,
`
`and 23 are independent claims. Independent claims 1, 12, 17, and 22 are drawn to
`
`methods using a “computer processor” (claim 1) or a “computer system” (claims
`
`12, 17, 22) for “authorizing information exchange” (claims 1, 12, 17) or
`
`“authorizing the exchange of contact information” (claim 22). Independent claims
`
`9 and 23 are apparatus claims. Claim 9 recites a “distributed network for
`
`facilitating the exchange of contact information,” and claim 23 recites a “computer
`
`system for coordinating information exchange.” For all of the claims, the recited
`
`“exchange” of “information” is “between at least one of a plurality of candidates
`
`and at least one of a plurality of employers.” Moreover, each of the independent
`
`claims 1, 9, 12, 17, 22, and 23 recites (either in the preamble or as part of the
`
`recited elements) that the “exchange” of “information” occurs “prior to any direct
`
`contact between said candidate and said employer.” At least in accordance with
`
`the preferred embodiment, all of the claimed methods may be implemented by a
`
`“career site.” Id., 8:55-14:23, Fig, 1. Because all of the claims recite methods and
`
`apparatuses used in the “exchange” of “information,” preferably used by a “career
`
`site,” the relevant field of art to which the `438 Patent pertains is the design and
`
`development of employment websites. See id., at 1:7-12.
`
`8
`
`Monster Worldwide, Inc. Exhibit 1005 (p.9/117)
`
`
`
`C.
`17.
`
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`It has been explained to me that a fact-finder must evaluate issues
`
`concerning the validity of patent claims from the point of view of a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) at the time of the alleged invention (the
`
`“Relevant Time Period”). In this case, the Relevant Time Period refers to the
`
`period preceding March 19, 2002, which is the earliest priority date of the `438
`
`Patent. See supra ¶ 12. As explained above in Section IV(B), the `438 Patent
`
`pertains to the art of designing and developing of employment websites. To
`
`determine the ordinary level of skill in this art during the Relevant Time Period, it
`
`has been explained to me that I should consider the following factors:
`
`A. the type of problems encountered in the art;
`
`B. the prior art solutions to those problems;
`
`C. the rapidity with which innovations are made in the particular field of
`
`endeavor;
`
`D. the sophistication of the technology; and
`
`E. the educational level of active workers in the field.
`
`18.
`
`The types of problems encountered in the art generally related to
`
`optimization of “employment searches” and “recruiting and hiring processes.” See
`
`Ex. 1001 at 1:7-12. In other words, the problems encountered in the art generally
`
`related to matching the right person with the right job. Id., 1:16-18 (describing a
`
`9
`
`Monster Worldwide, Inc. Exhibit 1005 (p.10/117)
`
`
`
`need to find “qualified employees … for specific jobs.”); id. at 2:22-26 (describing
`
`a need for candidates to identify “employment opportunities that best match …
`
`skills and objectives” specified by the candidate). More specific problems
`
`encountered in the art relate to:
`
`A. Determining optimal matches between candidates and employers (see,
`
`e.g., Ex. 1025, 5:4-19, describing different methods for “matching”
`
`candidates and employers using “identification attributes” and
`
`“request attributes” that may be designated “essential” or “non-
`
`essential,” including a “one-way match,” a “two-way match,” a
`
`“complete match,” and a “partial match”);
`
`B. Privacy considerations, such as maintaining anonymity of candidates
`
`who do not wish their present employer to know that they are seeking
`
`a new job (see, e.g., Ex. 1023, 7:14-17, explaining that candidate
`
`“profiles … may be designated to be confidential”); and
`
`C. Authorizing exchange of contact information between parties (see Ex.
`
`1023, 9:11-14 describing ways to control “release of any and all
`
`private contact information”).
`
`19.
`
`Prior art solutions to the above problems include features of
`
`employment websites described in the prior art references discussed below. Ex.
`
`1022-1025. All of these prior art references relate to the same field of technology
`
`10
`
`Monster Worldwide, Inc. Exhibit 1005 (p.11/117)
`
`
`
`as the `438 Patent, namely design and development of employment websites. See
`
`Ex. 1001, 4:5-5:49 (entitled “Apparatus and Methods for Providing Career and
`
`Employment Services”); Ex. 1023 (entitled “On-Line Recruiting System with
`
`Improved Candidate and Position Profiling”); Ex. 1025, 4:1-9 (describing an “on-
`
`line Internet match-making service … used as an employment service” ); Ex. 1022
`
`at 2:32-3:45, 6:19-38, 6:50-59 (entitled “Method and System for Facilitating an
`
`Employment Search Incorporating User-Controlled Anonymous
`
`Communications”); Ex. 1024 at 7:2-3. Furthermore, during the Relevant Time
`
`Period, there existed numerous employment websites on the Internet. See, e.g., Ex.
`
`1001, 4:5-60 (referring to “Monster.com” and “Hotjobs.com”). I personally used
`
`various employment websites during the Relevant Time Period, as CTO of
`
`Knowledge Network, to hire software developers.
`
`20. During the Relevant Time Period, innovations were being made
`
`rapidly in the field of designing and developing employment websites. Numerous
`
`employment websites were present on the Internet by the year 2002, and most (if
`
`not all) of them used an Internet client/server model in which: (1) candidates
`
`access the website via web pages to post resumes and/or create profiles describing
`
`themselves and the type of jobs they were seeking; and (2) employers access the
`
`website via web pages to post job descriptions indicating the requirements they
`
`were seeking from candidates. Ex. 1001, 4:5-5:49 (“Monster.com … collects
`
`11
`
`Monster Worldwide, Inc. Exhibit 1005 (p.12/117)
`
`
`
`resumes and allows posting of classified employment adds”); Ex. 1022, Abstract
`
`(disclosing a “system for facilitating employment searches” wherein the “system
`
`receives and stores employment data about prospective employment candidates”);
`
`Ex. 1023, 6:19-7:23 (describing a “recruiting system” that is accessible via “Web
`
`pages,” and that uses a “matching module … to compare profiles of candidates
`
`with profiles of job openings”); Ex. 1024, 7:8-12 (describing an employment
`
`website that “acquire[s] information about users,” and determines a “match” for an
`
`employee when “the salary offered is greater than the minimum salary sought”),
`
`Figs. 1, 12A.
`
`21. During the Relevant Time Period, the sophistication level of the field
`
`of employment websites was moderate to low, requiring the comprehension of
`
`basic business methods, such as an employer’s hiring processes and employment
`
`needs, or a job candidate’s qualifications for employment. See Ex. 1001 at 3:3-14
`
`(describing “methods of recruiting”). Also required is comprehension of basic
`
`computer science, including rudimentary programming such as web site creation
`
`with graphical user interface (“GUI”) components, such as text fields, buttons, and
`
`drop-down menus. Id. at 8:40-48 (describing use of a “ColdFusion application
`
`server,” which was a common website development tool), 30:16-24 (describing
`
`“drop down list of choices”). During the Relevant Time Period, it was well
`
`understood that such GUIs could be developed in “point-and-click” software
`
`12
`
`Monster Worldwide, Inc. Exhibit 1005 (p.13/117)
`
`
`
`development environments like Microsoft Visual Basic or Adobe Dreamweaver,
`
`which were specifically designed for users with little or no background in software
`
`development. Finally, a POSITA in the field of employment websites would need
`
`to understand how to use commercially available database systems, including how
`
`to access and display information stored in the database on the web front-end, and
`
`how to allow users to submit new information to the database from the web front-
`
`end. Ex. 1001, 10:16-24 (“talent … searches the database for a desirable
`
`employment position”); Ex. 1022 at 4:2-11 (“Databases storing employee
`
`qualifications are searched to identify which personnel have qualifications
`
`matching search criteria.”), 6:32-36, Fig. 2A, 2B, 2C, 5, 6A; Ex.1023, 3:5-7 (“[a]
`
`database stores a plurality of the job profiles and receives the applicant description
`
`profile over the network[]”); Ex. 1024, 36:30-37:2 (“the invention can be
`
`implemented … with an object database coupled to the interface computer”); Ex.
`
`1025, 2:8-18 (“the subscriber database storing … subscriber identification
`
`attributes and subscriber request attributes” and “an object database … for at least
`
`one candidate object”).
`
`22. Based on all of the considerations discussed above, as well as my
`
`experience in managing the development of Internet-based software applications, it
`
`is my opinion that a POSITA during the Relevant Time Period would have
`
`possessed a Bachelor of Science Degree in Computer Science (or equivalent), and
`
`13
`
`Monster Worldwide, Inc. Exhibit 1005 (p.14/117)
`
`
`
`2 years experience working in the field of Internet website development. I would
`
`add that such a POSITA would also have had at least some general familiarity with
`
`standard methods used by recruiters and HR professionals to match candidates
`
`with job descriptions.
`
`23. Although my own level of skill in the art, both now and during the
`
`Relevant Time Period, exceeds the ordinary level of skill in the art, all of my
`
`opinions about what the prior art teaches and what claim terms mean are from the
`
`perspective of a POSITA during the Relevant Time Period, and, for that reason, I
`
`will not continually repeat that phrase. The reader may presume that each
`
`statement of opinion could be followed with the statement, “this opinion is from or
`
`according to a POSITA during the Relevant Time Period.”
`
`V.
`
`OVERVIEW OF THE `438 PATENT
`
`A.
`
`24.
`
`The Specification Discloses a “Career Site” using “Business
`Logic” to Facilitate “Exchange” of “Information” Between
`Employers and Candidates
`The Specification discloses that the purported invention is carried out
`
`using “business logic” within a generic “server” hosting a website called a “career
`
`site.” See Ex. 1001 at 8:20-28 (“the career site application comprises a web
`
`server” and “application information is structured based on business logic”). The
`
`“career site” described in the Specification is shown in Figure 1 of the `438 Patent,
`
`which is reproduced below.
`
`14
`
`Monster Worldwide, Inc. Exhibit 1005 (p.15/117)
`
`
`
`Figure 1
`
`25. Referring to Figure 1 (above), candidates and employers access the
`
`career site 140 via the Internet 120 using client computers 110. Ex. 1001 7:49-
`
`8:39. As shown, the career site 140 includes: e-mail and Web servers 142, 150 for
`
`communicating with client computers 110, which are operated by candidates and
`
`employers; a database server 170 for interfacing with a database that stores profiles
`
`describing candidates and employers; and an application server 160. Id. The
`
`“application server 160” performs almost all of the functions described throughout
`
`the Specification and claims of the `438 Patent. The Specification states that
`
`“[a]pplication information is structured based on business logic contained in an
`
`application server 160.” Id. at 8:23-24. Based on this description, it is clear that
`
`almost all of the features and functions described and claimed throughout the `438
`
`Patent may be implemented using “business logic.” In my opinion, the term
`
`“business logic” provides an accurate description of logic for performing the
`15
`
`Monster Worldwide, Inc. Exhibit 1005 (p.16/117)
`
`
`
`functions and features described and claimed throughout the `438 Patent because
`
`all of the claimed features and functions are merely computer-automated versions
`
`of standard business methods that had been used previously by job-seekers,
`
`recruiters, and HR professionals.
`
`26. Referring again to Figure 1 of the `438 Patent (reproduced above),
`
`employers may search for candidates and vice versa. Id., 7:49-8:39, 10:16-33.
`
`The Specification explains that searches initiated by employers may “yield results
`
`that do not include either the talent's contact information or the name of talent's
`
`current employer.” Id., 9:63-66. However, after “matches are identified,” the
`
`“employers and talent are given an opportunity to mutually consent to the
`
`exchange of talent contact information.” Id., 5:58-61. For example, the career site
`
`allows an employer to “select one or more talent profiles from the search results to
`
`process as employment inquiries.” Id., 43:55-64, Figs. 10-11. “Upon the
`
`employer's submission of a [sic] employment inquiry to the career site, the
`
`employer has given its consent to the purchase of the talent's contact information
`
`assuming that the talent consents to the release of the information.” Id. The career
`
`site then sends an “inquiry … to the talent … via email.” Id., 46:25-33, Figs. 10-11
`
`(step 1103 (“Request to Release Contact Information”)). The “Email server 142”
`
`provides for “sending and receiving of E-mail” to and from the computers 110,
`
`which are used by employers and candidates. Id., 8:24-26. When a candidate
`
`16
`
`Monster Worldwide, Inc. Exhibit 1005 (p.17/117)
`
`
`
`receives an email inquiry containing a “Request to Release Contact Information,”
`
`the candidate may respond “to either grant or decline permission to release his or
`
`her contact information.” Id., 11:3-29, 47:3-14, Fig. 11. The Specification
`
`explains that “[m]utual interest is the basis for facilitating the exchange of contact
`
`information between talent and an employer,” and so after an “internal matching
`
`has occurred in response to an action by an initiating party, the non-initiating party
`
`must consent before the release of talent's contact information.” Id. After the
`
`“mutual consent” is determined using the steps described above, the “career site
`
`140” transmits the contact information to the requesting party. Id., 11:55-60.
`
`B.
`
`Each of Independent Claims 1, 9, 12, 17 and 23 Recites a System
`or Method for “Authorizing” (or “Facilitating” or
`“Coordinating”) An “Exchange” of “Information” Between
`“Candidates” and “Employers.”
`27. All claims of the `438 Patent are directed to either a system or method
`
`for “authorizing” (or “facilitating” or “coordinating”) an “exchange” of “contact
`
`information” between a candidate and an employer. Ex. 1001, 52:30-58:56.
`
`According to the Specification, the website is “operated as a business,” where “a
`
`fee is generated when an employer elects to purchase contact information” of a
`
`candidate. Id., 8:60-63. As explained above, the claimed functions are performed
`
`using “business logic” executed by an “application server.” Id., 8:23-24. Claim 1
`
`of the `438 Patent recites (emphasis added):
`
`1 A method executed by a computer processor for authorizing
`
`17
`
`Monster Worldwide, Inc. Exhibit 1005 (p.18/117)
`
`
`
`information exchange between at least one of a plurality of candidates
`and at least one of a plurality of employers prior to any direct contact
`between said candidate and said employer, said candidate having one
`or more candidate attributes including candidate minimum requirements,
`said employer having one or more employer attributes including
`employer minimum requirements, said one or more candidate attributes
`and minimum requirements including a searchable profile being stored in
`a candidate database, and said one or more employer attributes and
`minimum requirements including a searchable profile being stored in an
`employer database, said method comprising:
`
`receiving a search request from either said candidate or said employer
`to 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 [sic] 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
`
`18
`
`Monster Worldwide, Inc. Exhibit 1005 (p.19/117)
`
`
`
`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.
`
`28.
`
`The steps of claim 1 that are bold/underlined (above) are key steps
`
`used for “authorizing information exchange” between employers and candidates
`
`“prior to any direct contact between said candidate and said employer.” Id. at
`
`52:19-67. These key steps are recited below in isolation. Also shown below is a
`
`Figure A, which I prepared to illustrate the following key steps of claim 1:
`
`1. A method executed by a computer processor for authorizing
`information exchange between … candidates and … employers prior
`to any direct contact between said candidate and said employer …
`
`[1] receiving a … request for release of contact information …
`
`[2] receiving a response … consenting to the release of the contact
`information …
`
`[3] providing exchange of contact information in real time ….
`
`19
`
`Monster Worldwide, Inc. Exhibit 1005 (p.20/117)
`
`
`
`Figure A
`
`29. As shown in Figure A (above), the “computer,” which is preferably
`
`implemented as a “career site,” performs each of the key steps of “[1] receiving a
`
`… request for release of contact information …”; “[2] receiving a response …
`
`consenting to the release of the contact information …”; and “[3] providing
`
`exchange of contact information in real time.” Not shown in Figure A, and not
`
`recited in claim 1, is an extra step described in the Specification of the `438 Patent
`
`in which, after the first key step (i.e., step “[1] receiving a … request for release of
`
`contact information”), the career site “sends an “inquiry … to the talent … via
`
`email.” Id., 46:25-33, Figs. 10-11 (step 1103 (“Request to Release Contact
`
`Information”). The second key step “[2] receiving a response … consenting to the
`
`release of the contact information …”) is performed by the career site when the
`
`candidate responds to this “inquiry” from the career site. Id., 11:3-29, 47:3-14,
`
`20
`
`Monster Worldwide, Inc. Exhibit 1005 (p.21/117)
`
`
`
`Fig. 11. None of the independent claims recite this extra step in which the career
`
`site sends an “inquiry … to the talent … via email.” Id., 46:25-33.
`
`30. As mentioned, each one of the independent claims 1, 9, 12, 17 and 23
`
`recites either a system or method for “authorizing” (or “facilitating” or
`
`“coordinating”) an “exchange” of “contact information” between a candidate and
`
`an employer. Id. at 52:30-58:56. Independent claims 9, 12, 17, and 23 of the `438
`
`share many similarities, but also some differences relative to claim 1. Id. at 52:29-
`
`58:56. Claims 1, 17, and 23 all require receiving a “request ... for release of
`
`contact information.” Id., claim 1 (“receiving a [sic] at least one request for release
`
`of contact information”), claim 17 (“receiving a request from said employer for
`
`release of contact information”), claim 23 (“receive a request for release of contact
`
`information”). However, claim 12 is slightly different because it recites
`
`“receiving” a “request from said candidate to submit said candidate’s contact
`
`information.” Id., claim 12.
`
`31.
`
`I have prepared a table (below) summarizing the similarities and
`
`differences between key steps of claims 1, 9, 12, 17 and 23 that pertain to
`
`“authorizing information exchange” between employers and candidates.
`
`Claim 1
`
`Claim 9
`
`Claim 12
`
`Claim 17
`
`Claim 23
`
`… method ….
`authorizing
`
`… network
`… facilitating
`
`… method …
`authorizing
`
`… method …
`authorizing
`
`… system ..
`coordinating
`
`21
`
`Monster Worldwide, Inc. Exhibit 1005 (p.22/117)
`
`
`
`information
`exchange
`between …
`candidates and
`… employers
`
`… prior to any
`direct contact
`between said
`candidate and
`said employer,
`
`… receiving …
`request for
`release of
`contact
`information
`from the
`requesting one
`of said
`candidate and
`said employer
`
`… means for
`receiving a
`request for
`release of
`contact
`information
`from the
`requesting
`one of said
`candidate and
`
`Claim 1
`
`Claim 9
`
`Claim 12
`
`Claim 17
`
`Claim 23
`
`the exchange
`of contact
`information
`between …
`candidates
`and …
`employers
`
`information
`exchange
`between …
`candidates
`and …
`employers
`
`information
`exchange
`between …
`candidates
`and …
`employers
`
`information
`exchange
`between …
`candidates
`and …
`employers
`
`… prior to
`any direct
`contact
`between said
`candidate and
`said
`employer,
`
`… receiving a
`request from
`said employer
`for release of
`contact
`information
`of …
`candidate …
`
`… prior to
`any direct
`contact
`between said
`candidate and
`said employer
`
`… receive a
`request for
`release of
`contact
`information
`from the
`requesting
`one of said
`candidate and
`said employer
`
`… prior to
`any direct
`contact
`between said
`candidate and
`said
`employer,
`
`… receiving a
`request from
`said candidate
`to submit said
`candidate's
`contact
`information
`to …
`employer
`
`22
`
`Monster Worldwide, Inc. Exhibit 1005 (p.23/117)
`
`
`
`Claim 1
`
`Claim 9
`
`Claim 12
`
`Claim 17
`
`Claim 23
`
`said employer
`
`… means for
`determining
`that there is
`mutual
`consent for
`release of
`contact
`information
`regarding the
`candidate;
`
`… receiving a
`response from
`said at least
`one employer
`that it desires
`to receive the
`contact
`information
`of said
`candidate
`
`… determine
`that there is
`mutual
`consent for
`the release of
`contact
`information
`regarding the
`candidate
`
`… receiving a
`response from
`said at least
`one candidate
`that it desires
`to release the
`contact
`information
`of said
`candidate to
`said
`employer;
`
`… receiving a
`response from
`said non-
`requesting
`candidate or
`employer
`consenting to
`the release of
`th
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
