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
`___________________________
`
`PETITION FOR COVERED BUSINESS METHOD PATENT REVIEW OF
`U.S. PATENT NO. 7,424,438 UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 321 AND § 18 OF THE
`LEAHY-SMITH AMERICA INVENTS ACT
`
`Mail Stop “PATENT BOARD”
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................1
`I.
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES, POWER OF ATTORNEY,
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE, EXHIBIT LIST, AND FEE........................1
`A.
`Real Parties in Interest (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1)).................................1
`B.
`Notice Of Related Matters (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2))...........................1
`C.
`Notice of Lead and Back-up Counsel (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3)) ..........2
`D.
`Service Information (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4)).....................................2
`E.
`Power of Attorney (37 C.F.R. §42.10(b))...........................................2
`F.
`Certificate of Service on Patent Owner (37 C.F.R. § 42.205(a)).........2
`G.
`Legible Copies of All Exhibits in Exhibit List (37 C.F.R. §
`42.63) ................................................................................................2
`Complete CBM Petition Fee (37 C.F.R. §§ 42.15(b)(1)-(2))..............3
`H.
`III. GROUNDS FOR STANDING ....................................................................3
`A. Monster Files this Petition in a Timely Manner, After Being
`Sued for Infringement, and No Estoppel Applies (37 C.F.R. §§
`42.302 and 42.303). ...........................................................................3
`The `438 Patent Qualifies for Covered Business Method
`Review...............................................................................................3
`1.
`The `438 Patent Claims Business Methods Used in
`Practice, Administration, or Management of a Financial
`Service.....................................................................................4
`The `438 Patent Does Not Claim Technological
`Inventions. ...............................................................................8
`STATEMENT OF THE PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED FOR
`EACH CLAIM CHALLENGED ...............................................................10
`A.
`Overview of the `438 Patent ............................................................10
`1.
`The Earliest Possible Priority Date Is March 19, 2002. ..........10
`2.
`Prosecution History of the `438 Patent...................................10
`
`IV.
`
`B.
`
`2.
`
`i
`
`

`

`B.
`C.
`
`D.
`
`4.
`5.
`
`6.
`7.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`Overview of Prior Art References....................................................13
`Identification of Claims Challenged, and Grounds on Which the
`Challenge to Each Claim Is Based ...................................................14
`Construction of Challenged Claims..................................................15
`1.
`“Receiving a … request”........................................................15
`2.
`“Receiving a response”..........................................................17
`3.
`“Determine that there is mutual consent for release of
`contact information regarding the candidate”.........................18
`“Providing the exchange of contact information”...................19
`“Prior to any direct contact between said candidate and
`said employer”.......................................................................20
`“Candidate Database” and “Employer Database” ..................21
`Means-Plus-Function Terms of Claims 9 and 10....................22
`a.
`“means for managing enterprise database
`resources” ....................................................................22
`“means for storing the candidate attributes and
`requirements … and providing … a portion of …
`the candidate database to be searched”.........................22
`“means for storing the employer attributes and
`requirements … and providing … a portion of …
`the employer database to be searched”.........................23
`“means for receiving a search request” ........................23
`“means for processing the search request … and
`providing the results thereof”.......................................23
`“means for receiving a request for release of
`contact information” ....................................................23
`“means for determining that there is mutual
`consent”.......................................................................24
`“means for determining that the attributes …
`satisfy the minimum requirements”..............................24
`
`d.
`e.
`
`f.
`
`g.
`
`h.
`
`ii
`
`

`

`V.
`
`C.
`
`i.
`j.
`k.
`l.
`
`“means for computing a payment fee” .........................25
`“means for obligating the payment fee” .......................25
`“means for collecting said payment fee”......................25
`“means for providing the exchange of contact
`information” ................................................................25
`“means for receiving a response to said request for
`release of contact information from the non
`requesting one of said candidate and said
`employer” ....................................................................26
`DETAILED EXPLANATION OF REASONS THAT THE
`CHALLENGED `438 PATENT CLAIMS ARE UNPATENTABLE ........26
`A.
`Claim Chart Showing Invalidity Under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 & 103.....26
`B.
`Claims 1-2, 4, 17, and 23 are Unpatentable Under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 102 as Anticipated by Cooper .......................................................53
`1.
`Legal Standard for Anticipation Under 35 U.S.C. § 102 ........53
`2.
`Cooper Anticipates Independent Claims 1, 17 and 23. ...........54
`3.
`Cooper Anticipates Dependent Claim 2. ................................56
`4.
`Cooper Anticipates Dependent Claim 4. ................................56
`Claims 1-5, 9-10, 12, 17, and 23-24 are Obvious Over Various
`Prior Art References. .......................................................................57
`1.
`Legal Standards for Obviousness Under 35 U.S.C. § 103 ......57
`2.
`Claim 12 is Obvious over Cooper in View of the
`Knowledge of a Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art...............58
`Independent Claims 1, 17 and 23 are Obvious Over
`Cooper in view of Walker......................................................60
`Claim 3 is Obvious over Cooper in View of Walker. .............64
`Claim 4 is Obvious over Cooper in View of Walker. .............65
`Claim 5 is Obvious over Cooper in view of Walker...............66
`
`m.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`5.
`6.
`
`iii
`
`

`

`7.
`
`8.
`9.
`
`Claims 9 and 10 are Obvious over Cooper in view of
`Walker. ..................................................................................66
`Claim 24 is Obvious over Cooper in View of Walker. ...........75
`Claims 1-2, 4, 17, and 23 are Obvious Over Cooper in
`View of Litvak.......................................................................76
`10. Claims 1-2, 4, 17, and 23 are Obvious Over Cooper in
`View of Coueignoux..............................................................78
`11. Claims 1-5, 9-10, 17, and 23-24, are Obvious over
`Cooper in View of Walker and Litvak. ..................................78
`12. Claims 1-5, 9-10, 17, and 23-24 are Obvious over Cooper
`in View of Walker and Coueignoux.......................................79
`VI. CONCLUSION .........................................................................................80
`
`iv
`
`

`

`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`CASES
`Career Destination Dev. LLC v. Indeed, Inc.,
`Civil Action No. 13-cv-2486..............................................................................1
`
`Career Destination Dev. LLC v. Monster Worldwide Inc.,
`Civil Action No. 13-cv-2434..............................................................................1
`
`In re Donaldson,
`16 F.3d 1189 (Fed. Cir. 1994)..........................................................................22
`
`In re Trans Texas Holdings Corp.,
`498 F.3d 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2007)........................................................................15
`
`In re Yamamoto,
`740 F.2d 1569 (Fed. Cir. 1984)........................................................................15
`
`Interthinx, Inc. v. Corelogic Solutions, LLC,
`No. CBM2012-00007 (BJM) .............................................................................9
`
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007).............................................................................57, 58, 77
`
`Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad, Inc.,
`481 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2007)........................................................................53
`
`STATUTES
`35 U.S.C. § 102 .................................................................................. 14, 26, 53, 54
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(a) ................................................................................................53
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(b)..........................................................................................13, 14
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 ............................................................................ 14, 15, 26, 57, 79
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) ................................................................................................57
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112 ....................................................................................................22
`
`35 U.S.C. § 321(a)(1)..............................................................................................3
`
`v
`
`

`

`35 U.S.C. § 321(c) ..................................................................................................3
`
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b) .........................................................................................2, 80
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.15(b)(1)-(2).....................................................................................3
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.203(a) .............................................................................................3
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.205(a) .............................................................................................2
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.300(b) ...........................................................................................15
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.301......................................................................................4, 5, 8, 9
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.302..................................................................................................3
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.302(a) .............................................................................................3
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.302(b) .............................................................................................3
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.303..................................................................................................3
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.304(b)(1)-(2).................................................................................14
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.304(b)(3).......................................................................................15
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.6(d) ...............................................................................................80
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.63....................................................................................................2
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.63(c) and (d) ...................................................................................2
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.63(e) .............................................................................................80
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1).............................................................................................1
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2).............................................................................................1
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3).............................................................................................2
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4).............................................................................................2
`
`vi
`
`

`

`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`Exhibit 1001 U.S. Patent No. 7,424,438
`
`Exhibit 1002 Complaint in Career Destination Dev. LLC v. Monster Worldwide
`Inc., Civil Action No. 13-cv-2434 KHV/KGG (Aug. 26, 2013)
`
`Exhibit 1003 United States Patent and Trademark Office—Classification
`Definitions, Class 705
`
`Exhibit 1004
`
`77 Fed. Reg. 157 (Aug. 14, 2012)
`
`Exhibit 1005 Declaration of Dr. Martin G. Walker Concerning the Invalidity of
`U.S. Patent No. 7,424,438
`
`Exhibit 1006
`
`SAP America, Inc. v. Versata Dev. Group., Inc., CBM2012-00001,
`Paper No. 36 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 09, 2013)
`
`Exhibit 1007 CRS Advanced Techs., Inc. v. Frontline Tech., Inc., CBM2012-
`00005, Paper No. 17 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 23, 2013)
`
`Exhibit 1008
`
`Interthinx, Inc. v. Corelogic Solutions, LLC, No. CBM2012-00007
`(BJM), Paper 16 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 31 2013)
`
`Exhibit 1009
`
`157 Congressional Record S1360 (Mar. 8, 2011)
`
`Exhibit 1010
`
`Prosecution File History of U.S. Patent No. 7,424,438 (“File
`History”)
`
`Exhibit 1011
`
`File History, Original U.S. Patent Application No. 10/101,644,
`filed Mar. 19, 2002
`
`Exhibit 1012
`
`File History, Office Action Mailed May 19, 2004
`
`Exhibit 1013
`
`File History, Response to Office Action Mailed May 19, 2004
`
`Exhibit 1014
`
`File History, Office Action Mailed Jan. 12, 2005
`
`Exhibit 1015
`
`File History, Response to Office Action Mailed Jan. 12, 2005
`
`Exhibit 1016
`
`File History, Office Action Mailed July 14, 2005
`
`vii
`
`

`

`Exhibit 1017
`
`File History, Response to Office Action Mailed July 14, 2005
`
`Exhibit 1018
`
`File History, Office Action Mailed Nov. 10, 2005
`
`Exhibit 1019
`
`File History, Response to Office Action Mailed Nov. 10, 2005
`
`Exhibit 1020
`
`File History, Office Action Mailed Nov. 8, 2006
`
`Exhibit 1021
`
`File History, Amended Appeal Brief to Board of Patent Appeals
`and Interferences Under 37 C.F.R. Section 41.37, filed Oct. 31,
`2007
`
`Exhibit 1022 U.S. Patent No. 5,884,270, filed Sept. 6, 1996, and issued on Mar.
`6, 1999 to Walker et al. (“Walker”)
`
`Exhibit 1023
`
`PCT Patent Pub. No. WO 99/17242 by Cooper et al, published
`Apr. 8, 1999 (“Cooper”)
`
`Exhibit 1024
`
`PCT Patent Pub. No. WO 99/01834 by Coueignoux, published Jan.
`14, 1999 (“Coueignoux”)
`
`Exhibit 1025
`
`PCT Patent Pub. No. WO 00/58866 by Litvak, et al., published
`Oct. 5, 2000 (“Litvak”)
`
`Exhibit 1026
`
`THE AMERICAN HERITAGE COLLEGE DICTIONARY (3rd ed. 1997)
`
`Exhibit 1027
`
`THE MERRIAM-WEBSTER’S NEW COLLEGIATE DICTIONARY (9th ed.
`1984)
`
`Exhibit 1028 Complaint in Career Destination Dev. LLC v. Indeed, Inc., Civil
`Action No. 13-cv-2486 JWL/JPO (Sept. 17, 2013)
`
`viii
`
`

`

`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Monster Worldwide, Inc. and Indeed, Inc. (the “Real Parties in Interest,” or
`
`collectively the “Petitioner”) petition for covered business method patent review,
`
`seeking cancellation of claims 1-5, 9-10, 12, 17, and 23-24 of U.S. Patent No.
`
`7,424,438 (the “`438 Patent”). Ex. 1001. According to USPTO records, the `438
`
`Patent is assigned to Career Destination Development LLC, which is currently
`
`asserting it against both of the Real Parties in Interest. See Exs. 1002, 1028.
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES, POWER OF ATTORNEY, CERTIFICATE
`OF SERVICE, EXHIBIT LIST, AND FEE
`
`Real Parties in Interest (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1))
`A.
`Monster Worldwide, Inc. and Indeed, Inc. are the real parties in interest.
`
`Notice Of Related Matters (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2))
`B.
`Petitioner identifies the following related judicial proceedings: Career
`
`Destination Dev. LLC v. Monster Worldwide Inc., Civil Action No. 13-cv-2434
`
`KHV/KGG (Aug. 26, 2013); Career Destination Dev. LLC v. Indeed, Inc., Civil
`
`Action No. 13-cv-2486 JWL/JPO (Sept. 17, 2013). Exs. 1002, 1028. On Feb. 12,
`
`2014, the Real Parties in Interest filed a separate but related Petition For Covered
`
`Business Method Patent Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,424,438, which was assigned
`
`Case No. CBM2014-00068. On Feb. 12, 2014, the Real Parties in Interest filed
`
`two different Petitions for Covered Business Method Patent Review of U.S. Patent
`
`No. 8,374,901, assigned Case Nos. CBM2014-00069 and CBM2014-00070.
`
`1
`
`

`

`Notice of Lead and Back-up Counsel (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3))
`C.
`Petitioner designates Justin F. Boyce (Reg. No. 40,920) as lead counsel and
`
`Jeffrey Plies (Reg. No. 46,999) as backup counsel for this petition.
`
`Service Information (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4))
`D.
`Petitioner’s service information is: Justin F. Boyce (Dechert LLP, 2440 W.
`
`El Camino Real, Suite 700, Mountain View, CA, 94040; Phone: (650) 813-4853;
`
`Fax: (650) 813-4848; justin.boyce@dechert.com).
`
`Power of Attorney (37 C.F.R. §42.10(b))
`E.
`Petitioner has attached powers of attorney executed by both of the Real
`
`Parties in Interest.
`
`Certificate of Service on Patent Owner (37 C.F.R. § 42.205(a))
`F.
`Petitioner has attached a Certificate of Service certifying that a copy of the
`
`Petition and all supporting evidence is being served on the patent owner at the
`
`correspondence address of record for the `438 Patent. The certificate includes the
`
`date, manner of service, name, and address of every person served.
`
`Legible Copies of All Exhibits in Exhibit List (37 C.F.R. § 42.63)
`G.
`Petitioner has included copies of every piece of evidence referenced in this
`
`petition (Exhibits 1001-1028). These exhibits were prepared in accordance with 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.63(c) and (d). The exhibit list includes a brief description of each
`
`exhibit, per 37 C.F.R. § 42.63.
`
`2
`
`

`

`Complete CBM Petition Fee (37 C.F.R. §§ 42.15(b)(1)-(2))
`H.
`Petitioner hereby submits the fee of $30,000 in accordance with 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 321(a)(1) and 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.15(b)(1)-(4) and 42.203(a).
`
`III. GROUNDS FOR STANDING
`A. Monster Files this Petition in a Timely Manner, After Being Sued
`for Infringement, and No Estoppel Applies (37 C.F.R. §§ 42.302
`and 42.303).
`The requirements of 37 C.F.R. § 42.302(a) are satisfied because Career
`
`Destination Development, LLC sued both of the Real Parties in Interest separately
`
`for infringement of the `438 Patent in the U.S. District Court for the District of
`
`Kansas. See Exs. 1002, 1028. The Real Parties in Interest are challenging the
`
`validity of the `438 Patent in the Kansas litigations, but the district court has not
`
`heard any arguments on validity issues, and so neither of the Real Parties in
`
`Interest are estopped from challenging validity of the `438 Patent on the grounds
`
`raised in this petition. Therefore, the requirements of 37 C.F.R. § 42.302(b) are
`
`satisfied. The timing requirements of 37 C.F.R. § 42.303 are also satisfied because
`
`the `438 Patent issued on Sept. 9, 2008, and the period for filing a petition for post-
`
`grant review of the `438 Patent under 35 U.S.C. § 321(c) has passed. Ex. 1001.
`
`The `438 Patent Qualifies for Covered Business Method Review.
`B.
`The `438 Patent qualifies for covered business method (“CBM”) review as it
`
`satisfies the requirements of AIA § 18(d)(1). Initially, Petitioner notes that the
`
`PTO classified the `438 Patent in Class 705, titled “Data Processing: financial,
`
`3
`
`

`

`business practice, management, or cost/price determination.” Ex. 1001 (cover
`
`page, citing “U.S. Cl. … 705/9; 705/11”); Ex. 1003. This classification weighs in
`
`favor of CBM qualification because the PTO has stated that patents subject to
`
`CBM review are “typically” assigned to Class 705. Ex. 1003; Ex. 1004, p. 48711.
`
`In order to qualify for CBM review, a patent: (1) must claim “a method …
`
`for performing data processing or other operations used in the practice,
`
`administration, or management of a financial product or service”; and (2) must not
`
`be “for technological inventions.” AIA § 18(d)(1); 37 C.F.R. § 42.301. The `438
`
`Patent satisfies both requirements.
`
`1.
`
`The `438 Patent Claims Business Methods Used in Practice,
`Administration, or Management of a Financial Service.
`The `438 Patent relates to an employment website that allows employers and
`
`job seekers to exchange “contact information” upon payment of a fee. Ex. 1001,
`
`8:60-63, 9:3-5, Fig. 1. 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 of the `438 Patent (the “Specification”), the
`
`website is “operated as a business,” where “a fee is generated when an employer
`
`elects to purchase contact information” for a candidate. Id., 8:60-63. According to
`
`the Specification, the claimed functions are performed by “business logic”
`
`executed by an “application server.” Id., 8:23-24; Ex. 1005, ¶¶ 24-27. Use of the
`
`4
`
`

`

`term “business logic” suggests that the `438 Patent qualifies for CBM review. Id.
`
`The Board construes the CBM standard broadly, in a way that clearly
`
`encompasses the `438 Patent. The AIA requires that a CBM patent must claim “a
`
`method ... for performing data processing ... used in the practice, administration, or
`
`management of a financial ... service.” AIA § 18(d)(1); see also 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.301. The legislative history of the AIA suggests that this language is
`
`“intended to cover any ancillary activities related to a financial product or service.”
`
`Ex. 1009, p. S1365; see also AIA § 18(d)(1). The USPTO has explained the term
`
`“financial ... service” should be “interpreted broadly,” encompassing “activities ...
`
`financial in nature,” and activities “incidental ... or complementary to a financial
`
`activity.” Ex. 1004, p. 48735. The Board has held that a patent claim need not
`
`literally recite a financial service to qualify for CBM review, SAP Am., Inc. v.
`
`Versata Dev. Grp., Inc., CBM2012-00001, Paper No. 36 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 09, 2013)
`
`(Ex. 1006), p. 23; rather, the Board only requires that claims be broad enough to
`
`cover a financial service, CRS Advanced Techs., Inc. v. Frontline Tech., Inc.,
`
`CBM2012-00005, Paper No. 17 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 23, 2013) (Ex. 1007), p. 8 (claims
`
`covering a method of providing “substitute workers” for “organizations” held
`
`broad enough to include performance of the same method for financial
`
`organizations such as banks). The Board stated that “financial” is “an adjective
`
`that simply means relating to monetary matters.” Ex. 1006, p. 23.
`
`5
`
`

`

`All claims of the `438 Patent are at least “broad enough to cover” a financial
`
`service because the Specification describes an embodiment in which the “career
`
`site is operated as a business” where an employer pays “fees” for contact
`
`information on qualified candidates. Ex. 1001, 9:1-23. So, these claims certainly
`
`relate to “monetary matters,” and thus qualify for CBM review. Id. Also, all of
`
`the claims recite the term “requirements,” which may include either a “minimum
`
`required compensation” of the candidate, or a “maximum provided compensation”
`
`for the job. Id., 10:37-64, 52:29-58:56. Because the “compensation” requirements
`
`covered by the claims relate to “monetary matters,” the `438 Patent is subject to
`
`CBM review. Ex. 1006, p. 23; Ex. 1007, p. 8.
`
`The systems and methods claimed in the `438 Patent also constitute services
`
`“incidental ... or complementary to a financial activity” because the Specification
`
`teaches that they may be used to support employers, including those in the
`
`financial services, who need to hire a “Certified Public Accountant [CPA].” Ex.
`
`1004, p. 48735; Ex. 1001, 12:46-48, 18:21-21:10. For this reason also, the claimed
`
`systems and methods are at least “complementary” to accounting, which is a
`
`“financial activity.” Ex. 1007, p. 8 (claims covering a method of providing
`
`“substitute workers” for “organizations” held broad enough to include performance
`
`of the same method for financial organizations such as banks).
`
`All claims of the `438 Patent are at least complementary to a financial
`
`6
`
`

`

`service because all of the claims require processing of a “payment.” Ex. 1001,
`
`52:61-64, 54:34-35, 55:27-30, 56:35-39, 57:38-40, 58:24-28. For example, each of
`
`the independent claims 1, 9, 12, 17 and 23 requires “obligating” a “payment.” Id.
`
`Claim 4 recites “real time billing,” and claim 5 requires that an “amount” for a fee
`
`is determined “in real time.” Id., 53:16-21. In addition, claim 24 requires a
`
`“payment interface.” Id., 58:31-38. The purported problem that was allegedly
`
`solved by the `438 Patent is that some prior art employment websites (i.e., those
`
`using a “pay-to-post” and/or “subscribe-to-search” payment model) allegedly
`
`“impose[d] upfront economic barriers on employers.” Id., 5:3-6. The
`
`Specification addresses this problem by describing and claiming various fee
`
`structures and payment options, such as where “a fee is generated when an
`
`employer elects to purchase contact information.” Id., 4:61-5:2, 8:60-63, 9:3-35,
`
`47:31-59; see also id., claim 1 (“obligating a payment due” based on a “response to
`
`said request for release of contact information”), claim 3 (requiring that he amount
`
`due is chosen from “a high school amount” and a “bachelor degree amount”). Id.
`
`Various payment options described in the Specification (e.g., “credit card,”
`
`“prepaid account”) support the claimed “means for collecting said payment fee”
`
`recited in claim 9. Id., 47:31-59, 54:36. Because the aforementioned claims are
`
`drawn to fee structures and payment options, these claims clearly relate to
`
`“monetary matters,” which makes them subject to CBM review. Therefore, at least
`
`7
`
`

`

`some (if not all) claims of the `438 Patent are “used in the practice, administration,
`
`or management of a financial product or service,” thereby satisfying the first
`
`requirement of Section 18 of the AIA.
`
`The `438 Patent Does Not Claim Technological Inventions.
`2.
`None of the claims of the `438 Patent are for “technological inventions.”
`
`AIA § 18(d)(1). To identify a technological invention, one must consider “whether
`
`the claimed subject matter as a whole [1] recites a technological feature that is
`
`novel and unobvious over the prior art; and [2] solves a technical problem using a
`
`technical solution.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.301. If any single patent claim fails to satisfy
`
`these two requirements, then the technological invention exception does not apply
`
`and the entire patent is subject to CBM review. Ex. 1004, p. 48736. As explained
`
`below, all of the challenged claims of the `438 Patent satisfy the USPTO’s test.
`
`First, none of the claims of the `438 Patent recite “a technological feature
`
`that is novel and unobvious over the prior art.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.301. The claimed
`
`functions are merely abstract ideas that could be performed by a human
`
`intermediary. Ex. 1001, 52:30-67 (see e.g., claim 1 requiring steps of “authorizing
`
`information exchange” and “obligating a payment.”). The only structural elements
`
`recited in the claims are generic computer parts such as a “computer” or a
`
`“distributed network.” Id., 52:30, 53:65, 56:17, 57:15-43. The Board has held that
`
`a claim may recite a computer-implemented process using known techniques for
`
`8
`
`

`

`storing information and still be considered a business method. Interthinx, Inc. v.
`
`Corelogic Solutions, LLC, No. CBM2012-00007 (BJM), Paper 16 (P.T.A.B. Jan.
`
`31 2013) (Ex. 1009), p. 18. Therefore, the recitation of generic computer parts
`
`does not transform the `438 Patent claims into “technological inventions. Ex.
`
`1004, pp. 48763-48764. Even the Specification merely describes generic
`
`hardware. Ex. 1001, 7:49-8:53. And the claimed combinations of prior art
`
`structures (i.e., “computer system,” “computer network,” and “storage medium”)
`
`simply achieve “the normal, expected or predictable result[s]” of the combinations,
`
`which further weighs against finding any of the claims are drawn to “technological
`
`inventions.” Ex. 1004, pp. 48763-48764. For these reasons, none of the claims of
`
`the `438 Patent recites a “technological feature that is novel and unobvious over
`
`the prior art.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.301.
`
`Second, the `438 Patent does not claim subject matter that “solves a
`
`technical problem using a technical solution.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.301. The problem
`
`described in the Specification is not a technical one, but rather a business one. Ex.
`
`1001, at 5:3-6 (explaining that “subscribe-to-search systems impose upfront
`
`economic barriers on employers”); see also Ex. 1021, p. 52 (stating that “[t]he
`
`system and method of the present invention provides a novel and useful method of
`
`doing business[.]” (emphasis added)). Neither is the purported solution to this
`
`problem a technical one. As explained, all of the claims recite generic computer
`
`9
`
`

`

`parts (e.g., “computer” or “network”). Id., 52:30; 53:65; 56:17; 57:15; and 57:43.
`
`These recitations not transform the claims of the `438 Patent into technological
`
`inventions. Ex. 1004, p. 48764 (“Mere recitation of known technologies” will not
`
`typically render a patent a technological invention). Indeed the claims merely
`
`recite computer-implemented versions of methods that were historically performed
`
`by humans working as human resource (“HR”) professionals. Ex. 1001, 1:28-2:63;
`
`3:15-22; 5:53-6:11. So, none of the claims of the`438 Patent are “for technological
`
`inventions.” AIA § 18(d)(1). For all of the foregoing reasons, Petitioner submits
`
`that all claims of the `438 Patent qualify for CBM review.
`
`IV.
`
`STATEMENT OF THE PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED FOR EACH
`CLAIM CHALLENGED
`
`Overview of the `438 Patent
`A.
`The `438 Patent has 25 claims, including 6 independent claims (i.e., claims
`
`1, 9, 12, 17, 22, and 23). Ex. 1001. All of these claims are directed to systems or
`
`methods for “authorizing” (or “facilitating” or “coordinating”) an “exchange” of
`
`“contact information” between a candidate and an employer. Id., 52:30-58:56.
`
`The Earliest Possible Priority Date Is March 19, 2002.
`1.
`The earliest possible priority date of the `438 Patent is March 19, 2002. See
`
`Ex. 1001 (claiming priority to filing date of U.S. Patent App. No. 10/101,644).
`
`Prosecution History of the `438 Patent
`2.
`U.S. Patent Application No. 10/101,644 was filed on March 19, 2002. Ex.
`
`10
`
`

`

`1001. An original claim 5 recited a “method of authorizing information
`
`exchange.” Ex. 1011, p. 101. In response to an office action mailed on May 19,
`
`2004 (Ex. 1012), claim 5 was amended to require that the “method of authorizing
`
`information exchange” must be performed “prior to any direct contact between
`
`said candidate and said employer.” Ex. 1013, p. 2 (underlining in original). In
`
`response to a later office action mailed on July 14, 2005 (see Ex. 1016), the
`
`Applicant again amended claim 5 to recite “receiving a request for … release of
`
`contact information.” Ex. 1017, p. 2 (underlining in original). In response to yet
`
`another office action (see Ex. 1018), the Applicant amended claim 5 even further
`
`to recite “receiving ... at least one request for release of contact information from
`
`… the requesting one …; … receiving a response from said non-requesting
`
`candidate or employer consenting to the release of the contact information … to
`
`said requesting party.” Ex. 1019, p. 3 (underlining in original). This amended
`
`version of claim 5 was ultimately issued as claim 1. Ex. 1001, 52:30-67.
`
`On November 8, 2006, the Examiner issued another office action (Ex. 1020)
`
`rejecting various claims over several references, including U.S. Patent No.
`
`5,884,270 issued to Walker. Ex. 1022, p. 3-7. On October 31, 2007, the Applicant
`
`filed an Appeal Brief including arguments explaining how various limitations of
`
`the amended claims allegedly distinguish the claims from Walker. See Ex. 1021,
`
`pp. 28-30. The Brief stated that “Walker … discloses a system for controlling the
`
`11
`
`

`

`release of confidential … information ... in an anonymous communication,”
`
`wherein “control and anonymity is accomplished in several ways.” Id., p. 28.
`
`First, the Applicant noted that Walker teaches a protocol by which an
`
`employer and an anonymous candidate (i.e., a candidate who posts a resume
`
`without giving a name or contact information) may “communicate directly with
`
`each other in an anonymous fashion” (the “Direct-Anonymous Protocol”). Ex.
`
`1021, p. 30 citing Ex. 1022 at 21:58-22:9. Walker explains that this protocol is
`
`implemented using a “mailbox” assigned to an anonymous candidate. Ex. 1022,
`
`9:6-22. The Applicant stated that this teaching is “totally different from
`
`Applicant's invention wherein no direct contact between the candidate and the
`
`employer … occurs until after there has been an exchange of contact information.”
`
`Ex. 1021, p. 30 (emphasis in original). With these statements, the Applicant
`
`emphasized the importance of the limitations of “authorizing information exchange
`
`… prior to any direct contact between said candidate and said employer” and
`
`“providing exchange of contact information … prior to any direct contact between
`
`said candidate and said employer,” as recited in issu