throbber
Covered Business Method Patent Review
`United States Patent No. 8,336,772
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`Petitioner: Apple Inc.
`
`Attorney Docket No.:
`
` 104677-5008-818
`Customer No. 28120
`

`Inventor: Racz et al.
`United States Patent No.: 8,336,772 §
`Formerly Application No.: 13/212,047 §
`Issue Date: December 25, 2012

`Filing Date: August 17, 2011

`Former Group Art Unit: 2887

`Former Examiner: Thien M. Le

`
`For: Data Storage and Access Systems
`
`MAIL STOP PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`Post Office Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
`
`PETITION FOR COVERED BUSINESS METHOD PATENT REVIEW OF
`UNITED STATES PATENT NO. 8,336,772 PURSUANT TO 35 U.S.C. § 321,
`37 C.F.R. § 42.304
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
` Covered Business Method Patent Review
`United States Patent No. 8,336,772
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................... 1 
`I. 
`II.  OVERVIEW OF FIELD OF THE CLAIMED INVENTION ......................... 6 
`III.  PETITIONER HAS STANDING .......................................................................... 10 
`A. 
`The ’772 Patent Is a Covered Business Method (“CBM”) Patent ........... 10 
`1. 
`Exemplary Claim 8 Is Financial In Nature ...................................... 10 
`2. 
`Claim 8 Does Not Cover A Technological Invention ................... 13 
`Related Matters and Mandatory Notice Information; Petitioner Is a Real
`Party In Interest Sued for and Charged With Infringement ..................... 17 
`IV.  DETAILED EXPLANATION OF REASONS FOR RELIEF REQUESTED,
`SHOWING IT IS MORE LIKELY THAN NOT THAT AT LEAST ONE
`CHALLENGED CLAIM IS UNPATENTABLE ............................................... 18 
`A. 
`Claim Construction .......................................................................................... 20 
`B. 
`The Challenged Claims Are Unpatentable Under 35 U.S.C. § 101 .......... 24 
`1. 
`Claims Are Directed To Abstract Ideas ........................................... 25 
`2. 
`Claims Do Not Disclose An “Inventive Concept” That Is
`“Significantly More” Than An Abstract Idea .................................. 28 
`Field Of Use Limitations Cannot Create Patent Eligibility ........... 28 
`Generic Computer Implementation Cannot Transform
`Abstract Ideas Into Patent Eligible Inventions ............................... 29 
`Functional Nature Confirms Preemption and Ineligibility ............ 34 
`Machine-or-Transformation Test Also Confirms Patent
`Ineligibility ............................................................................................. 35 
`The Challenged Claims Are Invalid Under § 103 ....................................... 36 
`1. 
`Overview of Ginter .............................................................................. 36 
`2. 
`Motivation to Combine Ginter with Poggio.................................... 38 
`3. 
`Motivation to Combine Ginter with Poggio and Subler ............... 40 
`4. 
`Motivation to Combine Ginter with Poggio, Subler, and
`Sato ......................................................................................................... 41 
`Claims 1, 5, 8, and 10 are Obvious in Light of Ginter in
`View of Subler and Poggio (Ground 2), Obvious in Light
`of Ginter in View of Subler, Poggio, and Sato (Ground 3). .......... 42 
`CONCLUSION........................................................................................................... 79 
`
`3. 
`4. 
`
`V. 
`
`ii
`
`B. 
`
`C. 
`
`5. 
`6. 
`
`5. 
`
`

`
` Covered Business Method Patent Review
`United States Patent No. 8,336,772
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,336,772
`
`Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,925,127
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,940,805
`
`Russell Housley and Jan Dolphin, “Metering: A Pre-pay
`Technique,” Storage and Retrieval for Image and Video Data-
`bases V, Conference Volume 3022, 527 (January 15, 1997)
`U.S. Patent No. 4,999,806
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,675,734
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,878,245
`
`File History for U.S. Patent No. 8,336,772
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,942,317
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,103,392
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,530,235
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,629,980
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,915,019
`
`European Patent Application, Publication No. EP0809221A2
`
`International Publication No. WO 99/43136
`
`JP Patent Application Publication No. H11-164058 (transla-
`tion)
`Eberhard von Faber, Robert Hammelrath, and Frank-Peter
`Heider, “The Secure Distribution of Digital Contents,” IEEE
`(1997)
`
`iii
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`1201
`
`1202
`
`1203
`
`1204
`
`1205
`
`1206
`
`1207
`
`1208
`
`1209
`
`1210
`
`1211
`
`1212
`
`1213
`
`1214
`
`1215
`
`1216
`
`1217
`
`1218
`
`

`
` Covered Business Method Patent Review
`United States Patent No. 8,336,772
`
`
`Declaration of Anthony J. Wechselberger In Support of Apple
`Inc.’s Petition for Covered Business Method Patent Review
`U.S. Patent No. 8,033,458
`
`Declaration of Michael P. Duffey In Support of Apple Inc.’s
`Petition for Covered Business Method Patent Review
`Declaration of Megan F. Raymond In Support of Apple Inc.’s
`Petition for Covered Business Method Patent Review
`Claim Construction Memorandum Opinion from Smartflash
`LLC v. Apple Inc., No. 6:13cv447 (Dkt. 229)
`File History for U.S. Patent No. 8,061,598
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,337,483
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,725,375
`
`International Publication No. WO 95/34857
`
`JP Patent Application Publication No. H10-269289 (transla-
`tion)
`File History for U.S. Patent No. 7,942,317
`
`File History for U.S. Patent No. 8,033,458
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,061,598
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,118,221
`
`File History for U.S. Patent No. 8,118,221
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,334,720
`
`File History for U.S. Patent No. 7,334,720
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,646,992
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`1219
`
`1220
`
`1221
`
`1222
`
`1223
`
`1224
`
`1225
`
`1226
`
`1227
`
`1228
`
`1229
`
`1230
`
`1231
`
`1232
`
`1233
`
`1234
`
`1235
`
`1236
`
`iv
`
`

`
` Covered Business Method Patent Review
`United States Patent No. 8,336,772
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Pursuant to § 321 and Rule § 42.304,1 the undersigned, on behalf of and acting
`
`in a representative capacity for Apple Inc. (“Petitioner”), petitions for review under
`
`the transitional program for covered business method patents of claims 1, 5, 8, and 10
`
`(challenged claims) of U.S. Pat. No. 8,336,772, issued to Smartflash Technologies
`
`Limited and assigned to Smartflash LLC (“Patentee”). Petitioner asserts it is more
`
`likely than not that at least the challenged claims are unpatentable for the reasons
`
`herein and requests review of, and judgment against, the challenged claims under §§
`
`101 and 103.
`
`As discussed in Sec. III.B., infra, Petitioner has concurrently filed two other
`
`CBM Petitions, requesting judgment against different ’772 claims based on different
`
`prior art. The Director, pursuant to Rule 325(c), may determine that merger or at min-
`
`imum coordination of these proceedings is appropriate.
`
`Petitioner previously filed CBM2014-00110/111 seeking review of the ’772 pa-
`
`tent under §§102 and 103. In its Decisions Denying Institution, the Board deter-
`
`mined that Petitioner had not shown that it was more likely than not that it would
`
`prevail in demonstrating that Stefik and/or Ginter, or Stefik or Ginter combined with
`
`
`1 Petitioner is demonstrating, in pending litigation, that these claims are invalid for
`
`numerous additional reasons. All section cites herein are to 35 U.S.C. or 37 C.F.R., as
`
`the context indicates, and all emphasis herein added unless otherwise noted.
`
`
`
`

`
` Covered Business Method Patent Review
`United States Patent No. 8,336,772
`
`Poggio and/or Sato rendered obvious limitations related to “code to request identifier
`
`data...” CBM2014-00110, Pap. 7, at 15-18; -00111, Pap. 7, at 15-21. In light of the
`
`Board’s decision, Petitioner now identifies additional prior art—Subler (Ex. 1236)—
`
`with explicit disclosures of the limitations related to “code to request identifier da-
`
`ta…” For example, Subler discloses an end user device that provides a powerful,
`
`easy-to-use interface to browse through and analyze products available from a storage
`
`database. Ex. 1236 3:46-52. The end user device software includes code that retrieves
`
`product information from the database and presents the information to the user in a
`
`windowed graphical user interface. Ex. 1236 4:49-54; 5:26-30. Petitioner has also iden-
`
`tified additional disclosures in Ginter and Poggio concerning these limitations, further
`
`confirming a POSA2 would have found it obvious and routine to implement the sys-
`
`tem disclosed by Ginter and Poggio using the expressly advantageous teachings of
`
`Subler and/or Sato, detailed in §IV.C, infra. See, e.g., Ex. 1219 ¶¶ 58-66.
`
`The challenged claims merely recite basic computer systems well-known in the
`
`field of data storage and access, including a “handheld multimedia terminal for retriev-
`
`2 References to a POSA refer to the knowledge or understanding of a person of ordi-
`
`nary skill in the art POSA as of October 25, 1999. A POSA would have at least a B.S.
`
`degree in E.E., C.S., or a telecommunications related field, and at least three years of
`
`industry experience that included client-server data/information distribution and
`
`management architectures. See Ex. 1219 ¶¶ 25, 28 n.3.
`
`2
`
`

`
` Covered Business Method Patent Review
`United States Patent No. 8,336,772
`
`ing and accessing protected multimedia content” and a “data access terminal for con-
`
`trolling access to one or more content data items stored on a data carrier.” Ex. 1201
`
`1:24-26. Claim 8, for example, recites four rudimentary components of a data access
`
`terminal “for controlling access to one or more content data items”—(A) a user interface, (B) a
`
`data carrier interface, (C) a program store storing code implementable by a processor, and
`
`(D) a processor . . . for implementing the stored code. The recited code is similarly ele-
`
`mentary, requesting and receiving user identifier data (D1-D2), presenting available content data
`
`items (D3), receiving a selection and transmitting payment for the data item (D4-D5), receiving
`
`payment validation data (D6), and controlling access to the data item in response (D7):
`
`8. A data access terminal for controlling access to one or more content
`data items stored on a data carrier, the data access terminal comprising:
`[A] a user interface;
`[B] a data carrier interface;
`[C] a program store storing code implementable by a processor; and
`[D] a processor coupled to the user interface, to the data carrier inter-
`face and to the program store for implementing the stored code, the
`code comprising:
`[D1] code to request identifier data identifying one or more content
`data items stored on the data carrier;
`[D2] code to receive said identifier data;
`[D3] code to present to a user via said user interface said identified
`one or more content data items available from the data carrier;
`[D4] code to receive a user selection selecting at least one of said one
`or more of said stored content data items;
`
`3
`
`

`
` Covered Business Method Patent Review
`United States Patent No. 8,336,772
`
`
`[D5] code responsive to said user selection of said selected content
`data item to transmit payment data relating to payment for said se-
`lected content item for validation by a payment validation system;
`[D6] code to receive payment validation data defining if said payment
`validation system has validated payment for said content data item;
`and [D7] code to control access to said selected content data item re-
`sponsive to the payment validation data.
`Ex. 1201. But at the patent’s earliest claimed priority date, these simple elements and
`
`their combination were well known to any POSA. The patent acknowledges that the
`
`idea of providing access to data in exchange for a payment (e.g., purchase of music on
`
`a CD) was already well known. E.g., Ex. 1201 5:13-16 (“the purchase outright option
`
`may be equivalent to the purchase of a compact disc (CD)”). And, as demonstrated herein,
`
`the prior art was teeming with disclosures of this basic concept and its straightforward
`
`implementation in physical systems.
`
`Moreover, claim 8 clearly involves no “technology” at all other than “a data access
`
`terminal,” with user and data carrier interfaces, a program store storing code, and a
`
`processor that implements the well-known steps disclosed in the specification—all of
`
`which the patent concedes were well known and commonplace, stating that this “ter-
`
`minal comprises a general purpose computer.” E.g., id. 4:7, 16:47-52. Claim 8 recites no
`
`more than a system for requesting and retrieving data from a data carrier while receiv-
`
`ing and responding to payment data for validation and controlling access to the data
`
`based on payment. And the other challenged claims are nothing but variations on this
`
`4
`
`

`
` Covered Business Method Patent Review
`United States Patent No. 8,336,772
`
`simple theme, with the addition, in the challenged “handheld multimedia terminal”
`
`claims, of equally generic components (e.g., known wireless interface, non-volatile
`
`memory, and a display).3 See, e.g., id. 12:37-40 (“physical embodiment of the system is not criti-
`
`cal and a skilled person will understand that the terminals, data processing systems and the like can
`
`all take a variety of forms.”).
`
`Indeed, as confirmed by the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Alice Corp.
`
`Pty, Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014)—decided after Petitioner’s original
`
`challenges to the ’720 were filed—the challenged claims are also directed to patent in-
`
`eligible subject matter under § 101. As the Board noted in its previous Institution De-
`
`cision, “the ’772 patent makes clear that the asserted novelty of the invention is not in
`
`any specific improvement of software or hardware, but in the method of controlling ac-
`
`cess to data,” CBM2014-00110, Pap. 7, at 13, and the challenged claims are directed to
`
`nothing more than the unpatentable abstract idea of paying for and controlling access
`
`to data, with at most the addition of well-known, routine and conventional features—
`
`in particular, generic computer implementation that cannot confer patentability on
`
`3 Claim 1, e.g., recites a “handheld multimedia terminal,” but simply adds to the fea-
`
`tures of claim 8 the requirements of a wireless interface, non-volatile memory, and a
`
`display, while specifying the user interface enables a user to perform certain functions.
`
`And Claim 10, which depends from claim 8, simply specifies integration with a mobile
`
`communications device. Ex. 1201.
`
`5
`
`

`
` Covered Business Method Patent Review
`United States Patent No. 8,336,772
`
`these patent-ineligible abstractions. E.g., Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2359-60. Each challenged
`
`claim recites ineligible subject matter and is also obvious; thus, each is unpatentable.
`
`II. OVERVIEW OF FIELD OF THE CLAIMED INVENTION
`By October 25, 1999, electronic sale, distribution, and content protection for
`
`digital products was well-known to a POSA, and their combination as claimed would
`
`also have been well-known or at minimum obvious. See, e.g., Ex. 1219 § V. In March
`
`1991, for example, U.S. Pat. No. 4,999,806 issued, disclosing a system and method for
`
`sale and distribution of digital products (e.g., software) by phone, and for content pro-
`
`tection. See, e.g., Ex. 1206 Abstract (“central station distributes software by telephone. . . ac-
`
`cepts credit card information, transmits an acceptance code . . . After verifying the credit card infor-
`
`mation, the station calls the purchaser back and continues with the transaction only after receiving
`
`the acceptance code.”); 1:67-2:9 (describing “means for selling and distributing protected software
`
`using standard telephone lines,” “permit[ting] the purchaser to rent the protected software for a period
`
`of time,” and “to rent the protected software for a specific number of runs”). Ex. 1206 also dis-
`
`closes (1) different types of access, e.g., purchase vs. rental and (2) a Control Transfer
`
`Program and a Primary Protection Program to prevent unauthorized copies. See Ex.
`
`1206 Abstract; 2:65-3:23; Ex. 1219 ¶ 30.
`
`In April 1992, U.S. Patent No. 5,103,392 issued, disclosing use-based charging
`
`for digital products. See, e.g., id. Ex. 1211 1:64-2:17:
`
`The data processing apparatus includes user-specific credit data storage
`means for storing data identifying the user . . . and indicating credit for payment ca-
`
`6
`
`

`
` Covered Business Method Patent Review
`United States Patent No. 8,336,772
`
`
`pacity, use time length, or the like of the user . . . . Also included is use deci-
`sion means for determining permission to use the program . . . on the basis of pro-
`gram-specific data supplied from the program storage means or user-specific
`credit data supplied from the user-specific credit data storage means, the
`use decision means delivering either an affirmative or negative signal corresponding
`to results of the decision. Also included is program use history storage means
`connected to the use decision means for storing program use history data . . . .
`Ex. 1211’s emphasis on assuring permission to access a program and compensating
`
`providers underscores this existing focus in the art on digital rights management
`
`(“DRM”), over eight years before the claimed priority date. See, e,g., Ex. 1219 ¶ 33.
`
`Also in 1997, Exhibit 1218 (“von Faber”) observed that “[e]lectronic commerce sys-
`
`tems dealing with the distribution of digital contents . . . have to couple the use of the provid-
`
`ed digital goods with a prior payment for the goods in a way which cannot be bypassed,” pro-
`
`posing a system where customers purchase keys required to utilize encrypted content.
`
`See, e.g., id. at 7(“The basic idea . . . is to distribute the contents in encrypted form, and to have
`
`the customer pay for the key which he needs to transform the encrypted content in an usable form.”);
`
`id. 8 (“The Content Provider provides digital contents in encrypted form being distributed
`
`by the Content Distributor. . . . The Authorisation System permits the distribution of the
`
`appropriate key after settling of the fees payable by the Customer . . .. The role of the Content
`
`Distributor is not essential for the subsequent discussion but, of course, for the business
`
`to take place.”); see also id. Fig. 1. Von Faber notes its system could be used for a variety
`
`of known distribution and payment methods. See, e.g., id. 13 (“Different methods can be
`
`7
`
`

`
` Covered Business Method Patent Review
`United States Patent No. 8,336,772
`
`used to distribute the encrypted contents (standard techniques). . . . Different electronic payment
`
`methods can be integrated . . . . This flexibility leads to the fact that totally different authorisation
`
`methods can be integrated.”). Von Faber further addressed the known issue of payment
`
`distribution to providers. See, e.g., id. (“The system automatically divides the package price
`
`(payments) and guarantees that the money is transferred to each Content Provider.”); Ex. 1219 ¶¶
`
`36-38.
`
`Also in 1996 and 1997, two Stefik patents issued, U.S. Patent No. 5,530,235
`
`(“Stefik ’235,” filed Feb. 16, 1995 and issued June 25, 1996), and U.S. Patent No.
`
`5,629,980 (“Stefik ’980,” filed Nov. 23, 1994 and issued May 13, 1997). Exs. 1212 and
`
`1213. Stefik ’235 discloses “[a] Document Card (DocuCard) for storing documents
`
`and which is content revealing. The DocuCard is a transportable unit having a non-
`
`volatile storage means for storing information in a digital form, a control processor
`
`for processing user initiated functions; an I/O port for interfacing to external devices
`
`for reading and writing digital information, and a user interface for allowing a user to
`
`directly interact with the DocuCard.” Ex. 1212 Abstract. Stefik also discloses a broad-
`
`er framework within which the DocuCard is used, including the protection of content
`
`with “usage rights.” Ex. 1213 Abstract (“A system for controlling use and distribution
`
`of digital works. In the present invention, the owner of a digital work attaches usage
`
`rights to that work. Usage rights are granted by the ‘owner’ of a digital work to ‘buy-
`
`ers’ of the digital work . . . [and] define how a digital work may be used and further
`
`8
`
`

`
` Covered Business Method Patent Review
`United States Patent No. 8,336,772
`
`distributed by the buyer. Each right has associated with it certain optional specifica-
`
`tions which outline the conditions and fees upon which the right may be exercised.”).
`
`Stefik’s digital works are stored in a “repository” that processes requests for access—
`
`including for such actions as utilizing content (viewing, executing, or printing) or
`
`transporting content (copying, borrowing, or transferring)—and evaluates the relevant
`
`usage rights to determine whether such access is permitted. See, e.g., id. Abstract (“Dig-
`
`ital works are stored in a repository[, which] will process each request to access a digital work by
`
`examining the corresponding usage rights . . . Access to digital works for the purposes of transporting
`
`between repositories (e.g. copying, borrowing or transfer) is carried out using a digital
`
`work transport protocol. Access to digital works for the purposes of replay by a digital work
`
`playback device (e.g. printing, displaying or executing) is carried out using a digital
`
`work playback protocol.”).
`
`Content storage and utilization on portable devices, including mobile commu-
`
`nication devices such as cellular phones, was also well-known. As one example, Ex.
`
`1216 (pub’d Aug. 26, 1999), discloses a cell phone for storing digital content in non-
`
`volatile memory and accessing that content. See, e.g., Ex. 1216 5 (“Because of its inte-
`
`gration into the cellular phone, the digital entertainment module can share components al-
`
`ready present in the cellular phone. Such savings would not be available if a CD player
`
`were simply aggregated with the phone. Further, the use of solid state RAM or ROM,
`
`as opposed to disc storage, eliminates the need for bounce control circuitry[, enabling
`
`9
`
`

`
` Covered Business Method Patent Review
`United States Patent No. 8,336,772
`
`the] invention to provide cellular communications and entertainment during leisure
`
`activities.”); Ex. 1219 ¶ 41. Thus, as these background examples and the additional
`
`prior art detailed below in IV.C (including the primary prior art Ginter patent) illus-
`
`trate, the prior art was rife with awareness and discussion of the same supposed “in-
`
`vention” now memorialized in the challenged claims. Long before the purported pri-
`
`ority date, disclosures abounded of the very features that Smartflash now seeks to
`
`claim as its exclusive property. As outlined below, the challenged claims are obvious.
`
`III. PETITIONER HAS STANDING
`A.
`The ’772 patent is a CBM patent under § 18(d)(1) of the AIA, and Petitioner
`
`The ’772 Patent Is a Covered Business Method (“CBM”) Patent
`
`certifies it is available for review under § 42.304(a). See also CBM2014-0010, Pap. 7, 9-
`
`14 (finding claim 8 satisfies requirement). Although in fact numerous claims qualify, a
`
`patent with even one claim covering a CBM is considered a CBM patent. See CBM
`
`2012-00001, Doc. 36 at 26; 77 Fed. Reg. 48,709 (Aug. 14, 2012). Petitioner thus ad-
`
`dresses exemplary Claim 8 (quoted above).
`
`1.
`A CBM patent is “a patent that claims a method or corresponding apparatus for per-
`
`Exemplary Claim 8 Is Financial In Nature
`
`forming data processing or other operations used in the practice, administration, or management of a
`
`financial product or service, except that the term does not include patents for technological
`
`inventions.” AIA § 18(d)(1); 37 C.F.R. § 42.301. “[T]he definition of covered busi-
`
`ness method patent was drafted to encompass patents claiming activities that are finan-
`
`10
`
`

`
` Covered Business Method Patent Review
`United States Patent No. 8,336,772
`
`cial in nature, incidental to a financial activity or complementary to a financial activity.’” 77 Fed.
`
`Reg. 48,734-35 (Aug. 14, 2012) (citing 157 Cong. Rec. S5432 (daily ed. Sept. 8, 2011)).
`
`“[F]inancial product or service” is to be interpreted broadly, id., and “financial . . . simp-
`
`ly means relating to monetary matters”—it does not require any link to traditional financial
`
`industries such as banks. See, e.g., CBM2012-00001, Pap. 36 at 23. See also CBM2013-
`
`00020, Pap. 14 at 11-12; CBM2013-00017, Pap. 8 at 5-6.
`
`The ’772 patent includes claims to a “data access terminal” (e.g., a “convention-
`
`al computer” or mobile phone (Ex. 1201 4:7-8)), that reads payment data from a data
`
`carrier (e.g., standard smart card (id. 11:35)), transmits it to a validation system for au-
`
`thorizing payment, and allows access to content in exchange for payment (id. 8:26-28).
`
`See AIA § 18(d)(1); 37 C.F.R. § 42.301(a). The patent alleges this terminal is part of a
`
`system that allows content owners to make content available without fear of losing
`
`revenue, and claim 8 specifies that the terminal is “for controlling access to one or
`
`more content data items.” Ex. 1201 2:15-19; Cl. 8. See also id. Fig 12(a)-(e). More gen-
`
`erally, the patent is about “[d]ata storage and access systems [that] enable downloading
`
`and paying for data.” Id. Abstract. “The combination of payment data and stored
`
`content data . . . helps reduce the risk of unauthorized access.” Id. And in asserting
`
`the patent, Smartflash conceded the alleged invention relates to a financial activity or
`
`transaction, stating “[t]he patents-in-suit generally cover a portable data carrier for
`
`storing data and managing access to the data via payment information and/or use status rules.
`
`11
`
`

`
` Covered Business Method Patent Review
`United States Patent No. 8,336,772
`
`The patents-in-suit also generally cover a computer network . . . that serves data and
`
`manages access to data by, for example, validating payment information.” Ex. 1202 ¶ 17.
`
`Indeed, the specification confirms that the recited “data access terminal” is “for
`
`storing and paying for data,” (Ex. 1201 1:20-22), “can communicate with a bank or other fi-
`
`nancial services provider to control payment” (id. 3:53-55), and can “validate payment with an
`
`external authority such as a bank” (id. 2:8-10). Further, “[p]ayment for the data item or
`
`items requested may either be made directly to the system owner or may be made to an e-payment
`
`system” (id. 20:59-61), and such systems may be provided “according to, for example,
`
`MONDEX, Proton, and/or Visa cash compliant standards” and “payment authentication . . .
`
`may [] be performed by, for example, a data access terminal . . . using payment management
`
`code.” Id. 13:43-64. See also id. 7:66-8:61 (esp. 8:26-28); 11:65-12:4; Fig. 12(a)-(e).
`
`Claim 8 expressly recites software to perform data processing and other opera-
`
`tions in connection with the recited “payment validation system” (e.g., “to transmit
`
`payment data . . . for validation by a payment validation system” and “code to receive
`
`payment validation data defining if said payment validation system has validated pay-
`
`ment”), and further requires software “to control access to said selected content data
`
`item responsive to the payment validation data.” Id. Thus, claim 8, which explicitly
`
`describes transmitting payment data to a payment validation system, receiving pay-
`
`ment validation, and controlling access to data based on payment, clearly concerns a
`
`computer system (corresponding to methods discussed in the patent) for performing
`
`12
`
`

`
` Covered Business Method Patent Review
`United States Patent No. 8,336,772
`
`data processing and other operations used in the practice, administration, or management of
`
`a financial activity and service. See, e.g., CBM2013-00020, Pap. 14 at 10-11.
`
`2.
`Claim 8 Does Not Cover A Technological Invention
`Further, claim 8 does not cover a “technological invention” within the excep-
`
`tion in AIA § 18(d)(1), because it does not claim “subject matter as a whole [that] re-
`
`cites a technological feature that is novel and unobvious over the prior art[] and solves a technical
`
`problem using a technical solution.” § 42.301(b). To the contrary, the specification explains
`
`that claim 8’s “data access terminal” was commonplace, and is not directed to a tech-
`
`nical problem, but rather offers a non-technical solution to the business problem of data piracy.
`
`(a) Claim 8 Does Not Recite A Technological Feature
`That Is Novel and Unobvious
`First, no “technological feature” of claim 8 is novel and unobvious. The PTAB
`
`has confirmed that “[m]ere recitation of known technologies, such as computer hard-
`
`ware, 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,” or “[r]eciting the use of known prior art technol-
`
`ogy to accomplish a process or method, even if that process or method is novel and
`
`non-obvious” will “not typically render a patent a technological invention.” See, e.g., 77
`
`Fed. Reg. 48,764 (Aug. 14, 2012). As the PTAB further stated, “combining prior art
`
`structures to achieve a normal, expected, or predictable result of that combination” is
`
`not a technological invention. 77 Fed. Reg. 157 (Aug. 14, 2012) at 48,764.
`
`13
`
`

`
` Covered Business Method Patent Review
`United States Patent No. 8,336,772
`
`As its language makes clear, claim 8 involves no “technology” at all other than “a
`
`data access terminal,” which includes a user interface, data carrier interface, a program
`
`store storing code, and a processor that implements the well-known steps disclosed in
`
`the specification. Ex. 1201. “The data access terminal may be a conventional computer or,
`
`alternatively, it may be a mobile phone,” both of which were known in the art well be-
`
`fore the earliest claimed priority date. Id. 4:7; 16:47-52. Indeed, the specification dis-
`
`claims the use of particular hardware, relying instead on conventional hardware known
`
`to a POSA: “[t]he physical embodiment of the system is not critical and a skilled person will
`
`understand that the terminals, data processing systems and the like can all take a variety of
`
`forms.” Id. 12:37-40.
`
`The use of software (code) for requesting and presenting data, transmitting and
`
`validating payment data, and exchanging content for payment, as disclosed in the
`
`specification, was also exceedingly well known in the art, and could not transform the
`
`claims into a technological invention. See, e.g., 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756 48,764 (Aug. 14,
`
`2012) (“[m]ere recitation of known technologies, such as . . . software, memory, com-
`
`puter-readable storage medium . . . [will] not typically render a patent a technological
`
`invention.”); Ex. 1219 § V, ¶¶ 79-87. The functions performed by the code (D1-
`
`D4)—related to the identification, access, and control of data as disclosed in the spec-
`
`ification—were commonplace before the earliest claimed priority date. See, e.g., Ex.
`
`1206 8:62-9:12; Ex. 1201 1:40-50. Further, the financial transaction performed by the
`
`14
`
`

`
`code described in elements D5 and D6 was well known, because, as the patent con-
`
` Covered Business Method Patent Review
`United States Patent No. 8,336,772
`
`
`cedes, e-payment systems were known. Ex. 1201 13:43-64 (“E-payment systems coupled to
`
`banks . . . these provide an e-payment system according to, for example, MONDEX, Proton,
`
`and/or Visa cash compliant standards . . . payment data may be validated by a data access terminal
`
`using payment management code.”). Using code to implement this transaction, as disclosed
`
`in the specification, was obvious and known. E.g,, Ex. 1219 §V, ¶¶ 79-87. Providing
`
`access to data in exchange for a payment (D7), as claimed in the patent, was also well
`
`known. See, e.g., Exs. 1207; 1206 Abstract, 1:67-2:9; 1208 Abstract, 4:27-35; 1219 §V,
`
`¶¶ 75-77; Sec. IV.C.5, infra.
`
`The state of the art at the time, and the detailed prior art analysis below, further
`
`reflects claim 8 does not recite a technological feature that is novel and nonobvious.
`
`See, e.g., Section II, supra; Section IV.C, infra. Even apart from other failures to trigger
`
`the exception, for these reasons alone, claim 8 is not a technological invention.

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket