`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822 Entered: February 2, 2015
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`SALESFORCE.COM, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`APPLICATIONS IN INTERNET TIME LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case CBM2014-00168
`Patent 7,356,482 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`Before LYNNE E. PETTIGREW, MITCHELL G. WEATHERLY, and
`JENNIFER M. MEYER, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`PETTIGREW, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Denying Institution of Covered Business Method Patent Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.208
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`
`Petitioner, Salesforce.com, Inc., filed a Petition requesting covered
`
`business method (“CBM”) patent review of claims 1–59 of U.S. Patent No.
`
`7,356,482 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’482 patent”), pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 321 and
`
`
`
`CBM2014-00168
`Patent 7,356,482 B2
`
`section 18 of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, Pub. L. No. 112-29,
`
`125 Stat. 284, 329 (2011) (“AIA”) (stating that transitional proceedings for
`
`covered business method patent review under section 18 of the AIA shall
`
`employ the standards and procedures for post-grant reviews under chapter
`
`32 of title 35, United States Code). Paper 2 (“Pet.”). Patent Owner,
`
`Applications in Internet Time LLC, filed a Preliminary Response. Paper 9
`
`(“Prelim. Resp.”).
`
`A transitional proceeding under section 18 of the AIA may be
`
`instituted only for a patent that is a covered business method patent.
`
`AIA § 18(a)(1)(E). Upon consideration of the Petition and the Preliminary
`
`Response, we conclude Petitioner has not established that the ’482 patent is
`
`a “covered business method patent” pursuant to the statutory definition in
`
`section 18(d)(1) of the AIA. Therefore, we deny the Petition.
`
`A. Related Matters
`
`The parties indicate that Patent Owner is asserting the ’482 patent
`
`against Petitioner in Applications in Internet Time LLC v. Salesforce.com,
`
`Inc., No. 3:13-CV-00628-RCJ-VPC (D. Nev.) (filed Nov. 8, 2013). Pet. 7;
`
`Paper 8, 2 (Patent Owner’s Mandatory Notice).
`
`B. The ’482 Patent
`
`According to its Abstract, the ’482 patent is directed to an “integrated
`
`system for managing changes in regulatory and non-regulatory requirements
`
`for business activities at an industrial or commercial facility.” Ex. 1001,
`
`Abstract. The integrated system described in the ’482 patent manages data
`
`that is constantly changing by (1) “provid[ing] one or more databases that
`
`contain information on operations and requirements concerning an activity
`
`or area of business,” (2) “monitor[ing] and evaluat[ing] the relevance of
`
`2
`
`
`
`CBM2014-00168
`Patent 7,356,482 B2
`
`information on regulatory and non-regulatory changes that affect operations
`
`of the business and/or information management requirements,”
`
`(3) “convert[ing] the relevant changes into changes in work/task lists, data
`
`entry forms, reports, data processing, analysis and presentation . . . of data
`
`processing and analysis results to selected recipients, without requiring the
`
`services of one or more programmers to re-program and/or recode the
`
`software items affected by the change,” and (4) “implement[ing] receipt of
`
`change information and dissemination of data processing and analysis results
`
`using the facilities of a network, such as the Internet.” Id. at 8:30–46, 8:66–
`
`67.
`
`Figure 1 of the ’482 patent is reproduced below:
`
`As shown in Figure 1, the integrated system operates at four layers: (1) a
`
`change management layer that identifies on the Internet regulatory and non-
`
`regulatory changes that may affect a user’s business, (2) a Java data
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`CBM2014-00168
`Patent 7,356,482 B2
`
`management layer that generates a user interface, (3) a metadata layer that
`
`provides data about the user interface including “tools, worklists, data entry
`
`forms, reports, documents, processes, formulas, images, tables, views,
`
`columns, and other structures and functions,” and (4) a business content
`
`layer that is specific to the particular business operations of interest to the
`
`user. Id. at 9:33–48.
`
`C. Illustrative Claim
`
`Claims 1, 21, and 41 of the ’482 patent are independent. Claim 1 is
`
`illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
`
`1. A system for providing a dynamically generated
`
`application having one or more functions and one or more user
`interface elements; comprising:
`
`
`
`a server computer;
`
`one or more client computers connected to the server
`
`computer over a computer network;
`
`the server computer
`layer associated with
`a first
`
`containing information about the unique aspects of a particular
`application;
`
`a second layer associated with the server computer
`
`containing information about the user interface and functions
`common to a variety of applications, a particular application
`being generated based on the data in both the first and second
`layers;
`
`a third layer associated with the server computer that
`
`retrieves the data in the first and second layers in order to
`generate the functionality and user interface elements of the
`application; and
`
`a change management layer for automatically detecting
`
`changes that affect an application,
`
`each client computer further comprising a browser
`
`application being executed by each client computer, wherein a
`user interface and functionality for the particular application is
`
`4
`
`
`
`CBM2014-00168
`Patent 7,356,482 B2
`
`the browser application and dynamically
`to
`distributed
`generated when the client computer connects to the server
`computer.
`
`Ex. 1001, 32:9–34.
`
`D. Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`
`Petitioner contends that all claims of the ’482 patent (claims 1–59) are
`
`unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph. Pet. 25–32.
`
`Petitioner also contends that claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 10, 20, 21, 23–26, 30, 40, 41,
`
`43, 45, 46, and 49 are unpatentable based on the following grounds (see Pet.
`
`24–25):
`
`Reference(s)
`
`Peters1
`Gordon2
`Haverstock3
`Bederson/Pad++4
`Peters in view of Gordon, Haverstock, and/or
`Bederson/Pad++
`Gordon in view of Peters, Haverstock, and/or
`Bederson/Pad++
`
`Basis
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103
`
`
`
`1 Kathleen A. Peters, THE DESIGN OF A CHANGE NOTIFICATION SERVER FOR
`CLIENTS OF A PASSIVE OBJECT-ORIENTED DATABASE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
`(Simon Fraser University 1992) (Ex. 1003, “Peters”).
`2 U.S. Patent No. 6,243,717 B1, issued June 5, 2001 (Ex. 1004, “Gordon”).
`3 U.S. Patent No. 6,064,977, issued May 16, 2000 (Ex. 1005, “Haverstock”).
`4 For grounds based on the “Bederson/Pad++” reference, Petitioner cites two
`publications: Benjamin B. Bederson et al., Pad++: A Zoomable Graphical
`Sketchpad for Exploring Alternate Interface Physics, 7 J. VISUAL
`LANGUAGES & COMPUTING (1996) (Ex. 1006, “Bederson I”), and
`Benjamin B. Bederson et al., A Zooming Web Browser, in Proceedings of
`SPIE Conference on Multimedia Computing and Networking (1996)
`(Ex. 1007, “Bederson II”).
`
`5
`
`
`
`CBM2014-00168
`Patent 7,356,482 B2
`
`Reference(s)
`
`Haverstock in view of Peters, Gordon, and/or
`Bederson/Pad++
`Bederson/Pad++ in view of Peters, Gordon,
`and/or Haverstock
`
`II. DISCUSSION
`
`Basis
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103
`
`A transitional proceeding under section 18 of the AIA may be
`
`instituted only for a patent that is a covered business method patent.
`
`AIA § 18(a)(1)(E). Petitioner bears the burden of demonstrating that the
`
`’482 patent is a covered business method patent. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.304(a).
`
`For the reasons explained below, Petitioner has not demonstrated that the
`
`’482 patent is a covered business method patent.
`
`The AIA defines “covered business method patent” as “a patent that
`
`claims a method or corresponding apparatus for performing data processing
`
`or other operations used in the practice, administration, or management of a
`
`financial product or service, except that the term does not include patents for
`
`technological inventions.” AIA § 18(d)(1) (emphasis added); see 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.301(a). In promulgating rules for CBM review, the Office considered
`
`the legislative intent and history behind the AIA’s definition of “covered
`
`business method patent.” See Transitional Program for Covered Business
`
`Method Patents—Definitions of Covered Business Method Patent and
`
`Technological Invention, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,734, 48,735–36 (responses to
`
`comments 1, 3, 4, and 8). The “legislative history explains that the
`
`definition of 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.’” Id. at 48,735
`
`(emphasis added) (quoting 157 Cong. Rec. S5432 (daily ed. Sept. 8, 2011)
`
`6
`
`
`
`CBM2014-00168
`Patent 7,356,482 B2
`
`(statement of Sen. Schumer)). In determining whether a patent qualifies as a
`
`covered business method patent, we focus on the claims. Id. at 48,736
`
`(stating that the definition of a covered business method patent “is based on
`
`what the patent claims”). A patent needs only one claim directed to a
`
`covered business method to be eligible for review. Id.
`
`Claim 1 of the ’482 patent recites a “system for providing a
`
`dynamically generated application having one or more functions and one or
`
`more user interface elements.” Ex. 1001, 32:9–11. The system comprises a
`
`server and one or more client computers, each comprising a browser
`
`application. Id. at 32:12–14. The system further comprises four layers
`
`associated with the server, generally corresponding to the four layers shown
`
`in Figure 1 of the ’482 patent. Id. at 32:15–28. When the client connects to
`
`the server, a user interface and functionality for a particular application are
`
`dynamically generated and distributed to the browser application. Id. at
`
`35:29–34. Independent claims 21 and 41 are directed to a method and a
`
`server, respectively, with limitations similar to those of claim 1. Id. at
`
`33:34–58, 34:54–35:5. None of the independent claims or dependent claims
`
`expressly claims a method or apparatus “for performing data processing or
`
`other operations used in the practice, administration, or management of a
`
`financial product or service.” Indeed, the claims on their face are directed to
`
`technology “common in business environments across sectors” with “no
`
`particular relat[ionship] to the financial services sector,” which Patent
`
`Owner contends is outside the scope of covered business method patent
`
`review. Prelim. Resp. 3 (alteration in original) (quoting 157 Cong. Rec.
`
`S5441 (daily ed. Sept. 8, 2011) (statement of Sen. Leahy)) (internal
`
`quotation marks omitted).
`
`7
`
`
`
`CBM2014-00168
`Patent 7,356,482 B2
`
`In support of its argument that the ’482 patent is a covered business
`
`method patent eligible for review under section 18 of the AIA, Petitioner
`
`relies on two passages in the written description of the ’482 patent. First,
`
`Petitioner contends that the ’482 patent “acknowledges that the purported
`
`invention disclosed therein is usable in the context of government regulatory
`
`activities including those related to ‘banking, financial and securities
`
`activities and foreign trade.’” Pet. 12 (quoting Ex. 1001, 1:24–25). As
`
`Patent Owner notes, the reference in the ’482 patent to “banking, financial
`
`and securities activities” is part of a long list of regulated industries (with
`
`citations to more than half of the titles of the Code of Federal Regulations)
`
`that use business software and could benefit from the invention described in
`
`the ’482 patent. See Prelim. Resp. 4.
`
`Petitioner also cites the description in the ’482 patent of a “business
`
`content layer” as including “business knowledge, logical designs, physical
`
`designs, physical structures, relationships, and data associated with a
`
`selected area of business activity,” which may be “a functional field within
`
`an organization, such as finance or human resources.” Ex. 1001, 12:16–20;
`
`see Pet. 12. In this second passage relied on by Petitioner, the word
`
`“finance” merely refers to an example of a business area within an
`
`organizational structure whose data may be stored in a business content
`
`database. See Prelim. Resp. 5.
`
`Petitioner does not explain how either passage from the written
`
`description of the ’482 patent relates to the practice, administration, or
`
`management of a financial product or service, as required by section
`
`18(d)(1) of the AIA. See Pet. 12. Moreover, Petitioner’s argument fails to
`
`address the language of the claims, which is the focus of our inquiry.
`
`8
`
`
`
`CBM2014-00168
`Patent 7,356,482 B2
`
`See 77 Fed. Reg. at 48,736; see also AIA § 18(d)(1) (defining “covered
`
`business method patent” based on what the patent claims); 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.301(a) (same). Notably, Petitioner’s analysis does not cite any claim
`
`language or assert that any specific claim is directed to a covered business
`
`method. See Pet. 11–12. In particular, Petitioner fails to show any
`
`relationship between the two references to “finance” in the written
`
`description and the systems and methods recited in the claims, which are
`
`directed to providing dynamically generated applications. Therefore,
`
`Petitioner’s contentions based on the written description alone do not show
`
`that the ’482 patent claims a method or apparatus “for performing data
`
`processing or other operations used in the practice, administration, or
`
`management of a financial product or service” or claims an activity that is
`
`“financial in nature, incidental to a financial activity or complementary to a
`
`financial activity.”
`
`Petitioner also relies on the classification of the ’482 patent in
`
`Class 705/7.12, which Petitioner states is “drawn to a computerized
`
`arrangement for planning or assigning of resources in an optimal or systemic
`
`way in order to achieve a business goal, or drawn to the management or
`
`planning of a business task or operation.” Pet. 13.5 According to Petitioner,
`
`the classification in Class 705 is evidence that the Office believes the
`
`’482 patent is related to the financial services industry. Id. (citing 77 Fed.
`
`Reg. at 48,739 (stating that “patents subject to covered business method
`
`
`
`5 Petitioner provides no citation for its contention that the ’482 patent is
`classified in Class 705, subclass 7.12, which differs from the classification
`listed on the face of the patent. See Pet. 13; Ex. 1001. We assume for
`purposes of our discussion that Petitioner is correct that the ’482 patent
`currently is classified in Class 705, subclass 7.12.
`
`9
`
`
`
`CBM2014-00168
`Patent 7,356,482 B2
`
`patent review are anticipated to be typically classifiable in Class 705”)).
`
`Petitioner, however, does not explain how the quoted subclass definition
`
`relates to a “financial product or service” or an activity that is “financial in
`
`nature, incidental to a financial activity or complementary to a financial
`
`activity.” Moreover, even if the subclass definition relates to a financial
`
`product or service, Petitioner fails to explain how the systems and methods
`
`recited in the claims plan or assign resources to achieve a business goal or
`
`manage or plan a business task or operation. For these reasons, we are not
`
`persuaded in this case that mere classification in Class 705 supports a
`
`conclusion that the ’482 patent claims a method or apparatus “for
`
`performing data processing or other operations used in the practice,
`
`administration, or management of a financial product or service,” as required
`
`by section 18(d)(1) of the AIA.
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`
`For the foregoing reasons, based on the present record and particular
`
`facts of this case, we determine that the information presented in the Petition
`
`does not establish that the ’482 patent qualifies as a covered business
`
`method patent under section 18 of the AIA. Petitioner, therefore, has failed
`
`to satisfy the jurisdictional requirements for a covered business method
`
`patent review under section 18.
`
`IV. ORDER
`
`Accordingly, it is:
`
` ORDERED that the Petition is denied and no trial is instituted.
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`CBM2014-00168
`Patent 7,356,482 B2
`
`FOR PETITIONER:
`
`Kevin P.B. Johnson
`Edward J. DeFranco
`Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP
`kevinjohnson@quinnemanuel.com
`SFDC_CBM@quinnemanuel.com
`
`
`FOR PATENT OWNER:
`
`Steven Sereboff
`M. Kala Sarvaiya
`SoCal IP Law Group LLP
`ssereboff@socalip.com
`ksarvaiya@socalip.com
`
`
`11
`
`