CBM Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,356,482
`
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT & TRADEMARK OFFICE
`______________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`______________________
`
`salesforce.com, inc.,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`Applications In Internet Time LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`______________________
`
`
`
`Case CBM: 2014-00168
`Patent U.S. 7,356,482
`______________________
`
`PETITIONER’S REQUEST FOR REHEARING
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`Commissioner for Patents
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT & TRADEMARK OFFICE
`______________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`______________________
`
`salesforce.com, inc.,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`Applications In Internet Time LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`______________________
`
`
`
`Case CBM: 2014-00168
`Patent U.S. 7,356,482
`______________________
`
`PETITIONER’S REQUEST FOR REHEARING
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`Commissioner for Patents
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
`
`
`
`CBM Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,356,482
`
`
`
`I.
`
`RELIEF REQUESTED
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d), salesforce.com, inc. (“Salesforce”)
`
`requests rehearing of the panel’s February 2, 2015 decision (Paper 10, “Decision”)
`
`declining institution of covered business method review of U.S. Patent No.
`
`7,356,482 (“the ‘482 patent”). Salesforce respectfully submits the panel erred in
`
`concluding Salesforce had not established the ‘482 patent is a “covered business
`
`method patent” pursuant to Section 18(d)(1) of the America Invents Act (“AIA”),
`
`and in particular, erred by applying an incorrect legal standard regarding the basis
`
`for CBM subject matter jurisdiction under Section 18(d)(1). In view of the
`
`exceptional importance of this issue both to this Petition (Paper 2), and to the CBM
`
`process generally, Salesforce respectfully suggests that an expanded panel of the
`
`PTAB consider this request for rehearing. Salesforce further requests the PTAB
`
`grant this Petition, and institute CBM review of claims 1-59 of the ‘482 patent.
`
`II.
`
`SUMMARY
`
`First, the panel’s Decision misapprehended Section 18(d)(1) of the AIA in
`
`requiring that challenged claims must “expressly claim[]” a “particular relation” to
`
`financial products or services. See Decision, at 7.1 More particularly, the panel
`
`erred in interpreting Section 18(d)(1) to support a finding that AIT’s claims are
`
`ineligible for covered business method review because the “claims on their face are
`
`
`1 All emphases herein added, unless otherwise noted.
`
`04554.00001/6555380.5
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`CBM Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,356,482
`
`
`
`directed to technology ‘common in business environments across sectors’ with ‘no
`
`particular relation to the financial services sector.’” Id. Neither Section 18(d)(1),
`
`nor the relevant legislative history, nor previous decisions of the PTAB, suggest
`
`that CBM review is premised upon an analysis that the patent in question must
`
`“expressly claim[]” a “particular relation to the financial services sector.”
`
`The interpretation of Section 18(d)(1) is of exceptional importance to the
`
`present proceeding, other CBM review proceedings, and the CBM review process
`
`generally. This statute defines the very scope of the subject matter jurisdiction of
`
`the PTAB with respect to covered business method review, which Congress
`
`expressly intended be interpreted broadly. This broad view was confirmed by the
`
`Patent Office’s own stated interpretation of 37 C.F.R. § 42.301(a). See infra, at pp.
`
`5-9. Interpretations of this statute that are at odds with the express statutory
`
`language, Congressional intent, and numerous prior PTAB decisions would result
`
`in a significant lack of certainty for the public regarding the PTAB’s role in
`
`connection with such post grant review procedures. As such, Salesforce suggests
`
`that an expanded panel rehear and address the foundational interpretation issues
`
`raised in this Request for Rehearing. See Target Corp. v. Destination Maternity
`
`Corp., IPR2014-00508, Paper 28, at 3-6 (Feb. 12, 2015).
`
`Second, the Decision overlooked Salesforce’s analysis in its Petition of the
`
`claims and specification of the ‘482 patent, which established that the scope of the
`
`04554.00001/6555380.5
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`CBM Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,356,482
`
`
`
`claims, and in particular, claim 1 and 21’s limitation of “a change management
`
`layer for automatically detecting changes that affect an application” and
`
`“dynamically generating an application” explicitly cover a method or apparatus
`
`“for performing data processing or other operations used in the practice,
`
`administration, or management of a financial product or service.”
`
`III. LEGAL STANDARD
`
`A party may request rehearing of a decision by the PTAB declining
`
`institution of a trial where “the party believes the PTAB misapprehended or
`
`overlooked” matters in its decision. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). When rehearing a
`
`decision on a petition to institute CBM review, the PTAB “will review the decision
`
`for an abuse of discretion.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). An abuse of discretion may be
`
`determined “if a decision is based on an erroneous interpretation of law . . . or if the
`
`decision represents an unreasonable judgment in weighing relevant factors.”
`
`Arnold Partnership v. Dudas, 362 F.3d 1338, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
`
`IV. ARGUMENT
`
`A. The Panel Applied an Erroneous Interpretation of Section
`18(d)(1) of the AIA
`
`Contrary to the panel’s Decision, neither Section 18(d)(1) nor 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.301(a) require a petitioner to demonstrate that a patent “expressly claims” a
`
`“particular relation to the financial services sector.” Rather, Section 18(d)(1) states
`
`generally that a “covered business method patent” is “a patent that claims a method
`
`04554.00001/6555380.5
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`CBM Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,356,482
`
`
`
`or corresponding apparatus for performing data processing or other operations used
`
`in the practice, administration, or management of a financial product or service.”
`
`See also 37 C.F.R. § 42.301(a). That is, a patent is eligible for CBM review so
`
`long as it claims “a method or corresponding apparatus for performing data
`
`processing or other operations,” where that method or apparatus can be “used in the
`
`practice, administration, or management of a financial product or service.” Thus,
`
`there is no requirement of an “express” claiming of financial products or services
`
`or a relation to the financial services industry.
`
`The Decision’s interpretation of Section 18(d)(1) diverged from both this
`
`plain statutory language and from the Patent Office’s own interpretation of 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.301(a). See Petition, at 8. In pertinent part, the Office indicated in its
`
`comments to this regulation that Section 18(d)(1) should be “interpreted broadly,”
`
`such that it would be sufficient to establish that a patent claims technology
`
`“incidental to a financial activity or complementary to a financial activity”:
`
`Comment 1: Several comments suggested that the Office interpret
`“financial product or service” broadly.
`
`Response: . . . [T]he 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.” 157
`Cong. Rec. S5432 (daily ed. Sept. 8, 2011) (statement of Sen.
`Schumer). This remark tends to support the notion that “financial
`product or service” should be interpreted broadly.
`
`
`04554.00001/6555380.5
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`CBM Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,356,482
`
`
`
`77 Fed. Reg. 157, at 48735.
`
`The Office expressly rejected the view, adopted in the panel’s Decision, that
`
`CBM review is limited to patents claiming subject matter with a “particular relation
`
`to the financial services sector”:
`
`Comment 3: One comment suggested that the Office should clarify
`that the term “financial product or service” should be limited to the
`products or services of the financial services industry. . . .
`
`Response: Such a narrow construction of the term would limit the
`scope of the definition of covered business method patents beyond
`the intent of section 18(d)(1) of the AIA. For example, the legislative
`history reveals that “[t]he plain meaning of ‘financial product or
`service’ demonstrates that section 18 is not limited to the financial
`services industry.” 157 Cong. Rec. S5432 (daily ed. Sept. 8, 2011)
`(statement of Sen. Schumer). This remark tends to support the notion
`that “financial product or service” is not limited to the products or
`services of the financial services industry.
`
`77 Fed. Reg. 157, at 48736.
`
`1.
`
`The Panel Erred in Its Interpretation of the Legislative
`History of the AIA
`
`The panel’s narrow interpretation of Section 18(d)(1) is also inconsistent
`
`with pertinent legislative history regarding the scope of CBM review. In declining
`
`to institute a trial, the panel placed undue (and inappropriate) emphasis on
`
`statements by Sen. Leahy to hold that CBM review is improper for claims which
`
`“on their face are directed to technology ‘common in business environments across
`
`sectors’ with ‘no particular relation to the financial services sector.’” Decision, at
`
`7. This overreliance is inconsistent with relevant authority on statutory
`
`04554.00001/6555380.5
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`CBM Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,356,482
`
`
`
`interpretation, the prior decisions of the PTAB, and the explicit guidance of the
`
`Federal Register.
`
`First, it is not the comments of Sen. Leahy, but the comments of the
`
`coauthors of Section 18 of the AIA, Sen. Charles Schumer and Jon Kyl, that
`
`strongly merit consideration in interpreting Section 18. Ginsburg, Feldman &
`
`Bress v. Fed. Energy Admin., 591 F.2d 717, 722 (D.C. Cir. 1978) (holding that the
`
`“interpretation [that] conforms to statements of … the principal House author of
`
`the Act … is certainly an important principle to be followed when construing the
`
`provisions of the Act.”). Indeed, the panel’s disregard of Sen. Schumer and Sen.
`
`Kyl’s comments in view of Sen. Leahy’s is inconsistent with the PTAB’s past
`
`interpretation of Section 18. See, e.g., JPMorgan Chase & Co. v. Intellectual
`
`Ventures II LLC, CBM2014-00157, Paper 8, at 13 (Jan. 14, 2015) (finding
`
`unpersuasive Patent Owner’s argument that the PTAB should adopt Sen. Leahy’s
`
`statements regarding the “financial product or service” requirement over the
`
`construction of Sen. Schumer); Apple, Inc. v. Sightsound Techs., LLC, CBM2013-
`
`00020, Paper 14, at 11 (rejecting Patent Owner’s characterization of the legislative
`
`history based on Sen. Leahy’s comments).
`
`The relevant legislative intent as expressed in the comments of Sen.
`
`Schumer, and repeatedly cited by the PTAB, confirm that CBM eligibility should
`
`extend to claims that “cover any ancillary activities related to a financial product or
`
`04554.00001/6555380.5
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`CBM Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,356,482
`
`
`
`service, including . . . customer interfaces, Web site management and functionality,
`
`transmission or management of data, [and] customer communications . . . .” 157
`
`Cong. Rec. S1365 (daily ed. March 8, 2011) (Sen. Schumer); Petition, at 8.
`
`
`
`Confirming the relevance of Sen. Schumer’s comments in interpreting
`
`Section 18, the binding regulatory guidance explicitly incorporates his definition of
`
`CBM patents (not any comments by Sen. Leahy), noting that this definition
`
`encompasses “activities that are financial in nature, incidental to a financial
`
`activity or complementary to a financial activity,” and does not require a particular
`
`relationship to “the financial services sector” as set forth in the panel’s reasoning.
`
`CBM Rules, 77 Fed. Reg. 157, at 48735–36 (quoting 157 Cong. Rec. S5432 (daily
`
`ed. Mar. 8, 2011) (statement of Sen. Schumer)).
`
`The AIA’s other coauthor, Senator Jon Kyl, in fact recognized that
`
`determining eligibility for CBM review may even require looking beyond the
`
`patent itself to determine if the patent related to a financial product or service:
`
`Given the protean nature of many business-method patents, it often
`will be unclear on the face of the patent whether it relates to a
`financial product or service. To make such a determination, the
`Office may look to how the patent has been asserted.
`
`157 Cong. Rec. S1379 (daily ed. Mar. 8, 2011) (statement of Sen. Kyl). Again, this
`
`contradicts the panel’s interpretation requiring that a CBM patent “expressly
`
`claim” a financial product or service or relation to the financial services industry.
`
`
`
`04554.00001/6555380.5
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`CBM Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,356,482
`
`
`
`2.
`
`The Panel’s Decision Regarding CBM Eligibility Conflicts
`with Previous PTAB Decisions Interpreting Section 18(d)(1)
`
`The Panel’s interpretation of Section 18(d)(1) requiring “express” claiming
`
`of a financial product or service or a “particular relation to the financial services
`
`sector” also conflicts with numerous prior PTAB decisions.2 In these decisions, the
`
`PTAB concluded that challenged claims were CBM eligible despite not
`
`“expressly” claiming financial activities or any particular relation to the financial
`
`services industry, and indeed encompassed technology “common in business
`
`environments across sectors.” The PTAB instead found eligibility in these
`
`decisions because challenged claims were directed to technology “incidental to a
`
`financial activity or complementary to a financial activity,” or otherwise
`
`encompassed “activities that are financial in nature” in accordance with a literal
`
`interpretation of Section 18(d)(1) and express legislative intent.
`
`In United States Postal Service v. Return Mail, Inc., CBM2014-00116, Paper
`
`11, at 11-12 (Oct. 16, 2014), the PTAB found subject matter eligibility for a patent
`
`related to a method for distributing encrypted data where the challenged claims did
`
`not expressly recite a relationship with or connection to financial services or
`
`products. Id. The PTAB concluded that the “subject matter is financial in nature”
`
`
`2 There is an extraordinary need for the PTAB to resolve this conflict
`between the standard set forth in the panel’s Decision and these other PTAB
`decisions, so that Petitioners and the public know which standard will be applied in
`determining CBM subject matter jurisdiction.
`
`04554.00001/6555380.5
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`CBM Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,356,482
`
`
`
`because it recites “a method for easing the administrative burden” for businesses,
`
`including those in the financial services industry. Id. at 12. The PTAB found the
`
`patent eligible for review, despite its conclusion that the patent is “applicable to
`
`any mail user” who deals with significant returned mail. Id. at 12.
`
`Likewise, in Google Inc. v. Unwired Planet, LLC, CBM2014-00005, Paper
`
`10, at 9-10 (May 9, 2014) (“Unwired Planet”), the PTAB found subject matter
`
`eligibility where the challenged patent claimed a method and system for managing
`
`location information for wireless communications devices, where none of the
`
`challenged claims expressly claimed a connection to financial service, products, or
`
`industry. Id. at 2-4. Instead, the PTAB recognized the specification’s discussion of
`
`the claimed “client application” as being possibly “associated with a service
`
`provider or a goods provider, such as a hotel, restaurant, or store.” Id. at 11. The
`
`PTAB concluded, accordingly, that “the subject matter recited in [the challenged
`
`claim] is incidental or complementary to the financial activity of service or product
`
`sales,” and therefore that subject matter eligibility had been met. Id.
`
`In CRS Advanced Techs, Inc. v. Frontline Techs, Inc., CBM2012-00005,
`
`Paper 17, at 6-8 (Jan. 23, 2013), the PTAB instituted CBM review where the
`
`claims related to a human resource management system using “substitute
`
`fulfillment,” i.e., assigning a replacement worker during a permanent worker’s
`
`absence. The challenged claims were silent as to financial products or services and
`
`04554.00001/6555380.5
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`CBM Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,356,482
`
`
`
`were instead directed to “a plurality of organizations.” Id. at 8. The PTAB
`
`nonetheless concluded that “[n]othing in the statute, its legislative history, or the
`
`rules requires that a covered business method patent include claim elements that
`
`map directly to financial products or services.” Id. The claims, the PTAB noted,
`
`“are broad enough to include substitute fulfillment for retail banks,” and are thus at
`
`least “incidental” and/or “complementary to a financial activity.” Id.
`
`Thus, the PTAB has repeatedly concluded that subject matter eligibility for
`
`CBM review is broader than the standard applied by the panel. See, e.g., Volusion
`
`Inc. v. Versata Software, Inc., CBM2013-00017, Paper 8, at 5-6 (Oct. 24, 2013)
`
`(instituting review where the claims recited a method of hierarchically representing
`
`and arranging items in a database because “a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`would have understood” that the items displayed “may be associated with financial
`
`services”); Google Inc. v. Inventor Holdings, LLC, CBM2014-00002, Paper 16, at
`
`6-9 (Apr. 1, 2014) (instituting review where the challenged claim, silent as to
`
`financial products or services, related to a method and system for facilitating
`
`anonymous communications and exchange of identities between terminals, routed
`
`through a central controller); Experian Mktg. Solutions, Inc. v. Rpost Commc’ns
`
`Ltd., CBM 2014-00010, Paper 20, at 5-7 (Apr. 22, 2014) (finding the “financial
`
`product or service” requirement met where the claim, silent as to financial products
`
`or services, recited a method of authenticating e-mail messages using digital
`
`04554.00001/6555380.5
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`CBM Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,356,482
`
`
`
`signatures, because the specification “details that the claimed electronic messaging
`
`systems and methods” are directed to “financial, monetary, and commercial
`
`applications”); Google Inc. v. SimpleAir, Inc., CBM2014-00170, Paper 13, at 6-7
`
`(Jan. 22, 2015) (holding that the claim, which recited a method of transmitting data
`
`to selected remote locations, met the “financial product or service” requirement
`
`because the specification “contemplate[d]” using the method for managing a
`
`financial product or service.); Apple, Inc. v. Sightsound Techs., LLC, CBM2013-
`
`00020, Paper 14, at 11-15 (Oct. 8, 2013) (instituting review where the challenged
`
`patent claimed accessing downloadable content after receiving a payment because
`
`a “patent need not be used by a financial services company or involve a traditional
`
`financial services business to qualify as a covered business method patent”); Dell
`
`Inc. v. Disposition Services LLC, CBM2013-00040, Paper 7, at 7-11 (Feb. 5, 2014)
`
`(instituting review where the patent disclosed a surplus asset disassembly and
`
`disposition process because the AIA does not require a “particular relation to the
`
`financial services sector”); Hulu, LLC v. Intertainer, Inc., CBM2014-00053, Paper
`
`11, at 11-12 (June 23, 2014) (finding the “financial product or service” test met
`
`where an embodiment in the specification allowed consumers to purchase items).
`
`As the above decisions further reflect, contrary to the panel’s reasoning, the
`
`PTAB has previously based its holdings on whether a challenged patent is a
`
`covered business method patent through not just an examination of the claims, but
`
`04554.00001/6555380.5
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`CBM Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,356,482
`
`
`
`also explicitly relying on the specification or prosecution history as informing that
`
`inquiry. See, e.g., Experian, CBM 2014-0010, Paper 20, at 5, 7; Hulu, LLC,
`
`CBM2014-00053, Paper 11, at 12; Volusion, CBM2013-00017, Paper 8, at 5;
`
`Google, CBM2014-00170, Paper 13, at 6.
`
`Under the broader standard for eligibility consistently applied in these
`
`decisions, Salesforce demonstrated that, based on the claims and specification, that
`
`the technology of the ‘482 patent claims is at the least “incidental to a financial
`
`activity or complementary to a financial activity.” See infra, Section IV.B;
`
`Petition, at 8-10, 12-19. In applying a narrower standard for eligibility based on a
`
`requirement of “expressly claim[ing]” and a “particular relation” to the financial
`
`services sector, the panel erred in denying the Petition.
`
`B.
`
`The Panel Overlooked The Petition’s Discussion of The Claimed
`Change Management Layer That Manages Changes to Published
`Financial Regulations
`
`The panel did not provide further detail in its Decision as to the requirement,
`
`discussed in Section IV.A, to “expressly” claim a financial product or service.
`
`However, to the extent that the panel’s (erroneous) standard requires claims to
`
`“expressly” encompass such financial embodiments3, the panel erred by
`
`overlooking that the ‘482 patent claims expressly encompass a change management
`
`
`3 To the extent that the panel instead is requiring that challenged claims
`“expressly” recite a financial product, service or relation to the financial services
`sector, as discussed in Section IV, supra, such a standard is clearly erroneous.
`
`04554.00001/6555380.5
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`CBM Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,356,482
`
`
`
`system for managing, inter alia, changes to published financial regulations.
`
`The Petition established that the claims (including claim 1) are directed to a
`
`change management layer for monitoring and detecting changes pertinent to the
`
`operation of a business. See Petition, at 8-19. Claim 1 provides:
`
`1. A system for providing a dynamically generated application …;
`comprising: …
`
`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
`distributed to the browser application and dynamically generated
`when the client computer connects to the server computer.
`
`SFDC 1001, at col. 32; see Declaration of Benjamin B. Bederson, SFDC 1012 ¶ 39
`
`(“Bederson Decl.”) (“The claims of the ‘482 Patent are directed to monitoring,
`
`detecting, and implementing changes in relevant information in the context of an
`
`application generated from information stored in a database”); see id. ¶ 41 (“Claims
`
`1, 21, and 41 each require . . . “a ‘layer’ of a server or a method step that detects
`
`changes that affect an application, and the dynamic generation or regeneration of
`
`an application and its user interface . . . .”); see also Petition, at 4 (“[T]he claims of
`
`the ‘482 Patent are broadly directed to detecting any ‘changes that effect an
`
`application,’ and then generating a user interface incorporating these changes.”) , 4
`
`(“the ‘482 Patent focuses, not on changes of any kind, but on managing changes
`
`specifically to government regulations or to ancillary business requirements related
`
`04554.00001/6555380.5
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`
`CBM Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,356,482
`
`
`
`to government regulations.”). Notably, the Decision itself recognized the
`
`“correspond[ence]” of the change management layer of claim 1 (i.e., one of the
`
`four layers associated with the server”) with the disclosure of the embodiment of
`
`the change management layer in Fig. 1, which “includes one or more change agents
`
`that ‘cruise the Web’; and identify and bring to the user’s attention relevant
`
`regulatory and non-regulatory changes found on the Web that may affect a user’s
`
`business.” Decision, at 7; SFDC 1001, 9:34-38.
`
`
`
`Salesforce next established, through citation to the claims, specification, and
`
`expert declaration, that this claimed change management layer can be used to
`
`manage regulatory changes affecting a business. Petition, at 13-14 (noting that the
`
`‘482 Patent describes “one integrated system that (1) provides one or more
`
`databases that contain information on operations and requirements concerning an
`
`activity or area of business; (2) monitors and evaluates the relevance of information
`
`on regulatory and non-regulatory changes that affect operations of the business
`
`and/or information management requirements . . . .”) (quoting SFDC 1001, Col.
`
`8:21-36), 18 (quoting ‘482 patent specification: “Other workers have created . . .
`
`partial solutions for tracking changes in, and compliance with, regulations and
`
`similar requirements . . .); Bederson Decl. ¶ 78.
`
`
`
`Salesforce further noted the specification’s disclosure that the claimed
`
`change management layer “monitors, responds to, and incorporates changes in,
`
`04554.00001/6555380.5
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`
`CBM Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,356,482
`
`
`
`federal, state and local laws, statutes, ordinances and regulations (referred to
`
`collectively herein as ‘regulations’) and changes in technology in one or more
`
`regulated areas of commercial activity.” Petition, at 9. Further, Salesforce
`
`demonstrated that these embodiments are directed towards (a) managing changes in
`
`financial and securities regulations and (b) managing other changes impacting a
`
`business’ finance department. See Petition, at 8-13.
`
`
`
`Salesforce also noted the specification expressly contemplates using the
`
`claimed change management layer in connection with regulatory change in areas
`
`that clearly encompass the financial services sector, i.e., “banking, financial and
`
`securities activities and foreign trade”:
`
`Examples of activities that are regulated by such regulations include: .
`. . banking, financial and securities activities and foreign trade . . .
`commercial trade practices . . . transportation of persons and cargo . .
`. firearms production and trade . . . mining and related activities . .
`. postal service activities . . . telecommunications . . . .
`
`See Petition, at 12; SFDC 1001, at col. 1, lines 16-41. Thus, as set forth in the
`
`Petition, the claims of the ‘482 patent all cover this change management system,
`
`which as disclosed in the specification encompasses management of regulatory
`
`changes in the financial services sector.
`
`V. CONCLUSION
`
`For the foregoing reasons, Salesforce respectfully requests rehearing and
`
`institution of covered business method review of claims 1-59 of the ‘482 patent.
`
`04554.00001/6555380.5
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CBM Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,356,482
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: March 4, 2015
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`KEVIN P.B. JOHNSON
`
`/Kevin P.B. Johnson/
`Kevin P.B. Johnson
`Registration No. 38,927
`
`04554.00001/6555380.5
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CBM Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,356,482
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
` I
`
` hereby certify that, on March 4, 2015, I caused a true and correct copy of
`
`the foregoing document to be served via FedEx to the below addresses:
`
`Applications in Internet Time LLC
`711 S. Carson St., Ste 4
`Carson City, NV 89701
`
`Steven C. Sereboff (Reg. No. 37,035)
`M. Kala Sarvaiya (Reg. No. 58,912)
`SoCal IP Law Group LLP
`310 N. Westlake Blvd, Ste 120
`Westlake Village, CA 91362
`
`
`
`
`/Kevin P.B. Johnson/
`Kevin P.B. Johnson
`Registration No. 38,927
`
`04554.00001/6555380.5
`
`17
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
