Trials@uspto.gov
`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper 9
`Entered: August 20, 2014
`
`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 CBM2014-00077
`Patent 7,424,438 B2
`____________
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, MEREDITH C. PETRAVICK, and
`JUSTIN BUSCH, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`BUSCH, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Covered Business Method Patent Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.208
`
`
`
`
`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper 9
`Entered: August 20, 2014
`
`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 CBM2014-00077
`Patent 7,424,438 B2
`____________
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, MEREDITH C. PETRAVICK, and
`JUSTIN BUSCH, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`BUSCH, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Covered Business Method Patent Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.208
`
`
`
`
`
`CBM2014-00077
`Patent 7,424,438 B2
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`A. Background
`On February 21, 2014, Indeed, Inc. (“Indeed”) and Monster
`Worldwide Inc. (“Monster,” collectively “Petitioner”) filed a Petition (Paper
`1) requesting review of claims 1–5, 9, 10, 12, 17, 23, and 24 of U.S. Patent
`No. 7,424,438 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’438 patent”) under the transitional
`program for covered business method patents.1 Career Destination
`Development, LLC (“Patent Owner”) did not file a preliminary response.
`We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 324, which provides that a
`post-grant review may not be instituted “unless . . . the information
`presented in the petition . . . would demonstrate that it is more likely than not
`that at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition is unpatentable.”
`B. Standing
`Section 18 of the AIA governs the transitional program for covered
`business method patent reviews. Section 18(a)(1)(B) of the AIA limits such
`reviews to persons or their privies that have been sued or charged with
`infringement of a covered business method patent.
`Petitioner and Patent Owner indicate that the ’438 patent was asserted
`against Monster and Indeed in Career Destination Dev. LLC v. Monster
`Worldwide, Inc., Case No. 13-CV-2434 (D. Kan. filed Aug. 26, 2013) and
`Career Destination Dev. LLC v. Indeed, Inc., Case No. 13-CV-2486 (D.
`Kan. filed Sep. 17, 2013), respectively. Pet. 1, 3; Mandatory Notice of
`Patent Owner (Paper 5), 2.
`
`
`1 See § 18(a) of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, Pub. L. No. 112-29,
`125 Stat. 284, 329 (2011) (“AIA”).
`
` 2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CBM2014-00077
`Patent 7,424,438 B2
`
`
`C. Related Proceedings
`Petitioner filed a second petition for covered business method patent
`review of the ’438 patent (Indeed, Inc. v. Career Destination Dev., LLC,
`Case CBM2014-00068 (PTAB Feb. 12, 2014)). Additionally, two petitions
`for covered business method patent review of U.S. Patent No. 8,374,901 B2
`(Indeed, Inc. v. Career Destination Dev., LLC, Case CBM2014-00069
`(PTAB Feb. 12, 2014) and Monster Worldwide Inc. v. Career Destination
`Dev., LLC, Case CBM2014-00070 (PTAB Feb. 12, 2014)), which is a
`divisional application of the application resulting in the ’438 patent and also
`allegedly asserted by Patent Owner in the identified litigations, were filed
`simultaneously.
`D. The ’438 Patent (Ex. 1001)
`The invention of the ʼ438 patent relates generally to methods and
`systems for facilitating contact information exchange between employers
`and candidates (interchangeably referred to throughout the ’438 patent as
`“talent” or “job-seekers”) when a potential match is found. Ex. 1001, 5:53–
`6:11. The ’438 patent discloses that there are various ways of identifying
`prospective matches and that a request for exchange of contact information
`may be initiated by either the employer or the candidate. Id.
`The ’438 patent describes conventional computers, networks, personal
`digital assistants (“PDAs”), and web applications that may include the use of
`conventional web, database, and email servers, which may be individual or
`integrated servers. Id. at 7:49–8:53. The ’438 patent also describes various
`methods of charging for the exchange of contact information. One disclosed
`embodiment charges an employer a fee prior to providing a candidate’s
`contact information based on the education level of the candidate. Id. at
`
` 3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CBM2014-00077
`Patent 7,424,438 B2
`
`9:3–14. Another embodiment charges an employer a flat fee, regardless of
`the education level of the candidate or compensation required by the
`candidate, prior to releasing contact information. Id. at 9:14–16. Yet
`another embodiment discloses charging an employer a fee based on the
`maximum offered compensation before providing the employer with the
`candidate’s contact information. Id. at 9:17–19. Another embodiment may
`use a combination of factors to determine the fee charged to an employer
`prior to releasing the candidate’s contact information. Id. at 9:19–23.
`When the employer searches for candidate profiles matching certain
`criteria, the employer may initiate the transactions resulting in an exchange
`of contact information. Id. at 10:16–20. When a candidate searches for
`employment opportunities, the candidate may initiate the transactions
`resulting in an exchange of contact information. Id. at 10:20–23. As part of
`the process leading to the exchange of contact information, the system
`compares various parameters of the candidate and job listing to determine if
`there is a match. Id. at 10:24–32. In some embodiments, once a pool of
`prospective matches are identified, the system determines whether a
`maximum compensation the employer is willing to pay is greater than the
`minimum compensation the talent is willing to accept. Id. at col. 44:14–17;
`Fig. 10, item 1017; see also Fig. 4, item 417. If there is not a match, the
`system may offer the opportunity for the searcher to alter parameters (either
`for the candidate herself or for the employer’s job posting) in an attempt to
`generate a match with the identified job listing or candidate profile. Id. at
`10:33–11:2.
`
` 4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CBM2014-00077
`Patent 7,424,438 B2
`
`
`If the candidate initiates the request for an exchange of contact
`information, that action serves as the candidate’s authorization for releasing
`her contact information, and the transaction is completed if the employer
`then elects to purchase the contact information. Id. at 11:8–15. If the
`employer initiates the request for an exchange of contact information, that
`action serves as the employer’s consent to purchase the contact information,
`and the transaction is completed if the candidate then indicates interest in the
`job opportunity. Id. at 11:26–32. If the non-initiating party does not
`respond, their account may be suspended. Id. at 29:52–65, 35:39–65. The
`system may transmit contact information by any communications means,
`including fax, e-mail, or an authenticated web page. Id. at 11:56–60. An
`employer may pay for the exchange of contact information with a credit
`card, a prepaid account, or by invoice. Id. at 47:31–35.
`E. Illustrative Claim
`Claims 1–5, 9, 10, 12, 17, 23, and 24 of the ’438 patent are challenged
`and, of those claims, claims 1, 9, 12, 17, and 23 are independent claims.
`Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed subject matter of the ’438 patent, and is
`reproduced as follows:
`1. A method executed by a computer processor for authorizing
`information exchange between at least one of a plurality of
`candidates and at least one of a plurality of employers prior to
`any direct contact between said candidate and said employer,
`said candidate having one or more candidate attributes
`including candidate minimum requirements, said employer
`having one or more employer attributes including employer
`minimum requirements, said one or more candidate attributes
`and minimum requirements including a searchable profile being
`stored in a candidate database, and said one or more employer
`attributes and minimum requirements including a searchable
`
` 5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CBM2014-00077
`Patent 7,424,438 B2
`
`
`profile being stored in an employer database, said method
`comprising:
`receiving a search request from either said candidate or
`said employer to search the searchable profile of
`one of the candidate and employer databases for a
`possible employment opportunity based upon
`certain search parameters;
`processing the search request and providing the results to
`the requesting one of said candidate and said
`employer;
`receiving a at least one request for release of contact
`information from the requesting one of said
`candidate and said employer based upon the search
`results;
`determining that the attributes of the requesting one of
`said candidate and said employer satisfy the
`minimum
`requirements of a non-requesting
`candidate or employer stored in the candidate and
`employer databases;
`receiving a response from said non-requesting candidate
`or employer consenting to the release of the
`contact information of said candidate or said
`employer to said requesting party;
`obligating a payment due in real time based on the
`response to said request for release of contact
`information wherein said payment due is a fee to a
`career site operator; and
`providing exchange of contact information in real time
`prior to any direct contact between said candidate
`and said employer.
`F. Covered Business Method Patent
`Under § 18(a)(1)(E) of the AIA, the Director may institute a
`transitional proceeding only for a patent that is a covered business method
`patent, defined as “a patent that claims a method or corresponding apparatus
`
` 6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CBM2014-00077
`Patent 7,424,438 B2
`
`for performing data processing or other operations used in the practice,
`administration, or management of a financial product or service, except that
`the term does not include patents for technological inventions.” AIA
`§ 18(d)(1).
`The determination of whether a patent is eligible for covered business
`method patent review is based on what the patent claims. A patent having
`just one claim directed to a covered business method is eligible for review
`even if the patent includes additional claims that are not directed to a
`covered business method. Transitional Program for Covered Business
`Method Patents – Definitions of Covered Business Method Patent and
`Technological Invention; Final Rule, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,734, 48,736 (Aug. 14,
`2012) (Response to Comment 8).
`1.
`Financial Product or Service
`The “legislative history explains that the definition of a covered
`business method patent was drafted to encompass patents ‘claiming
`activities that are financial in nature, incidental to a financial activity or
`complementary to a financial activity’” and that “financial product or
`service” should be interpreted broadly. 77 Fed. Reg. 48,734, 48,735 (Aug.
`14, 2012) (quoting 157 Cong. Rec. S5432 (daily ed. Sept. 8, 2011)
`(statement of Sen. Schumer)).
`Petitioner argues that the ’438 patent was classified in the 705 art
`group and “patents subject to CBM review are ‘typically’ assigned to Class
`705.” Pet. 3-4. Petitioner asserts that each of the claims of the ’438 patent
`recite a method or system for authorizing exchange of contact information
`between an employer and a candidate, including processing of a payment.
`Id. at 4, 6–7 (quoting Ex. 1001, 52:61–64, 54:34–35, 55:27–30, 56:35–39,
`
` 7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CBM2014-00077
`Patent 7,424,438 B2
`
`57:38–40, 58:24–28). Petitioner asserts that the claims relate to monetary
`matters because the claims recite steps that may include matching employers
`and candidates for a possible employment opportunity based on salary
`requirements and include an employer paying a fee for qualified candidates.
`Id. at 6. Petitioner also argues the system and methods claimed in the ’438
`patent are at least incidental to a financial activity because they could be
`used in e-commerce and recruiting for financial services companies or for
`candidates seeking jobs at financial services companies. Id.
`The legislative history states, “[a]t its most basic, a financial product
`is an agreement between two parties stipulating movements of money.” 157
`Cong. Rec. S5432 (daily ed. Sept. 8, 2011) (statement of Sen. Schumer).
`The payment of a fee in exchange for assistance in matching an employer
`and a candidate is a financial activity, and claim 1, which “obligat[es] a
`payment due” from an employer, is at least incidental or complementary to
`that financial activity and, thus, is directed to a financial product or service.
`Accordingly, the’438 patent claims a method or corresponding
`apparatus for performing data processing or other operations used in the
`practice, administration, or management of a financial product or service.
`2.
`Technological Invention
`The definition of “covered business method patent” in Section
`18(d)(1) of the AIA excludes patents for “technological inventions.” To
`determine whether a patent is for a technological invention, we consider
`“whether the claimed subject matter as a whole recites a technological
`feature that is novel and unobvious over the prior art; and solves a technical
`problem using a technical solution.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.301(b). The following
`
` 8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CBM2014-00077
`Patent 7,424,438 B2
`
`claim drafting techniques, for example, typically do not render a patent a
`“technological invention”:
`(a) Mere recitation of known technologies, such as
`computer hardware, communication or computer networks,
`software, memory, computer-readable
`storage medium,
`scanners, display devices or databases, or specialized machines,
`such as an ATM or point of sale device.
`(b) Reciting the use of known prior art technology to
`accomplish a process or method, even if that process or method
`is novel and non-obvious.
`(c) Combining prior art structures to achieve the normal,
`expected, or predictable result of that combination.
`Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. at 48,763–64. Therefore, to
`qualify under the “technological invention” exception to covered business
`method patent review, it is not enough that the invention makes use of
`technological systems, features, or components. Use of technology is
`ubiquitous and underlies virtually every invention.
`Claim 1 recites “[a] method executed by a computer processor” to
`authorize the exchange of information between a candidate an employer.
`The claimed invention as a whole has no use other than to receive and
`process search requests, determine matches between employers and
`candidates based on various parameters, receive authorizations for release of
`information and/or payment of a fee in exchange for such information,
`obligate a payment due, and exchange contact information. The claim
`recites only generic and well-known components used in the ordinary
`manner to achieve a predictable result, such as using a computer processor to
`execute the method steps and a candidate database and/or an employer
`database to aid in storing and searching profiles.
`
` 9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CBM2014-00077
`Patent 7,424,438 B2
`
`
`The subject matter of claim 1 does not use a technical solution to
`solve a technical problem. According to the field of the invention of the
`’438 patent, the invention relates to “optimizing individuals’ employment
`searches and career opportunities, and optimizing employers’ recruiting and
`hiring processes and decisions.” Ex. 1001, 1:10–12. The ’438 patent
`indicates that “a system is needed that . . . encourages the participation of all
`employers and all talent in an economically efficient, on-going process of
`optimizing the use of available skills.” Id. at 5:44–48. However, creating a
`centralized location for all employers and candidates to search, and releasing
`contact information only with both parties’ consent, could be done by a third
`party without the assistance of computing technologies. No technical
`problem has been identified that is solved by the subject matter of claim 1.
`In order to be an exception to qualifying as a covered business method
`patent, a claim must both “recite[] a technological feature that is novel and
`unobvious over the prior art; and solve[] a technical problem using a
`technical solution.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.301(b) (emphasis added). Because we
`are persuaded that at least claim 1 is a method used in the practice,
`administration, or management of a financial product or service and neither
`recites a technological feature nor offers a technical solution to a technical
`problem, we determine that the claims of the ’438 patent are eligible for
`covered business method patent review.
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`CBM2014-00077
`Patent 7,424,438 B2
`
`
`G. Asserted Grounds
`Petitioner challenges claims 1–5, 9, 10, 17, 23, and 24 (the
`“challenged claims”) as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 based
`on the following specific grounds (Pet. 26–79):
`Basis
`Reference(s)
`Cooper2
`§ 102(b)
`
`Claims challenged
`1, 2, 4, 17, 23
`
`§ 103
`
`§ 103
`
`§ 103
`
`§ 103
`
`§ 103
`
`§ 103
`
`Cooper
`
`23
`
`Cooper and Walker3
`
`1–5, 9, 10, 17, 23, 24
`
`Cooper and Litvak4
`Cooper, Litvak, and
`Walker
`Cooper and
`Coueignoux5
`Cooper, Walker, and
`Coueignoux
`
`1, 2, 4, 17, 23
`
`1–5, 9, 10, 17, 23, 24
`
`1, 2, 4, 17, 23
`
`1–5, 9, 10, 17, 23, 24
`
`We determine the information presented in the Petition demonstrates
`it is more likely than not that the challenged claims are unpatentable.
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 324 and § 18(a) of the AIA, we authorize a covered
`business method patent review to be instituted as to claims 1–5, 9, 10, 17,
`23, and 24 of the ’438 patent, to the extent and for the reasons described
`below.
`
`
`2 Cooper et al., WO 99/17242 (published Apr. 8, 1999) (Ex. 1023)
`(“Cooper”).
`3 U.S. Pat. No. 5,884,270 (issued Mar. 16, 1999) (Ex. 1022) (“Walker”).
`4 Litvak et al., WO 00/58866 (published Oct. 5, 2000) (Ex. 1025) (“Litvak”).
`5 Coueignoux, WO 99/01834 (published Jan. 14, 1999) (Ex. 1024)
`(“Coueignoux”).
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`CBM2014-00077
`Patent 7,424,438 B2
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`
`A. Claim Construction
`As a step in our analysis, we determine the meaning of the claims that
`are necessary for purposes of this decision. At this time, it only is necessary
`to provide a construction for the means-plus-function limitations to evaluate
`the challenges raised. Petitioner asserts each term in claim 9 should be
`construed as a means-plus-function term and, accordingly, identifies the
`function and structure of each limitation in claim 9, including citations to the
`specification of the ’438 patent purported in support of the proposed
`constructions. Pet. 25–28. Patent Owner has not filed a preliminary
`response and, therefore, has not proposed a construction for any claim terms
`at this time.
`We agree with Petitioner that each of the limitations in claim 9 should
`be construed in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6.6 “[T]he
`corresponding structure for a § 112 ¶ 6 claim for a computer-implemented
`function is the algorithm disclosed in the specification.” Aristocrat Techs.
`Austl. Party. Ltd. vs. Int’l Game Tech., 521 F.3d 1328, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2008)
`(quoting Harris Corp. v. Ericsson Inc., 417 F.3d 1241, 1249 (Fed. Cir.
`2005)). However, when the function of a means-plus-function limitation is
`coextensive with a general purpose processor and can be achieved by any
`general purpose computer without special programming, it may not be
`necessary to disclose more than a general purpose processor that performs
`those functions. In re Katz, 639 F.3d 1303, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
`
`6 AIA § 4(c) re-designated 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6, as 35 U.S.C. § 112(f).
`Because the ’736 patent has a filing date before September 16, 2012
`(effective date of AIA), we use the citation § 112, ¶ 6.
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`CBM2014-00077
`Patent 7,424,438 B2
`
`
`Petitioner repeats the portion of each limitation following the
`language “means for” as the proposed construction for the function of the
`respective limitations. Pet. 25–28. On this record, we agree that the
`function of each of the means-plus-function limitations is stated clearly in
`the claim and needs no further explanation.
`Petitioner points to various respective portions of the specification of
`the ’438 patent as support for identifying the corresponding structure for
`each of the limitations in claim 9. Pet. 25–28. A review of the ’438 patent
`and, in particular the portions cited by Petitioner, reveals that the function
`for each of the means limitations recited in claim 9 are performed by: a
`general purpose processor without special programming (e.g., “means for
`computing a payment fee”), off-the-shelf software (e.g., “means for
`managing enterprise database resources”), or an algorithm to be executed by
`a general purpose processor (e.g., “means for determining that there is
`mutual consent”).
`Similarly, the corresponding structures for the means limitations in
`dependent claim 10, which depends from independent claim 9, is an
`algorithm executed by a general purpose processor. Claim 10 recites that the
`means for determining if there is mutual consent further comprises a means
`for receiving a response from the non-requesting party. Thus, the additional
`means limitation recited in claim 10 is actually a portion of an algorithm
`meeting the structure of claim 9. Therefore, the corresponding structure for
`the means limitations in claims 9 and 10 are merely routine and conventional
`processors and software for performing the functions recited in each
`respective means limitation.
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`
`CBM2014-00077
`Patent 7,424,438 B2
`
`
`B. Asserted Grounds Based on Cooper
`1. Overview of Cooper7 (Ex. 1023)
`Cooper is directed to an employment website for matching job
`openings with candidates. Ex. 1023, Abs. Cooper’s system is software that
`may be run on a wide area network, such as the Internet. Id. Cooper
`discloses allowing both candidates and employers to enter profile
`information with various requirements that may include a skills, experience,
`discipline, desired compensation, and contact information. Id. at 8:7–
`2412:13–12:3, 17:22–28. After entering profile information, the candidate
`may search the profiles to find a potential employment opportunity and the
`employers may search profiles to find potential candidates. Id. at 10:8–11,
`10:29–11:12, 19:23–20:11. If an employer finds a potential candidate that
`they would like to contact, they may need to request contact information
`from the system. Id. at 9:11–12, 11:3–5. Upon an affirmative response from
`the candidate, the system may release the candidate’s contact information.
`Id. at 11:3–5, 11:14–21.
`2. Analysis of Asserted Anticipation Ground based on Cooper
`(Claims 1, 2, 4, 17, and 23)
`Petitioner argues that claims 1, 2, 17, and 23 are anticipated by
`Cooper. Pet. 54–56; see also Pet. 26–34, 45–53. Petitioner provides claim
`charts, specifying where the limitations of claims 1, 2, 4, 17, and 23 can be
`found in Cooper. Id. at 26–34, 45–53 (quoting Ex. 1023 4:22–23, 6:18–
`10:14, 10:29–13:27, 14:25–15:9, 16:17–19, 17:22–19:20, 19:23–23:21,
`23:23–24:16, Figs. 1–8A, 8B).
`
`
`7 In this Decision, we refer to the original pagination and line numbers of
`Cooper and not the page numbers inserted by Petitioner.
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`
`CBM2014-00077
`Patent 7,424,438 B2
`
`
`Independent claim 1 recites various limitations relating to a method
`for searching a database of candidates or jobs, obligating payment based on
`a response to a request for release of contact information, and exchanging
`contact information prior to direct contact between the parties. Of note,
`independent claim 1 recites “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.” Dependent claims 2 and 4
`include the same limitation via their dependency from claim 1. Independent
`claims 17 and 23 each recite a similar limitation. Petitioner alleges that
`Cooper “teaches the limitation of obligating . . . payment . . . in real time”
`because Cooper discloses paying small match fees as opposed to large
`agency fees when searching third-party databases. Pet. 54–55. Petitioner
`also alleges Cooper discloses “receiving a response from said non-
`requesting” party “consenting to the release of contact information.” Id. at
`54. However, Petitioner does not point to anything in Cooper disclosing
`what triggers an employer’s obligation to pay the small match fees (e.g., the
`system identifying a match, the searcher sending a request for contact
`information, or the non-requesting party responding to the request for release
`of contact information). Thus, Petitioner has not established sufficiently that
`Cooper discloses “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,” as recited in claim 1 and
`similarly recited in claims 17 and 23. Therefore, based on the evidence
`presented, Petitioner has not established that it is more likely than not that it
`would prevail in demonstrating that claims 1, 2, 4, 17, and 23 of the ’438
`patent are anticipated by Cooper.
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`CBM2014-00077
`Patent 7,424,438 B2
`
`
`3. Analysis of Asserted Obviousness Ground based on Cooper
`(Claim 12)
`Petitioner argues that independent claim 12 is obvious in view of
`Cooper. Pet. 58–60; see also Pet. 41–45. Petitioner provides claim charts,
`specifying where the limitations of claim 12 can be found in Cooper. Id. at
`41–45.
`With respect to the limitation reciting obligating a payment due based
`on an employer’s consent to receive contact information, Petitioner relies on
`the same teachings in Cooper as discussed above in the anticipation
`challenge to independent claims 1, 17, and 23. See Pet. 45. As discussed
`above, Petitioner has not established sufficiently that Cooper discloses
`“obligating a payment due in real time based on said employer’s consent to
`receive the contact information of said candidate wherein said payment due
`is a fee to a career site operator.” Nor has Petitioner explained sufficiently
`why such a teaching would have been obvious in view of Cooper’s
`disclosure. Therefore, based on the evidence presented, Petitioner has not
`established that it is more likely than not that it would prevail in
`demonstrating that claim 12 of the ’438 patent is obvious in view of Cooper.
`C. Asserted Obviousness Ground Based on Cooper and Walker
`(Claims 1-5, 9, 10, 17, 23, and 24)
`1. Overview of Walker (Ex. 1022)
`Walker is directed to a “system for facilitating employment searches
`using anonymous communications.” Ex. 1022, Abs. Walker allows an
`employer to search a database of candidates, indicate interest in candidates
`based on anonymous or pseudonymous profiles, request candidates’ data
`(such as contact information) through the system’s central controller, and,
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`
`CBM2014-00077
`Patent 7,424,438 B2
`
`upon authorization from the candidates, receive the candidates’ data from
`the system’s central controller. Id. at 16:1–36. Walker’s system provides
`for various methods of payment and may not release contact information
`until payment is received. Id. at 18:61–67, 19:34–43, 21:13–19.
`2. Analysis of Asserted Obviousness Ground based on Cooper
`and Walker (Independent Claims 1, 17, and 23)
`Petitioner argues that independent claims 1, 17, and 23 are obvious in
`view of Cooper and Walker. Pet. 60–64; see also Pet. 26–34, 45–53.
`Petitioner provides claim charts, specifying where the limitations of
`independent claims 1, 17, and 23 can be found in Cooper and Walker. Id. at
`26–34, 45–53.
`As discussed above, we did not find Petitioner’s arguments persuasive
`that Cooper discloses “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,” as recited in independent
`claim 1 and similarly recited in independent claims 17 and 23. Petitioner
`alleges that Walker teaches those limitations because, in response to a
`search, Walker “returns a list of ‘pseudonyms’ for candidates satisfying the
`search criteria,” and, in some embodiments, this anonymity may prevent the
`requestor (e.g., employer) from seeing the party’s (e.g., candidate’s) name
`“until the requestor’s account has been debited” and “ensure that payment is
`received for bringing the two together.” Pet. 62-63 (quoting Ex. 1022, 16:1–
`25, 21:13–19, Figs 6A, 6B). Petitioner also points to the portion of Walker
`describing that the system may “transmit[] a bill to the requestor . . . for each
`transaction.” Id. at 63 (quoting Ex. 1022, 19:36-37). Therefore, contrary to
`Petitioner’s submissions with respect to Cooper alone, Petitioner has
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`
`
`CBM2014-00077
`Patent 7,424,438 B2
`
`persuaded us that Walker more likely than not teaches “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.”
`Petitioner argues that a person having ordinary skill in the art would
`have combined Walker and Cooper because that person would have
`considered any type of relevant payment scheme, such as that described in
`Walker, when implementing Cooper’s website to consider various ways of
`attracting customers and generating revenue.
`At this time, based on the evidence presented, we are persuaded that
`the combination of Cooper and Walker teaches each of the other recited
`limitations of independent claims 1, 17, and 23. Therefore, on this record,
`Petitioner has established that it is more likely than not that it would prevail
`in demonstrating that claims 1, 17, and 23 of the ’438 patent are obvious in
`view of the combination of Cooper and Walker.
`3. Analysis of Asserted Obviousness Ground based on Cooper
`and Walker (Independent Claim 9)
`Petitioner argues that independent claim 9 is obvious in view of
`Cooper and Walker. Pet. 66–73; see also Pet. 36–40. Petitioner provides
`claim charts, specifying where the limitations of claim 9 can be found in
`Cooper and Walker. Id. at 36–40.
`Each limitation of claim 9 is recited as a means-plus function
`limitation. Petitioner alleges that each of the recited functions is similar in
`scope to respective limitations in claim 1 and is, thus, taught by the
`combination of Cooper and Walker. See Pet. 36-40, 66-73. Petitioner also
`alleges that the corresponding structure is taught by the combination of
`Cooper and Walker. Id. As discussed above, the corresponding structures
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`
`
`CBM2014-00077
`Patent 7,424,438 B2
`
`for the means limitations in claim 9 are routine and conventional processors
`and software for performing the functions recited in each respective means
`limitation. We particularly note that claim 9 recites a “means for computing
`a payment fee to the career site operator in real time based on the mutual
`consent for the release of contact information.” That limitation is similar to
`the limitations reciting obligating payments due based on a response to a
`request for release of contact information discussed above with respect to in
`claims 1, 17, and 23. Petitioner further argues that the algorithm for
`calculating a payment fee due taught by the combination of Cooper and
`Walker meets the recited limitation because Walker teaches an algorithm
`that is the same as the corresponding structure disclosed by the ’438 patent.
`See, e.g. Pet. 66-67 (“Walker describes the ‘flat fee’ structure mentioned in
`the ’438 patent Specification [at] 21:13-19.”). Similarly, Petitioner points to
`aspects of the combination of Cooper and Walker as allegedly corresponding
`to each of the recited means-plus-function limitations recited in claim 9.
`Pet. 36-40, 66-73.
`On this record, we are persuaded by Petitioner’s mappings and
`arguments that each of the functions and the corresponding structure for the
`limitations of claim 9 are taught by the combination of Cooper and Walker.
`Therefore, on this record, Petitioner has demonstrated that it is more likely
`than not that independent claim 9 is unpatentable over Cooper and Walker.
`4. Analysis of Asserted Obviousness Ground based on Cooper
`and Walker (Dependent Claims 2–5, 10, and 24)
`Petitioner argues that dependent claims 2–5, 10, and 24 are obvious in
`view of Cooper and Walker. Pet. 56, 64–66, 74–76; see also Pet. 34–36,
`40–41, 53. Petitioner provides claim charts, specifying where the limitations
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`
`
`CBM2014-00077
`Patent 7,424,438 B2
`
`of claims 2–5, 10, and 24 can be found in Cooper and Walker. Id. at 34–36,
`40–41, 53.
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
