`Patent 8,336,772 B2
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`______________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`______________________
`
`APPLE INC., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS LTD, SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS
`AMERICA, INC., and GOOGLE INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`SMARTFLASH LLC,
`Patent Owner
`______________________
`
`Case CBM2015-000311
`Patent 8,336,772 B2
`______________________
`
`Before the Honorable JENNIFER S. BISK, RAMA G. ELLURU, GREGG I.
`ANDERSON, and MATTHEW R. CLEMENTS, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`PETITIONER’S RESPONSE TO PATENT OWNER’S NOTICE OF
`SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY
`
`
`1 The challenge to claims 5 and 10 based on 35 U.S.C. § 101 in CBM2015-00059
`
`has been consolidated with this proceeding. The challenge to claims 1, 5, and 10
`
`based on 35 U.S.C. § 101 in CBM2015-00132 has been consolidated with this pro-
`
`ceeding. All emphasis herein added unless noted.
`
`
`
`CBM2015-00031
`Patent 8,336,772 B2
`
`
`By distinguishing the claims there from the type of claims here, BASCOM
`
`supports Petitioner, not PO. In BASCOM the Federal Circuit confirmed that it
`
`would have ruled differently if it had confronted claims to “an abstract-idea-based
`
`solution implemented with generic technical components in a conventional way.”
`
`BASCOM Global Internet Servs. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, No. 2015-1763, 2016 WL
`
`3514158, at *6, *7 (Fed. Cir. June 27, 2016). As established both by the unrebut-
`
`ted evidence here and by this Board’s detailed findings, that quoted phrase de-
`
`scribes PO’s claims. The Board’s Final Written Decision (“FWD”) was correct.
`
`PO has not even tried to rebut Petitioner’s Step 2 evidence that all claimed
`
`hardware was conventional, all claimed functions performed by that conventional
`
`hardware were conventional, and there is nothing inventive in the claimed combi-
`
`nations. See, e.g., Reply (Pap. 26 (“Rp”)) 4-6, 11-12; Ex.1219 ¶¶79-92. PO also
`
`ignores the Board’s findings that “the solution provided by the challenged claims
`
`are not rooted in specific computer technology, but is based on ‘controlling access
`
`[to content] based on payment or rules,” and the ’772 “treats as well-known all po-
`
`tentially technical aspects” of the Claims. FWD (Pap. 45) 19, 14.
`
`That set of evidence and findings defeats PO’s conclusory contention that its
`
`claims “improve[] the functioning of the data access terminal.” PO’s Notice (Pap.
`
`47 (“N”)) 2-3. PO’s claims “merely rely on conventional devices and computer
`
`processes operating in their ‘normal, expected manner.’” FWD 20 (citing OIP
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`CBM2015-00031
`Patent 8,336,772 B2
`
`Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363; DDR, 773 F.3d at 1258-59). They “perform[] generic
`
`computer functions such as storing, receiving, and extracting data” using “physical
`
`components” that “behave exactly as expected according to their ordinary use” and
`
`“merely provide a generic environment in which to carry out the abstract idea.” In
`
`re TLI Commc’ns LLC, No. 2015-1372, 2016 WL 2865693, at *3, *4, *7 (Fed. Cir.
`
`May 17, 2016) (ineligible claims “directed to the use of conventional or generic
`
`technology”). PO’s claims thus achieve no “result that overridokes the routine and
`
`conventional use of the recited devices and functions” and “are ‘specified at a high
`
`level of generality,’ which the Federal Circuit has found to be ‘insufficient to sup-
`
`ply an “inventive concept.”’” FWD 20 (citing Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716).
`
`For the same reasons, there is no merit to PO’s new, waived argument that it
`
`was “inventive” to combine payment data, content data, and rules on the data carri-
`
`er. N2-3. The Claims here do not recite rules. PO’s specification admits: “[t]he
`
`physical embodiment of the system is not critical and a skilled person will under-
`
`stand that the terminals, data processing systems and the like can all take a variety
`
`of forms.” Ex. 1201 12:38-41. As the Board found, the prior art discloses storing
`
`different types of content together, and combining rules and content on a data car-
`
`rier does not give rise to an inventive concept. See, e.g., FWD 22 (“prior art dis-
`
`closes products, such as electronic data, that could store both the content and con-
`
`ditions for providing access”). The Board correctly rejected PO’s actual argued
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`CBM2015-00031
`Patent 8,336,772 B2
`
`combination of two stored elements (FWD 22-23), and the unrebutted evidence
`
`confirms that the combination newly argued by PO also was conventional before
`
`the priority date. See Exs. 1212 at 2:53-55, 4:35-37, 6:22-24; 1213 at 17:20-33,
`
`17:39-42, 17:51-55, 24:42-47, 29:58-30:35; 1227 at 16:25-33, 17:17-23, 18:21-33;
`
`1214 at 57:18-22, 58:25-30, 63:34-41. See also Ex. 1219 at 88, 96, 97, ¶45. And
`
`the Federal Circuit has held that combining different types of data is not inventive.
`
`See, e.g., Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Elecs. For Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d at
`
`1351; Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank, 792 F.3d at 1368; Internet
`
`Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d at 1349; see also, e.g., Rp4-6.2
`
`PO’s new, waived argument fails for the same reasons as its briefed arguments.
`
`
`
`In contrast to BASCOM’s “limited record” with the owner’s allegations tak-
`
`en as true, BASCOM, at *4, *6, *7, here the wealth of unrebutted evidence and
`
`caselaw confirms ineligibility, and PO offers no evidentiary or caselaw support to
`
`supply the inventive concept that is clearly lacking in the Claims.
`
`
`2 Despite PO’s contrary suggestion (N2), its own cited cases confirm preemption is
`
`still not the test. Rapid Litig. Mgmt. Ltd. v. CellzDirect, Inc., No. 2015-1570, 2016
`
`WL 3606624, at *7 (Fed. Cir. July 5, 2016); BASCOM, at *8 (Ultramercial’s limi-
`
`tations “narrow[ing] the scope of protection through additional ‘conventional’
`
`steps . . . did not make [them] any less abstract”). See Rp2, 14-17; FWD 24-25.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`CBM2015-00031
`Patent 8,336,772 B2
`
`Respectfully submitted, by /J. Steven Baughman/
`J. Steven Baughman, Lead Counsel
`
`
`
`
`
`July 26, 2016
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`CBM2015-00031
`Patent 8,336,772 B2
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing PETITIONER’S
`
`RESPONSE TO PATENT OWNER’S NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL
`
`AUTHORITY was served on July 26, 2016, to the following Counsel via e-mail,
`
`pursuant to the parties’ agreement concerning service:
`
`Michael R. Casey
`J. Scott Davidson
`DAVIDSON BERQUIST JACKSON & GOWDEY LLP
`8300 Greensboro Dr., Suite 500
`McLean, VA 22102
`Telephone: (571) 765-7700
`Facsimile: (571) 765-7200
`mcasey@dbjg.com
`jsd@dbjg.com
`docket@dbjg.com
`Attorneys for Patent Owner Smartflash, LLC
`
`Walter Renner
`Thomas Rozylowicz
`FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
`axf@fr.com
`CBM39843-0008CP3@fr.com
`Attorneys for Petitioners Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and
`Samsung Electronics America, Inc.
`
`Raymond Nimrod
`Andrew Holmes
`QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
`raynimrod@quinnemanuel.com
`QE-SF-PTAB-Service@quinnemanuel.com
`Attorneys for Petitioner Google, Inc.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`CBM2015-00031
`Patent 8,336,772 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
` /s/ Lauren N. Robinson
`Lauren N. Robinson
`
`ROPES & GRAY LLP
`
`
`
`6