`571-272-7822
`
` Paper No. 16
` Entered: November 19, 2013
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`SALESFORCE.COM, INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`VIRTUALAGILITY, INC.
`Patent Owner
`____________
`
`Case CBM2013-00024
`Patent 8,095,413
`____________
`
`Before JAMESON LEE, ADAM V. FLOYD, and
`GEORGIANNA W. BRADEN, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`BRADEN, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Covered Business Method Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.208
`
`1
`
`SAMSUNG-1014
`
`
`
`Case CBM2013-00024
`Patent 8,095,413
`
`
`Petitioner, Salesforce.com, Inc., filed a petition (Paper 4) (“Pet.”) to
`
`institute a covered business method review of claims 1-21 of U.S. Patent No.
`
`8,095,413 (“the ’413 patent”) pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 321 et seq. Patent
`
`Owner, VirtualAgility, Inc., filed a preliminary response (Paper 13)
`
`(“Prelim. Resp.”). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 324.1
`
`The standard for instituting a covered business method review is set
`
`forth in 35 U.S.C. § 324(a):2
`
`THRESHOLD—The Director may not authorize a post-
`grant review to be instituted unless the Director determines that
`the information presented in the petition filed under section
`321, if such information is not rebutted, would demonstrate that
`it is more likely than not that at least 1 of the claims challenged
`in the petition is unpatentable.
`
`Petitioner challenges claims 1-21 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§§ 101, 102, and 103. Pet. 1, 3-4.
`
`Upon consideration of the petition and preliminary response, we grant
`
`the petition, because Petitioner has demonstrated that claims 1-21 are, more
`
`likely than not, unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102, and 103.
`
`
`
`I. BACKGROUND
`
`A. The ’413 Patent (Ex. 1001)
`
`The ’413 patent, titled “Process Management Information,” issued on
`
`
`1 See Section 18(a) of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, Pub. L. 112-
`29, 125 Stat. 284, 329 (2011) (“AIA”).
`
` 2
`
` See Section 18(a)(1) of the AIA, which provides that the transitional
`program for covered business method patents will be regarded as a post-
`grant review under chapter 32 of title 35 United States Code and will employ
`the standards and procedures of a post-grant review, subject to certain
`exceptions.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case CBM2013-00024
`Patent 8,095,413
`
`January 10, 2012. The ’413 patent issued from Application 09/312,740,
`
`filed May 14, 1999, which claims priority to Provisional Application
`
`60/133,152, filed on May 7, 1999.
`
`The disclosed invention of the ’413 patent is directed generally to a
`
`method and apparatus for managing collaborative activity (e.g., strategic
`
`planning and project management). Ex. 1001, col. 1, ll. 32-33, col. 5, ll. 25-
`
`31. To aid in the management of collaborative activity, a computer database
`
`is created with data, and the data represents models of the collaborative
`
`activity. Ex. 1004, p. 0116. The models, which include model entities, are
`
`then arranged into hierarchies, and the data regarding collaborative activity
`
`can be shared between different people. Ex. 1001, col. 1, ll. 27-31; col. 5, ll.
`
`25-33.
`
`For one embodiment, the Specification describes a method of
`
`acquiring a first set of data that can represent a first model entity. Ex. 1001,
`
`col. 2, ll. 50-54. The first model entity can represent an organization of
`
`people (id. at col. 2, ll. 39-40), customer relationships (id. at col. 2, ll. 51-
`
`52), a program management office (id. at col. 3, ll. 38-39), or a scalable
`
`process (id. at col. 4, ll. 29-30). The first set of data includes “fundamental
`
`components.” id. at col. 2, ll. 41-42. These “fundamental components” can
`
`include data related to customer information (id. col. 2, ll. 62-67), company
`
`capability information (id. at col. 3, ll. 16-26), or economic information (id.
`
`at col. 3, ll. 25-34; col. 3, l. 65—col. 4, l. 4; col. 4, ll. 15-20). The data can
`
`also be a list of goals for an organization or for a project. Id. at col. 5, ll. 42-
`
`44.
`
`The method associates the first set of data (i.e., first model entity)
`
`with a second set of data. The second set of data represents a second model
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case CBM2013-00024
`Patent 8,095,413
`
`entity, and the second model entity represents a portfolio of management
`
`concepts. Id. at col. 2, ll. 43-44. The first model entity can be associated
`
`with the second model entity so that the two model entities are considered
`
`related. Id.
`
`The model entities are organized into a plurality of hierarchies, and a
`
`model can belong to more than one hierarchy. Id. at col. 9, ll. 33-37; col. 11,
`
`ll. 12-14; claims 1 and 8. The hierarchies provide different contexts through
`
`which users may view and access model entities. Ex. 1004, 0016.
`
`According to the Specification, examples of such hierarchies include a
`
`priority of goals handled by the manager module. Ex. 1001, col. 5, l. 44—
`
`col. 6, l. 58. Figure 1 of the ’413 patent is reproduced below:
`
`
`
`Figure 1 of the ’413 patent, reproduced above, illustrates the basic
`
`structure of a suite of modules, including (i) functions performed by a
`
`manager module and (ii) pathways to other modules in the system.
`
`Ex. 1001, col. 8, ll. 30-33. According to the ’413 patent, the manager
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case CBM2013-00024
`Patent 8,095,413
`
`module can be used to manage a project, organize project goals, and allocate
`
`resources for a project. Id. at col. 5, l. 49—col. 6, l. 32.
`
`The ’413 patent also discloses facilitating strategic planning by
`
`employing a company comparison module and a baseline module that would
`
`facilitate users setting new goals, displaying already existing goals, and/or
`
`identifying and developing potential new goals. Ex. 1001, col. 10, ll. 11-44.
`
`The manager module, described above, keeps a hierarchy of goals and
`
`contributing goals in constant view and up-to-date with changing
`
`circumstances. Figure 3 of the ’413 patent is reproduced below:
`
`
`
`As shown in Figure 3, reproduced above, the goal hierarchy can
`
`illustrate an organization’s total goals and any contributing goals affecting
`
`the enterprise, or the goal hierarchy can illustrate an organization’s
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case CBM2013-00024
`Patent 8,095,413
`
`priorities, such as top goals (see FIG. 14) or specific goal (see FIG. 15).
`
`Ex. 1001, col. 11, ll. 12-18. According to the ’413 patent, if an organization
`
`is addressing budget issues, then a user can use the claimed method to sort
`
`by goal or project cost (see FIG. 19), or by priority or return on investment
`
`(“payback”) (see FIG. 20). Id. at col. 11, ll. 27-31. The sorted information
`
`can be provided to help the user decide where to commit resources based on
`
`factors such as benefit and risk. Id.
`
`According to the Specification, once data regarding project goals or
`
`cost have been loaded into a model entity, the information can be presented
`
`as a goal or cost hierarchy. This hierarchy can be used in different ways.
`
`For example, once the data is available, a user can readily access financial
`
`information, such as (i) the cost of or investment in each particular goal or
`
`initiative, (ii) the economic return anticipated for achievement of the particular
`
`goal or initiative, (iii) the ratio of return on investment, or (iv) the potential
`
`profit or loss of a scalable process. Ex. 1001, col. 5, ll. 5-8; col. 14, ll. 21-29.
`
`Such information allows people within the organization to assess the relative
`
`value of one goal versus another. Id. at col. 14, ll. 30-31.
`
`A major purpose of the ’413 invention is to aid an organization in the
`
`planning and managing of goals and projects. Ex. 1001, col. 11, ll. 63-65.
`
`The claimed invention aims to achieve this purpose by facilitating the listing
`
`of goals in a hierarchy and allowing information regarding goals (allocated
`
`resources, time lines, progress reports, costs, etc.) to be readily available to
`
`multiple individuals within the organization. Id. at col. 11, l. 65; col. 12, ll.
`
`4-16.
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case CBM2013-00024
`Patent 8,095,413
`
`
`C. Exemplary Claims
`
`Claims 1, 7, 8, and 20 are independent claims, of which claims 1 and
`
`8 are representative and reproduced below:
`1. A system for supporting management of a collaborative activity
`by persons involved therein, the persons not being specialists in
`information technology, the system being implemented using a
`processor and a storage device accessible to the processor, and
`the system comprising:
`
` a
`
` representation of a model of the collaborative activity in the
`storage device, the model of the collaborative activity including
`model entities,
`the model entities providing access
`to
`information concerning
`the collaborative activity, being
`organized into a plurality of hierarchies having a plurality of
`types, and a given model entity being capable of simultaneously
`belonging to a hierarchy having one of the types and a
`hierarchy having another of the types; and
`
`said processor being configured to provide a graphical user
`interface to a person of the persons for providing outputs to the
`person and responding to inputs from the person by performing
`operations on a model entity as limited by a type of access
`which the person has to the model entity,
`
`the operations including controlling access to the model entity,
`creating, modifying, and/or deleting the model entity, assigning
`the model entity to a location in a hierarchy, accessing and/or
`modifying the information concerning the collaborative activity
`via the model entity, viewing model entities as ordered by a
`hierarchy to which the entities belong, and viewing model
`entities as ordered by a value in the information concerning the
`collaborative activity to which the entities give access.
`
`
`8. A method of supporting management of a collaborative activity
`by persons involved therein, the persons not being specialists in
`information technology and the method being performed in a
`system which includes a processor and a storage device
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case CBM2013-00024
`Patent 8,095,413
`
`
`accessible to the processor, the storage device containing a
`model of the collaborative activity, the model including
`representations of model entities, a given representation of a
`model entity being capable of simultaneously belonging to
`hierarchies including a hierarchy and another hierarchy, and the
`representations of model entities providing access
`to
`information relating to the collaborative activity, the processor
`providing an interface for a person of the persons, and the
`method comprising the steps performed in the system of:
`
`receiving a definition of a model entity belonging to the model
`of the collaborative activity from a person of the persons via the
`interface and responding thereto by producing a representation
`of the model entity in the storage device; and
`
`receiving a first indication of a first hierarchical relationship
`between the model entity and another model entity belonging to
`the hierarchy from the person via the interface and responding
`thereto by relating the model entity to the other model entity in
`the hierarchy and
`
`indication of a second hierarchical
`receiving a second
`relationship between the model entity and a third model entity
`belonging to the other hierarchy from the person via the
`interface and responding thereto by relating the model entity to
`the third model entity in the other hierarchy.
`
`D. Prior Art Relied Upon
`
`Petitioner relies upon the following references:3
`
`Lowery
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Ito
`
`
` Managing Projects with
` Microsoft® Project 4.0
` For Windows™ and
` Macintosh®, Wiley & Sons, Inc.
`
`
`
`
` U.S. Patent No. 5,761,674
`
`1994
`
`
`
`Ex. 1005
`
`Jun. 2, 1998
`
`Ex. 1007
`
`
`3 Petitioner also relies on the declaration of Peter Alexander, Ph.D. (Ex.
`1002).
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case CBM2013-00024
`Patent 8,095,413
`
`
`E. Alleged Grounds of Unpatentability
`
`Petitioner alleges the following grounds of unpatentability:
`
`Reference(s)
`
`Basis
`
`Not applicable
`Lowery
`Ito
`Lowery and Ito
`
`
`
` § 101
`§ 102(a)
`§ 102(a)
`§ 103(a)
`
`F. Related Proceedings
`
`Claims
`Challenged
`1-21
`1-21
`1-21
`1-21
`
`The ’413 patent is involved currently as an asserted patent in the
`
`following district court litigation: VirtualAgility, Inc. v. Salesforce.com, Inc.,
`
`et al., E.D. Tex. (Marshall Division), Case No. 2:13-cv-00011 (filed January
`
`4, 2013). Pet. 10.
`
`
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`
`A. Whether the ’413 Patent is a Covered Business Method Patent
`
`Section 18 of the AIA provides for the creation of a transitional
`
`program for reviewing covered business method patents. Section 18 limits
`
`reviews to persons, or their privies, that have been sued or charged with
`
`infringement of a “covered business method patent.” AIA §§ 18(a)(1)(B),
`
`18(d)(1); see 37 C.F.R. § 42.302(a). It is undisputed that Petitioner has been
`
`sued for infringement of the ’413 patent. The only dispute is whether the
`
`’413 patent is a “covered business method patent,” as defined in the AIA.
`
`See Pet. 6-10; Prelim. Resp. 15-30. For the reasons explained below, we
`
`conclude that the ’413 patent is a “covered business method patent.”
`
`1. Financial Product or Service
`
`A “covered business method patent” is a patent that “claims a method
`
`or corresponding apparatus for performing data processing or other
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`Case CBM2013-00024
`Patent 8,095,413
`
`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); see 37 C.F.R. § 42.301(a). For
`
`purposes of determining whether a patent is eligible for a covered business
`
`method (“CBM”) patent review, the focus is on the claims. See 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.301(a), definition of CBM patent; see also 77 Fed. Reg. 48734, 48736
`
`(Aug. 14, 2012) Response to Comments on Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,
`
`response to comment 8. A single eligible claim qualifies a patent for CBM
`
`patent review. 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 37 C.F.R. § 42.301(a), definition of CBM
`
`patent; see also 77 Fed. Reg. 48734, 48736 (Aug. 14, 2012) Response to
`
`Comments on Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, responses to comments 3
`
`and 5. 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.” See 157 Cong. Rec. S5432 (daily ed.
`
`Sept. 8, 2011) (statement of Sen. Schumer). The statements of Senator
`
`Schumer indicate that “financial product or service” should be interpreted
`
`broadly. Id.
`
`Claim 8 is directed to a method for supporting management of a
`
`collaborative activity using a system that includes a processor, a storage
`
`device, and an interface provided by the processor. The method includes the
`
`steps of:
`(i)
`
`
`
`receiving a definition of a model entity and responding to the
`
`10
`
`
`
`Case CBM2013-00024
`Patent 8,095,413
`
`
`definition of a model entity by producing a representation of the
`
`model entity,
`
`(ii)
`
`receiving a first indication of a hierarchical relationship
`
`between the model entity and another model entity belonging to
`
`a hierarchy and relating the model entity to another model
`
`entity in the hierarchy, and
`
`(iii)
`
`receiving a second indication of a second hierarchical
`
`relationship between the model entity and a third model entity
`
`belonging to a hierarchy and relating the model entity to the
`
`third model entity in the hierarchy.
`
`Although claim 8 does not expressly refer to financial activity, such as
`
`those described in the Specification, the claimed method has particular
`
`application involving financial activities. The Specification discloses that
`
`the method can be used to evaluate: (i) budgeting issues, (ii) the cost of or
`
`investment in each particular goal or initiative, (iii) the economic return
`
`anticipated for achievement of the particular goal or initiative, (iv) the ratio
`
`of return on investment, or (v) the potential profit or loss of a scalable
`
`process. Ex. 1001, col. 5, ll. 5-8; col. 14, ll. 21-29. When applied to the
`
`activities listed above, and based on the legislative history that a covered
`
`business method patent is to cover activities that are financial in nature, the
`
`method of claim 8 represents a financial product or service used by an
`
`organization, which allegedly improves the financial health of the
`
`organization.
`
`According to Petitioner, the ’413 patent is a covered business method
`
`patent, because it claims methods and apparatus used in the practice,
`
`administration, or management of a financial product or service, including
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`Case CBM2013-00024
`Patent 8,095,413
`
`activities that are financial in nature, incidental to a financial activity, or
`
`complementary to a financial activity. Pet. 7. The Specification discloses
`
`the management and modeling of “collaborative activity” that can include
`
`financial aspects or activities of an organization. Ex. 1001, col. 11, ll. 27-31;
`
`Figures 19-22. Several examples from the Specification, which can be
`
`implemented by the method of claim 8, are reproduced below:
`
`[I]f the topic is budgets, the user can sort by goal or project cost
`(see FIG. 19), or by priority or return on investment (“payback”)
`(see FIG. 20) and can be provided with information that can help
`the user decide where to commit resources based on factors such
`as benefit and risk.
`
`Ex. 1001, col. 11, ll. 27-31; Figs. 19-20 (emphasis omitted).
`
`include an economics
`The fundamental components may
`component . . . [which] may include a description of a profit and
`loss aspect of the scalable process or a description of an
`investments aspect of the scalable process.
`
`Id. at col. 5, ll. 1-8.
`
`[A] user can readily access financial information related to
`decision making and priorities . . . . economic return anticipated
`for achievement of the particular goal or initiative.
`
`Id. at col. 14, ll. 21-27.
`
`Access to information, such as that described above, that is organized in
`
`a usable manner allows people within the organization to assess the relative
`
`value of one goal versus another or the potential profit or loss of a project. Ex.
`
`1001, col. 14, ll. 29-31; col. 5, ll. 1-8. The Specification discloses that the
`
`hierarchy organization allows goals or initiatives to be sorted by category, such
`
`as costs, thereby helping people decide whether the level of investment
`
`required can be afforded. Id. at col. 16, ll. 48-53. Additionally, according to
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`Case CBM2013-00024
`Patent 8,095,413
`
`the Specification, the claimed invention allows management teams “to
`
`quickly plan, design, and work on a common portfolio of strategic goals and
`
`initiatives” in order “make the business grow and prosper.” Id. at col. 5,
`
`ll. 28-31.
`
`Based on the foregoing examples noted by Petitioner and the language of
`
`claim 8, the Board is persuaded that claim 8 recites a method 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.
`
`Patent Owner contends that Congress intended covered business
`
`method reviews to apply only to a “narrow range of patents,” relying on
`
`various statements in the legislative history of the AIA. Prelim. Resp. 15-
`
`25. In particular, Patent Owner asserts that “Congress expressly chose not to
`
`make all patents that cover methods that can be used by a business available
`
`for CBM review, but only those directly related to financial products or
`
`services” used in the financial services industry. Id. at 16.
`
`The Board is not persuaded by Patent Owner’s contention, because
`
`the legislative history indicates that the phrase “financial product or service”
`
`is not limited to the products or services directly related to the financial
`
`services industry and is to be interpreted broadly. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.301(a),
`
`definition of covered business method patent. Senator Schumer, for
`
`example, stated:
`
`Nothing in the America Invents Act limits use of section
`18 to banks, insurance companies or other members of the
`financial services industry. Section 18 does not restrict itself to
`being used by petitioners whose primary business is financial
`products or services. Rather, it applies to patents that can
`apply to financial products or services.
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`Case CBM2013-00024
`Patent 8,095,413
`
`157 Cong. Rec. S5432 (daily ed. Sept. 8, 2011) (statement of Sen. Schumer)
`
`(emphasis added). Although the claims of the ’413 patent do not recite
`
`elements directly related only to a financial services business, the
`
`Specification describes application of the claimed method to activities that
`
`are financial in nature.
`
`Patent Owner further argues that a determination that the ’413 patent
`
`is a covered business method patent would contravene the intent of Congress
`
`when it enacted the AIA. Patent Owner further contends that such a
`
`determination would give the phrase “financial products and services” a
`
`different meaning depending on the implemented procedure, which could
`
`result in inconsistent, even irreconcilable, administration of the same statute
`
`by the same agency. Prelim. Resp. 18. Patent Owner’s argument is not
`
`persuasive. The Board reviews each petition based on its own facts, and
`
`construes each claim in the context of the specification of the particular
`
`involved patent. A specification that describes no financial product or
`
`service application is different from a specification that does describe such
`
`an application. Here, as discussed above, the Specification describes
`
`applying the invention as a financial product or service for use by an
`
`organization to improve the financial health of the organization.
`
`Patent Owner finally argues that the ’413 patent is not a covered
`
`business method patent, because the claimed invention is not limited to use
`
`in a business, but is applicable to any collaborative activity. Id. at 23.
`
`According to Patent Owner, the Specification of the ’413 patent makes clear
`
`that the inventor contemplated applying the invention in non-business
`
`contexts such as universities, government agencies, and social and political
`
`organizations. Id. at 20 (citing Ex. 1001, col. 2, ll. 23-27). However, the
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`Case CBM2013-00024
`Patent 8,095,413
`
`question is not whether the claimed invention only has application in
`
`business contexts, but whether the claimed invention is a method or
`
`apparatus for performing data processing or other operations used in the
`
`practice, administration, or management of a financial product or service,
`
`technological inventions excepted.
`
`The Patent Owner’s argument is not persuasive. As discussed above,
`
`the ’413 patent discloses use of the claimed method and apparatus for the
`
`practice, administration, or management of collaborative activity that can
`
`include financial aspects or activities of an organization. See Ex. 1001, col.
`
`5, ll. 1-8; col. 11, ll. 27-31; col. 14, ll. 21-31; Figs. 19-20.
`
`For the reasons stated above, and based on the particular facts of this
`
`proceeding, we conclude that claim 8 of the ’413 patent meets the “financial
`
`product or service” component of the definition in Section 18(d)(1) of the
`
`AIA.
`
`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
`
`“[w]hether 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
`
`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.
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`Case CBM2013-00024
`Patent 8,095,413
`
`
`(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. 48756, 48763-64 (Aug. 14,
`
`2012).
`
`The method of claim 8 uses various technical components: a
`
`“processor,” a “storage device,” and an “interface.” According to Petitioner,
`
`all of these components are generic hardware devices known and used in the
`
`prior art. Pet. 9-10. Petitioner points to the Specification of the ’413 patent,
`
`which discloses, for instance, that a computer could be “industry standard
`
`server components.” Id. (citing Ex. 1001, col. 7, l. 60).
`
`Patent Owner does not dispute that the individual technical
`
`components described in the Specification for implementing the claimed
`
`invention are conventional components, known in the art, such as the
`
`processor and the storage unit. The Patent Owner contends that they qualify
`
`as technical components, because they require a specific structure, function,
`
`and operation. Prelim. Resp. 27-28.
`
`However, Patent Owner does not sufficiently identify or explain the
`
`specific structure, function, and operation required by the recited
`
`components, which would extend beyond that which can be provided by a
`
`processor and storage device of conventional design and configuration, with
`
`conventional programming techniques. According to the Specification, only
`
`conventional components and programming, used in their known ways to
`
`achieve expected results, are needed for the processor and storage device.
`
`Ex. 1001, col. 7, ll. 59-67; col. 17, ll. 53-63.
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`
`Case CBM2013-00024
`Patent 8,095,413
`
`
`The challenged claims are directed to creating models or
`
`representation of models for organizing information relating to a
`
`collaborative activity (e.g., defining projects and organizing goals for that
`
`project) and making such information easily accessible to collaborators on a
`
`project. Ex. 1001, col. 2, ll. 37-47; Fig. 3. All the components used to
`
`implement the claimed method are known and conventional components.
`
`Ex. 1001, col. 7, ll. 54-67; col. 17, ll. 35-50.
`
`Furthermore, software that supports management and organization of
`
`collaborative activity is well known. Ex. 1004, p. 0115. The file history for
`
`the ’413 patent states that the prior art software generally fell into two
`
`categories: (1) software which is usable by non-technical people but
`
`provides the user with only a single simple model for collaboration, and (2)
`
`software which permits the user to make any kind of model for the
`
`collaboration but is not usable by non-technical people. Id.
`
`According to the Patent Owner, the problem with the first class of
`
`software is the inflexibility of only having one model, while the problem
`
`with the second class of software is its complexity to non-technical users.
`
`Ex. 1004, p. 0115. However, neither problem is a technical problem from
`
`the perspective of one with ordinary skill in the art. Software supporting
`
`more than one model is available and non-technical personnel may be
`
`specifically trained on such software. Training non-technical people to use
`
`particular software does not constitute a technical solution. Additionally,
`
`organizing data into hierarchies or determining the relationship between
`
`hierarchies is not a technical solution to any problem. Organizing data by
`
`hierarchies may be done by use of conventional charts and tables.
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`Case CBM2013-00024
`Patent 8,095,413
`
`
`Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, the Board determines that the
`
`invention of claim 8 does not constitute a technological invention.
`
`B. Claim Construction
`
`Consistent with the statute and legislative history of the AIA, the
`
`Board interprets claims of an unexpired patent using the broadest reasonable
`
`construction in light of the specification of the patent in which they appear.
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.300(b); see also Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed.
`
`Reg. 48756, 48766 (Aug. 14, 2012). Also, claim terms are given their
`
`ordinary and customary meaning, as would be understood by one of ordinary
`
`skill in the art at the time of the invention and in the context of the entire
`
`patent disclosure. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2007). An inventor may rebut that presumption by providing a
`
`definition of the term in the specification with reasonable clarity,
`
`deliberateness, and precision. In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir.
`
`1994).
`
`Neither Petitioner nor Patent Owner contends that any special
`
`definition has been provided in the Specification for any claim term. For the
`
`purposes of this decision, the Board concludes the same.
`
`
`1. “system being implemented using a processor
`and a storage device accessible to the processor”
`
`The preamble of claim 1 recites a “system being implemented using a
`
`processor and a storage device.” Petitioner contends that the recited
`
`processor and storage device need not be components of the claimed system
`
`because they are not positively recited elements. Pet. 11 (citing Ex. 1002 at
`
`¶ 39). The Board is not persuaded by Petitioner’s reasoning. The processor
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`Case CBM2013-00024
`Patent 8,095,413
`
`and storage device recited in the preamble of each independent claim serve
`
`as the antecedent basis for “said processor” and “the storage device” recited
`
`in the body of each claim. See, e.g., C.W. Zumbiel Co., Inc., v. Kappos and
`
`Graphic Packaging Int’l, 702 F.3d 1371, 1385 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (noting that
`
`a preamble constitutes a limitation when the elements in the body of a claim
`
`depend on it for antecedent basis). Furthermore, if the plain language of a
`
`claim indicates that a system is implemented by certain components, then
`
`those components constitute required parts of the system. “Implemented,”
`
`in that setting, can mean “constituted” or “formed.” Therefore, the Board
`
`construes the clause as setting forth that the processor and the storage device
`
`are both components of the claimed system.
`2. “model entities”
`
`Petitioner contends that the ’413 patent does not define the term
`
`“entities” with respect to a model—a term found in all the challenged
`
`claims. Pet. 12. Therefore, Petitioner relies on a non-technical dictionary
`
`definition to support a broad construction of “entity” to include anything that
`
`has a distinct and separate existence. Id.
`
`Patent Owner contends that the term “model entities” should be
`
`construed as a set of assembled computer data or data item that represents
`
`fundamental components of the model. Prelim. Resp. 12. In support of that
`
`contention, Patent Owner cites to the Specification, which states:
`
` In one aspect, the invention features a method for use in
`processing management information. The method includes
`acquiring a first set of computer data representing a model of an
`organization of people,
`the model having
`fundamental
`components, the first set of computer data including data items
`representing the fundamental components . . . .
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`Case CBM2013-00024
`Patent 8,095,413
`
`Ex. 1001, col. 2, ll. 37-42 (emphasis added).
`
`The Patent Owner then contends that a data set only qualifies as a
`
`“model entity” if the data set provides a user with the capability to perform
`
`specified operations on the model. Id. (citing Ex. 1001 at col. 18, ll. 12-25).
`
`According to the Patent Owner, its proposed construction for the term
`
`“model entity” is consistent with the understanding of one of ordinary skill
`
`in the computer and software arts. In support of its construction, the Patent
`
`Owner cites The IEEE Standard Dictionary of Electrical and Electron