IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`In re Patent of: Racz et al.
`Attorney Docket No.: 39843-0006CP2
`U.S. Patent No.: 8,061,598
`Issue Date:
`November 22, 2011
`
`Appl. Serial No.: 13/012,541
`
`Filing Date:
`January 24, 2011
`
`Title:
`DATA STORAGE AND ACCESS SYSTEMS
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR COVERED BUSINESS METHOD PATENT REVIEW OF
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT NO. 8,061,598 PURSUANT TO 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
`
`

`
`Attorney Docket No 39843-0006CP2
`CBM of U.S. Patent No. 8,061,598
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`I.
`
`MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R § 42.8(a)(1) ........................... 1
`A. Real Party-In-Interest Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1) ................................ 1
`B. Related Matters Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2) ......................................... 1
`C. Lead And Back-Up Counsel Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3) ..................... 2
`PAYMENT OF FEES ..................................................................................... 2
`II.
`III. REQUIREMENTS FOR CBM UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.304 ......................... 2
`A. Grounds for Standing Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.304(a)................................. 2
`B. Challenge Under 37 § 42.304(b) and Relief Requested ........................... 2
`C. Claim Construction under 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.304(b)(3) .............................. 4
`1.
`CONSTRUCTION 1 – Payment data ............................................. 4
`D. The ‘598 Patent is a Covered Business Method Patent ............................ 7
`E. The ‘598 Patent Is Not Directed to a Technological Invention, And
`Thus, Should Not Be Excluded From the Definition of a CBM Patent. .. 9
`IV. SUMMARY OF THE ‘598 Patent ................................................................ 12
`A. Brief Description ..................................................................................... 12
`B. Summary of the Prosecution History of the ‘598 Patent ........................ 13
`V. MANNER OF APPLYING CITED PRIOR ART TO EVERY CLAIM FOR
`WHICH A CBM IS REQUESTED, THUS ESTABLISHING A
`REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD THAT AT LEAST ONE CLAIM OF THE
`‘598 PATENT IS UNPATENTABLE .......................................................... 14
`A. GROUND 1 – Ginter Anticipates Claim 7. ............................................ 15
`1. Overview of Ginter ........................................................................ 15
`2. Ginter Anticipates Claim 7. ........................................................... 25
`VI. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 37
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`

`
`
`SAMSUNG 1001
`SAMSUNG 1002
`SAMSUNG 1003
`SAMSUNG 1004
`SAMSUNG 1005
`SAMSUNG 1006
`
`SAMSUNG 1007
`
`SAMSUNG 1008
`
`SAMSUNG 1009
`
`SAMSUNG 1010
`
`SAMSUNG 1011
`
`SAMSUNG 1012
`
`Attorney Docket No 39843-0006CP2
`CBM of U.S. Patent No. 8,061,598
`
`EXHIBITS
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,061,598
`File history of U.S. Patent No. 8,061,598
`Declaration of Dr. Jeffrey Bloom (“Bloom”)
`RESERVED
`RESERVED
`RESERVED
`PCT Application PCT/GB00/04110 (“the ‘110 Appln.” or
`“‘110”), which is the application as filed for U.S. Patent
`Application No. 11/336,758 (“the ‘758 Appln.” or “‘758”)
`and U.S. Patent Application No. 10/111,716 (“the ‘716 Ap-
`pln.” or “‘716”)
`United Kingdom Patent Application GB9925227.2 (“the
`‘227.2 Appln.” or “‘227.2”)
`Transitional Program for Covered Business Method Pa-
`tents—Definitions of Covered Business Method Patent and
`Technological Invention, 77 Fed. Reg. 157 (August14,
`2012)
`A Guide to the Legislative History of the Admerica Invents
`Act; Part II of II, 21 Fed. Cir. Bar J. No. 4
`Interim Guidance for Determining Subject Matter Eligibility
`for Process Claims in View of Bilski v. Kappos (July 27,
`2010)
`Apple Inc. v. Sightsound Technologies, LLC, CBM2013-
`00019 Paper No. 17 (entered October 8, 2013) at 11-13
`
`iii
`
`

`
`SAMSUNG 1013
`
`SAMSUNG 1014
`
`SAMSUNG 1015
`SAMSUNG 1016
`SAMSUNG 1017
`SAMSUNG 1018
`SAMSUNG 1019
`
`SAMSUNG 1020
`
`SAMSUNG 1021
`SAMSUNG 1022
`SAMSUNG 1023
`SAMSUNG 1024
`
`SAMSUNG 1025
`
`SAMSUNG 1026
`SAMSUNG-1027
`SAMSUNG-1028
`SAMSUNG-1029
`SAMSUNG-1030
`SAMSUNG-1031
`SAMSUNG-1032
`SAMSUNG-1033
`
`Attorney Docket No 39843-0006CP2
`CBM of U.S. Patent No. 8,061,598
`Volusion, Inc. v. Versata Software, Inc. and Versata Devel-
`opment Group, Inc., CBM2013-00017 Paper No. 8 (entered
`October 24, 2013)
`Salesforce.com, Inc. v. VirtualAgility, Inc., CBM2013-
`00024 Paper No. 16 (entered November 19, 2013)
`RESERVED
`RESERVED
`RESERVED
`RESERVED
`U.S. Patent No. 7,942,317 (“the ‘317 Patent” or “’317”)
`U.S. Patent Application No. 12/014,558 (“the ‘558 Appln.”
`or “’558”)
`U.S. Patent No. 7,334,720 (“the ‘720 Patent” or “’720”)
`RESERVED
`U.S. Patent No. 5,915,019 (“Ginter”)
`RESERVED
`U.S. Patent Application No. 13/012,541 (“the ‘541 Appln.”
`or “541”)
`RESERVED
`RESERVED
`RESERVED
`RESERVED
`RESERVED
`RESERVED
`RESERVED
`RESERVED
`
`iv
`
`

`
`Attorney Docket No 39843-0006CP2
`CBM of U.S. Patent No. 8,061,598
`
`SAMSUNG-1034
`SAMSUNG-1035
`SAMSUNG-1035
`SAMSUNG-1036
`SAMSUNG-1037
`SAMSUNG-1038
`
`RESERVED
`RESERVED
`RESERVED
`RESERVED
`RESERVED
`RESERVED
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`
`Attorney Docket No 39843-0006CP2
`CBM of U.S. Patent No. 8,061,598
`Three sister companies, Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Samsung Elec-
`
`tronics Co., Ltd., and Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC (“Petitioner”
`
`or “Samsung”) petition for Covered Business Method Patent Review (“CBM”) un-
`
`der 35 U.S.C. §§ 321 and § 18 of the Leahy-Smith American Invents Act of claim
`
`7 (“the Challenged Claim”) of U.S. Patent No. 8,061,598. As explained in this pe-
`
`tition, there exists a reasonable likelihood that Samsung will prevail in demonstrat-
`
`ing unpatentability with respect to at least one of the Challenged Claim based on
`
`teachings set forth in at least the references presented in this petition. Samsung re-
`
`spectfully submits that a CBM should be instituted, and that the Challenged Claim
`
`should be canceled as unpatentable.
`
`I. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R § 42.8(a)(1)
`A. Real Party-In-Interest Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1)
`Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., and
`
`
`
`Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC are jointly filing this Petition, and
`
`are the real parties-in-interest.
`
`B. Related Matters Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2)
`Samsung is not aware of any disclaimers or reexamination certificates for
`
`the ‘598 Patent. The ‘598 Patent is the subject of a number of civil actions includ-
`
`ing: Smartflash LLC et al. v. Apple, Inc., Case No. 6:13-cv-00447 and Smartflash
`
`et al v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al, Case No. 6:13-cv-00448. It is also the
`
`subject of the following Petitions for Covered Business Method Review: Apple
`
`1
`
`

`
`Attorney Docket No 39843-0006CP2
`CBM of U.S. Patent No. 8,061,598
`Inc. v. Smartflash LLC, CBM2014-00108 and CBM2014-00109. Petitioner is
`
`concurrently petitioning, in another petition assigned attorney docket number
`
`39843-0006CP1, for CBM review of the ‘598 Patent under grounds additional to
`
`those presented in this petition.
`
`C. Lead And Back-Up Counsel Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3)
`Samsung designates W. Karl Renner, Reg. No. 41,265, as Lead Counsel and
`
`Thomas Rozylowicz, Reg. No. 50,620, as Backup Counsel, both available for ser-
`
`vice at 3200 RBC Plaza, 60 South Sixth Street, Minneapolis, MN 55402(T: 202-
`
`783-5070) or via electronic service by email at CBM39843-0006CP2@fr.com.
`
`PAYMENT OF FEES
`
`II.
`Samsung authorizes charges to Deposit Account No. 06-1050 for the fee set
`
`in 37 C.F.R. § 42.15(b) for this Petition and any related additional fees.
`
`III. REQUIREMENTS FOR CBM UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.304
`
`A. Grounds for Standing Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.304(a)
`Samsung certifies that the ‘598 Patent is eligible for CBM. Samsung is not
`
`barred or estopped from requesting this review challenging the Challenged Claim
`
`on the below-identified grounds.
`
`B. Challenge Under 37 § 42.304(b) and Relief Requested
`Samsung requests a CBM review of the Challenged Claim on the grounds
`
`set forth in the table shown below, and requests that each of the Challenged Claim
`
`be found unpatentable. An explanation of how these claims are unpatentable under
`
`2
`
`

`
`Attorney Docket No 39843-0006CP2
`CBM of U.S. Patent No. 8,061,598
`the statutory grounds identified below is provided in the form of detailed descrip-
`
`tion that follows, indicating where each claim elements can be found in the cited
`
`prior art, and the relevance of that prior art. Additional explanation and support for
`
`each ground of rejection is set forth in Exhibit SAMSUNG-1003, the Declaration
`
`of Dr. Jeffrey Bloom (“Bloom”), referenced throughout this Petition.
`
`Ground
`
`‘598 Patent Claims
`
`Basis for Rejection
`
`Ground 1 7
`
`§ 102: Ginter
`
`The ‘598 Patent issued Nov. 22, 2011 from the ‘541 Appln. (SAMSUNG
`
`1025), which was filed on Jan. 24, 2011. The ‘541 appln is a continuation of the
`
`‘558 Appln. (SAMSUNG 1020), which was filed Jan. 15, 2008 (now US Patent
`
`No. 7,942,317, SAMSUNG-1019), which is a continuation of the ‘758 Appln.
`
`(SAMSUNG 1007) filed Jan. 19, 2006 (now US Patent No. 7,334,720, SAM-
`
`SUNG-1021), which is a continuation of the ‘716 Appln. (SAMSUNG-1007) filed
`
`Sep. 17, 2002 (now abandoned), which is a National Stage Entry of the ‘110 Ap-
`
`pln. (SAMSUNG-1007) filed Oct. 25, 2000. 1
`
`
`1 The ‘110 Appln. claims priority to the ‘227.2 Appln. (SAMSUNG-1008), which
`
`was filed Oct. 25, 1999. However, because the ‘227.2 disclosure fails to support
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`
`Attorney Docket No 39843-0006CP2
`CBM of U.S. Patent No. 8,061,598
`Ginter (SAMSUNG-1004) qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
`Specifically, Ginter issued June 22, 1999, more than one year before the earliest
`
`effective filing date of the Challenged Claim. Accordingly, Ginter is eligible under
`
`AIA § 18(a)(1)(C) as prior art for CBM review of the ‘598 Patent.
`
`C. Claim Construction under 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.304(b)(3)
`A claim subject to CBM review is given its “broadest reasonable construc-
`
`
`
`tion in light of the specification of the patent in which it appears.” 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.100(b). Thus the words of the claim are given their plain meaning unless that
`
`meaning is inconsistent with the specification. In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 1989). Petitioner submits, for the purposes of the CBM only, that the claim
`
`terms are presumed to take on their broadest reasonable interpretation in view of
`
`the specification of the ‘598 Patent. 2
`
`1.
`
`CONSTRUCTION 1 – Payment data
`
`
`the Challenged Claim, the effective filing date of the Challenged Claim is no earli-
`
`er than Oct. 25, 2000.
`
`2 Because the standards of claim interpretation applied in litigation differ from
`
`PTO proceedings, any interpretation of claim terms in this CBM is not binding up-
`
`on Petitioner in any litigation related to the subject patent. See In re Zletz, 893 F.2d
`
`319, 321-22 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
`
`4
`
`

`
`Attorney Docket No 39843-0006CP2
`CBM of U.S. Patent No. 8,061,598
`For purposes of this CBM review, “payment data” should be construed to
`
`include and be met by data that relates to previous, present, and/or prospective
`
`payment.
`
`Claims 7, 11, 12, and 17 of the ‘598 Patent each recite the term “payment
`
`data.” Claim 7 of the ‘598 Patent, for example, recites the following - “payment
`
`data memory to store payment data and code to provide the payment data to a
`
`payment validation system.” A POSITA3 would understand that, as used in claims
`
`7, 11, 12, and 17, the term “payment data” indicates and is met by data that relates
`
`to previous, present, and/or prospective payment. Bloom at, e.g., ¶ 28. (SAM-
`
`SUNG 1003)
`
`This interpretation is consistent with the relevant disclosure in the specifica-
`
`tion of the ‘598 Patent. Bloom at, e.g., ¶ 28. The ‘598 Patent describes,
`
`e.g., “[d]ata storage and access systems . . . for downloading and paying for data,”
`
`including a payment validation system that “validate[s] payment with an external
`
`authority such as a bank or building society,” such that “[t]he combination of the
`
`payment validation means with the data storage means allows the access to the
`
`downloaded data which is to be stored by the data storage means, to be made con-
`
`
`3 The term “POSITA”, as used in this Petition, refers to a Person of Ordinary Skill
`
`In the Art at the ‘598 Patent’s effective filing date.
`
`5
`
`

`
`Attorney Docket No 39843-0006CP2
`CBM of U.S. Patent No. 8,061,598
`ditional upon checked and validated payment being made for the data.” ‘598 at
`
`Abstract, 2:8-15. The ‘598 Patent’s description of making access to downloaded
`
`content data conditional upon checked and validated payment being made indicates
`
`that “payment data” may relate previous, present, and/or prospective pay-
`
`ment. Bloom at, e.g., ¶ 28. The ‘598 Patent also states, e.g., in the Abstract, that
`
`“[d]ata storage and access systems are described for downloading a paying for data
`
`such as audio and video data, text, software, games, and other types of data” – fur-
`
`ther supporting that “payment data”, as used in the claims of the ‘598 Patent, can
`
`relate to present payment. See also ‘598 at 4:50-61 (“the portable data carrier fur-
`
`ther comprises a program store for storing code . . . wherein the code comprises
`
`code to output payment data from the payment data memory”), 3:49-64, 4:36-38.
`
`In yet another example, the ‘598 Patent states that “[t]he carrier may also store
`
`content use rules pertaining to allowed use of stored data items,” and that “these
`
`use rules may be linked to payments made from [a] card . . .” – further supporting
`
`that “payment data”, as used in the claims of the ‘598 Patent, can relate to previous
`
`payment. ‘598 at 4:67-5:8; see also 5:4-11, 5:17-20.
`
`As such, the disclosure in the specification of the ‘598 Patent is consistent
`
`with the term “payment data,” as used in claims 7, 11, 12, and 17, as it would be
`
`understood by a POSITA: data that relates to previous, present, and/or prospective
`
`payment. Bloom at, e.g., ¶ 28. Thus, for purposes of this proceeding, “payment
`
`6
`
`

`
`Attorney Docket No 39843-0006CP2
`CBM of U.S. Patent No. 8,061,598
`data” should be construed to include and be met by data that relates to previous,
`
`present, and/or prospective payment.
`
`D. The ‘598 Patent is a Covered Business Method Patent
`The ‘598 Patent, which generally relates to systems and methods “for down-
`
`loading and paying for data” is a “covered business method patent” (“CBM pa-
`
`tent”) as defined under § 18 of the AIA and 37 C.F.R. § 42.301. ‘598 at Abstract.
`
`The AIA defines a CBM patent as “a patent that claims a method or corre-
`
`sponding apparatus for performing data processing or other operations used in the
`
`practice, administration, or management of a financial product or service” (empha-
`
`ses added). AIA § 18(d)(1); see also 37 C.F.R. § 42.301. The AIA’s legislative
`
`history demonstrates that the term “financial product or service” should be “inter-
`
`preted broadly,” encompassing patents “’claiming activities that are financial in na-
`
`ture, incidental to a financial activity or complementary to a financial activity.’”
`
`SAMSUNG-1010 at 48735 (quoting 157 Cong. Rec. S5432 (daily ed. Sept. 8,
`
`2011) (statement of Sen. Schumer)). Moreover, as the Guide to the Legislative
`
`History of the America Invents Act indicates, the language “practice, administra-
`
`tion, or management” is “intended to cover any ancillary activities related to a fi-
`
`nancial product or service, including . . . marketing, customer interfaces [and]
`
`management of data . . .” (emphases added). SAMSUNG-1010 at 635-36.
`
`7
`
`

`
`Attorney Docket No 39843-0006CP2
`CBM of U.S. Patent No. 8,061,598
`Augmenting the statutory language with the above-referenced clarifications
`
`from the legislative history, and from the Guide to that legislative history, yields
`
`the following definition of a CBM patent: a patent that claims a method or corre-
`
`sponding apparatus for performing data processing or other operations used in ac-
`
`tivities that are financial in nature, incidental to a financial activity, or complemen-
`
`tary to a financial activity, including the management of data. See AIA § 18(d)(1);
`
`SAMSUNG-1009 at 48735; and SAMSUNG-1010 at 635-26.
`
`In the words of the Patent Owner, the claims of the ‘598 Patent are directed
`
`to a “portable data carrier” for “storing and paying for data.” See ‘598 at 1:21-23.
`
`Claim 7 of the ‘598 Patent, for example, recites a “portable data carrier,” that in-
`
`cludes “payment data memory to store payment and code to provide the payment
`
`data to a payment validation system.”
`
`As an example, the purported data carrier and payment validation system of
`
`claim 7 unquestionably are used for data processing in the practice, administration,
`
`and management of financial products and services; specifically, for processing
`
`payments for data downloads. Bloom at, e.g., ¶ 23. Indeed, in a recent decision
`
`involving highly similar claims, the Board determined that selling a desired digital
`
`audio signal to a user constitutes financial activity. See SAMSUNG-1014 at 11-13
`
`(“The cited entities may not provide typical financial services, but . . . they do sell
`
`digital content, which is the financial activity recited in claim 1”).
`
`8
`
`

`
`Attorney Docket No 39843-0006CP2
`CBM of U.S. Patent No. 8,061,598
`The specification of the ‘598 Patent, moreover, is replete with examples of
`
`
`
`financial activity, stating that payment data forwarded to a payment validation sys-
`
`tem may be “data relating to an actual payment made to the data supplier, or . . . a
`
`record of a payment made to an e-payment system” that can be “coupled to banks.”
`
`See ‘598 at 6:60-64, 13:36-41. Even if claim 7 did not explicitly reference finan-
`
`cial activity, and it does, this description alone would be sufficient to establish that
`
`the claimed method is a method for performing data processing used in the prac-
`
`tice, administration, or management of a financial product or service and that,
`
`therefore, the ‘598 Patent is a CBM patent. See SAMSUNG-1014 at 5, 6 (deter-
`
`mining, based on a specification statement that ‘embodiments of the present inven-
`
`tion have application to a wide range of industries’ including ‘financial services,’
`
`despite the apparent lack of financial-related language in the claims); see also
`
`SAMSUNG-1013 at 9-15 (“Although claim 8 does not expressly refer to financial
`
`activity . . . When applied to the activities listed [in the patent’s specification] . . .
`
`the method of claim 8 represents a financial product or service”).
`
`Thus, for at least the reasons described above, the ‘598 Patent is a CBM pa-
`
`tent that is eligible for the review requested by Petitioner.
`
`E.
`The ‘598 Patent Is Not Directed to a Technological Inven-
`tion, And Thus, Should Not Be Excluded From the Definition of a
`CBM Patent.
`
`9
`
`

`
`Attorney Docket No 39843-0006CP2
`CBM of U.S. Patent No. 8,061,598
`The AIA excludes “patents for technological inventions” from the definition
`
`of CBM patents. AIA § 18(d)(2). To determine when a patent covers a technologi-
`
`cal invention, “the following will be considered on a case-by-case basis: 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 (emphasis added); see also SAMSUNG-1009 at
`
`48736-37 (USPTO clarified that to qualify as a technological invention, a patent
`
`must have a novel, unobvious technological feature and a technical problem solved
`
`by a technical solution). “[A]bstract business concepts and their implementation,
`
`whether in computers or otherwise,” are not included in the definition of “techno-
`
`logical inventions.” SAMSUNG-1010 at 634. Indeed, Congress has explained that
`
`accomplishing a business process or method is not technological, whether or not
`
`that process or method is novel. See id. Finally, to institute a CBM, a patent need
`
`only have one claim directed to a covered business method, and not a technological
`
`invention. See, e.g., SAMSUNG-1009 at 48736-37.
`
`The claims of the ‘598 Patent fail to recite a novel and unobvious technolog-
`
`ical feature, and fail to recite a technical problem solved by a technical solution.
`
`See Bloom at, e.g., ¶ 23. Thus, the patent is subject to Section 18 review. Alt-
`
`hough the independent claims of the ‘598 Patent recite computer-related terms
`
`such as “non-volatile memory”, “data terminal”, and “data carrier”, Congress has
`
`10
`
`

`
`Attorney Docket No 39843-0006CP2
`CBM of U.S. Patent No. 8,061,598
`explained that simply reciting words describing generic technology such as “com-
`
`puter hardware, . . .software, memory, computer-readable storage medium, [or] da-
`
`tabases” does not make a patent a technological invention. SAMSUNG-1010 at
`
`634.
`
`The specification of the ‘598 Patent confirms that the computer-related
`
`terms recited in the ‘598 Patent’s claims relate to technology that is merely, in the
`
`words of the Patent Owner, “conventional”: the specification states, for example,
`
`that “[t]he data access terminal may be a conventional computer or, alternatively, it
`
`may be a mobile phone” that terminal memory “can comprise any conventional
`
`storage device,” and that a “data access device . . . such as a portable audio/video
`
`player . . . comprises a conventional dedicated computer system including a pro-
`
`cessor . . . program memory . . . and timing and control logic . . . coupled by a data
`
`and communications bus.” ‘598 at 4:4-5, 16:46-53, 18:7-11. Consequently, the
`
`‘598 Patent claim is not transformed into a technological invention by their recita-
`
`tion of these computer-related terms.
`
`The ‘598 Patent fails even to recite a technical problem, and instead address-
`
`es the non-technical task of allowing “owners of . . . data to make the data availa-
`
`ble themselves over the internet without fear of loss of revenue . . . undermining
`
`the position of data pirates.” ‘598 at 2:11-15, 5:17-19. The ‘598 Patent’s solution
`
`to this non-technical problem is nothing more the combination of prior art struc-
`
`11
`
`

`
`Attorney Docket No 39843-0006CP2
`CBM of U.S. Patent No. 8,061,598
`tures to achieve a normal, expected, and predictable result: the use of a data supply
`
`system, content provision system, data terminal and data carrier to restrict access to
`
`data based on payment. See, e.g., ‘598 at Abstract, 13:25-34. A teaching of a
`
`combination of prior art structures that achieves a predictable result does not “ren-
`
`der a patent a technological invention.” SAMSUNG-1009 at 48755. Indeed, “[a]
`
`person having ordinary skill in the art at the time that the ‘598 Patent was filed
`
`would not have considered the methods described and claimed by the ‘598 Patent
`
`to be technical”. Bloom at, e.g., ¶¶ 23, 24.
`
`In sum, the AIA’s exclusion of “patents for technological inventions” from
`
`the definition of CBM patents is not applicable here because the ‘598 Patent fails
`
`to recite a novel and unobvious technological feature, and fails to recite a technical
`
`problem solved by a technical solution. CBM review is therefore appropriate for
`
`the ‘598 Patent.
`
`IV. SUMMARY OF THE ‘598 Patent
`A. Brief Description
`The ‘598 Patent includes 41 claims, of which claims 1, 18, 21, 26, 27, 29, 31
`
`and 35 are independent.
`
`The claims of the ‘598 Patent generally relate to systems and methods “for
`
`downloading and paying for data such as audio and video data, text, software,
`
`[and] games . . . .” ‘598 at Abstract. The ‘598 Patent purports to address a specific
`
`12
`
`

`
`Attorney Docket No 39843-0006CP2
`CBM of U.S. Patent No. 8,061,598
`problem: “the growing prevalence of so-called data pirates” who “obtain data ei-
`
`ther by unauthorized or legitimate means and then make this data available essen-
`
`tially world-wide over the internet without authorization.” ‘598 at 1:31-33. With-
`
`in this context, the ‘598 Patent describes “combining digital right management
`
`with content data storage,” and states that “[b]inding the data access and payment
`
`together allows the legitimate owners of the data to make the data available them-
`
`selves over the internet without fear of loss of revenue, thus undermining the posi-
`
`tion of data pirates.” ‘598 at 2:7-11, 5:29-33.
`
`Specifically, the ‘598 Patent also discloses a “portable data carrier for stor-
`
`ing and paying for data.” ‘598 at 1:21-22. The portable data carrier stores, in a pa-
`
`rameter memory, use rules that are used to control access to content data and, in a
`
`content memory, the portable data carrier stores content data. See ‘598 at Figs. 5-
`
`6, 13: 25-27. This disclosure is reflected in the limitations of independent claims 1
`
`and 31, the latter of which recites “reading the use status data and one or more use
`
`rules from parameter memory … evaluating the use status data using the one or
`
`more use rules to determine whether access to the content data item is permit-
`
`ted….” ‘598 at 28:22-27.
`
`Summary of the Prosecution History of the ‘598 Patent
`
`B.
`The ‘598 Patent issued Nov. 22, 2011 from the ‘541 Appln. (SAMSUNG
`
`1025), which was filed on Jan. 24, 2011 with 41 claims.
`
`13
`
`

`
`Attorney Docket No 39843-0006CP2
`CBM of U.S. Patent No. 8,061,598
`During prosecution of the ‘541 Appln., a Non-Final Office Action rejected
`
`claims 1, 21, and 31-37 on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double pa-
`
`tenting as being unpatentable over claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,334,720. See Non-
`
`Final Office Action of April 14, 2011 at 3 and 7-8. Claims 9, 18, 23-30, 38-41
`
`were rejected on the same double patenting ground over claims of the ‘720 patent
`
`in view of U.S. Patent No. 6,415,156 to Stademann. Id. Dependent claims 10, 12-
`
`14, and 19-20 were deemed to contain allowable subject matter. Id. Subsequently,
`
`the Patent Owner filed a Terminal Disclaimer (TD) without substantive amend-
`
`ments. See Patent Owner’s Response May 20, 2011 at 9. After the Power of At-
`
`torney has been duly corrected, the Patent Office accepted the Terminal Disclaimer
`
`and mailed a Notice of Allowance to allow all pending claims, noting that “the pri-
`
`or art fails to disclose a portal data carrier comprising: (i) an interface for reading
`
`and writing data; (ii) a content data memory; (iii) a use rule memory; (iv) a pro-
`
`gram store; and having the functions and characteristics as recited in claim 1. The
`
`prior art also fails to disclose the limitations of claims 18, 21, 26, 27, 29, 31 and
`
`35.” See Notice of Allowance September 12, 2011 at 2. After allowance, formali-
`
`ty errors in claims 26 and 29 were corrected. See Patent Owner’s Amendment un-
`
`der Rule 312 Oct. 19, 2011.
`
`V. MANNER OF APPLYING CITED PRIOR ART TO EVERY
`CLAIM FOR WHICH A CBM IS REQUESTED, THUS ES-
`TABLISHING A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD THAT AT
`
`14
`
`

`
`Attorney Docket No 39843-0006CP2
`CBM of U.S. Patent No. 8,061,598
`LEAST ONE CLAIM OF THE ‘598 PATENT IS UNPATENTA-
`BLE
`
`Claim 7 is challenged. Claim 7 depends from claim 1 and, therefore, incor-
`
`porates the subject matter of claim 1. As demonstrated below, claim 7 is anticipat-
`
`ed by Ginter.
`
`A. GROUND 1 – Ginter Anticipates Claim 7.
`The features of claims 7 are anticipated by Ginter, rendering each of these
`
`claims unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
`1. Overview of Ginter
`Ginter describes secure transaction management and electronic rights protec-
`
`tion achieved through a virtual distribution environment (“VDE”) that controls, us-
`
`ing payment and other information, access to electronically disseminated and
`
`stored content objects. Ginter at Abstract4; Bloom at, e.g., ¶ 29. In some imple-
`
`4 Throughout this petition, citations are exemplary in nature and are not intended to
`
`be fully comprehensive of relevant subject matter throughout the subject reference,
`
`which is all incorporated into each citation. For instance, here, additional and rele-
`
`vant subject matter is found at Ginter 1:11-19 (“this invention relates to systems
`
`and techniques for secure transaction management. This invention also relates to
`
`computer-based and other electronic appliance-based technologies that help to en-
`
`sure that information is accessed and/or otherwise used only in authorized
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`
`Attorney Docket No 39843-0006CP2
`CBM of U.S. Patent No. 8,061,598
`mentations, Ginter’s content objects are delivered to end users in “containers,”
`
`which, as depicted in the following annotated version of FIG. 5B, contain both in-
`
`formation content (which may include, e.g., textual, audio, video, and/or software
`
`elements) and associated control information; in other implementations, Ginter’s
`
`control information is delivered separately from the content with which it is asso-
`
`ciated. Ginter at 13:50-67, 43:24-30, 58:57-65; Bloom at, e.g., ¶ 29; see also FIG.
`
`5B ann. (a),(b).
`
`
`ways, and maintains the integrity, availability, and/or confidentiality of such in-
`
`formation and processes related to such use”), which is incorporated into the cita-
`
`tion to Ginter, despite the absence of specific citation to that section.
`
`16
`
`

`
`Attorney Docket No 39843-0006CP2
`CBM of U.S. Patent No. 8,061,598
`
`
`
`In either case, controls on access to and/or the use of information content
`
`may be enforced through budgeting, metering, and/or other methods that involve
`
`use status data and use rules. Ginter at 14:49-15:9; Bloom at, e.g., ¶ 30. Control
`
`information that is associated with one or more of these methods may, e.g., in-
`
`clude: (i) permissions record 808, specifying, e.g., rights associated with content
`
`object 300; (ii) budgets 308, specifying, e.g., limitations on usage of information
`
`content 304 and how usage will be paid for; and (iii) other methods 1000, specify-
`
`17
`
`

`
`Attorney Docket No 39843-0006CP2
`CBM of U.S. Patent No. 8,061,598
`ing, e.g., how usage of information content 304 will be metered, billed, and audit-
`
`ed. See Ginter at 58:66-59:35; Bloom at, e.g., ¶ 30; see also FIG. 5B ann. (c).
`
`End users interface with Ginter’s VDE through electronic appliances, which
`
`implement these methods to ensure that content is accessed and used only in au-
`
`thorized ways; an electronic appliance “may be practically any kind of electrical or
`
`electronic device,” including, e.g., a personal computer or smart card. Ginter at
`
`Abstract, 60:19-30; Bloom at, e.g., ¶ 31; see also FIG. 8 ann. (a).
`
`In the specific example depicted by annotated FIG. 8 below, the electronic
`
`appliance 600 features a Secure Processing Unit (“SPU”) 500 that performs secure
`
`data management processes including “governing usage of, auditing of, and where
`
`appropriate, payment for VDE objects 300.” Ginter at 63:27-41. Performance of
`
`these processes involves the use of control information (e.g., use status data and
`
`use rules) that is maintained in a secure database 610, which may be stored in non-
`
`volatile memory of the SPU itself; the control information may alternatively be
`
`stored in a secondary storage 652 that stores content objects 300 to which the con-
`
`trol information pertains. Ginter at 63:27-41, 65:61-67 (“Stored in each SPU 500
`
`and/or electronic appliance secondary memory 652 may be, e.g. . . . objects 300 . . .
`
`and management database 610 that stores both information associated with objects
`
`and VDE control information”); Bloom at, e.g., ¶ 32; see also FIG. 8 ann. (b).
`
`18
`
`

`
`Attorney Docket No 39843-0006CP2
`CBM of U.S. Patent No. 8,061,598
`
`
`
`Ginter recognizes that its electronic appliances may be portable. Ginter at
`
`228:37-38 (“Electronic appliance 600 provided by the present invention may be
`
`portable”). Indeed, Ginter contemplates smart card implementations in the form of
`
`portable electronic appliances that can dock with other electronic applianc