Case CBM2015-00098
`Patent 5,940,510
`Attorney Docket No. 150326-001USCBM
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`AMERICAN EXPRESS COMPANY, AMERICAN EXPRESS TRAVEL
`RELATED SERVICES COMPANY, INC., COMPASS BANK, DISCOVER
`FINANCIAL SERVICES, DISCOVER BANK, DISCOVER PRODUCTS INC.,
`NAVY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION, AND STATE FARM MUTUAL
`AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY,
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`MAXIM INTEGRATED PRODUCTS, INC.,
`Patent Owner
`____________
`
`Case CBM2015-00098
`Patent 5,940,510
`____________
`
`PATENT OWNER MAXIM INTEGRATED PRODUCTS, INC.’S
`PRELIMINARY RESPONSE TO PETITION FOR COVERED BUSINESS
`METHOD PATENT REVIEW OF UNITED STATES PATENT NO.
`5,940,510 PURSUANT TO 35 U.S.C. § 323, 37 C.F.R. § 42.304
`
`
`
`
`

`

` Case CBM2015-00098
`Patent 5,940,510
`Attorney Docket No. 150326-001USCBM
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................. 2
`
`II. THE ’510 PATENT HAS NOT BEEN SHOWN TO BE ELIGIBLE FOR
`COVERED BUSINESS METHOD PATENT REVIEW. ............................. 3
`
`A. Petitioners Fail To Meet Their Burden To Demonstrate That The ’510
`Patent Is A Covered Business Method Patent. ............................................. 4
`
`1. Whether the ’510 Patent is a covered business method patent depends
`on what the Patent claims. ...................................................................... 5
`
`2. Claim 2 is disclaimed and cannot be a basis for standing. ..................... 7
`
`3. Petitioners’ arguments based on claim 2 cannot support standing. ....... 8
`
`4. Petitioners’ citations to the specification in reference to what the Patent
`claims do not support standing. ............................................................12
`
`5. Assertion of the Patent against providers of financial products or
`services does not support standing. ......................................................14
`
`6. The Board’s institution decision in an earlier case before claim 2 was
`disclaimed does not support standing. ..................................................16
`
`B. Even If Petitioners Had Not Forfeited Other Standing Arguments, They
`Could Not Have Shown The Patent Is Directed To Financial Activities. ..18
`
`1. Standing must be based on what the patent claims, not what it discloses
`but does not claim. ................................................................................19
`
`2. The Patent’s remaining claims are undisputedly not directed to
`financial activities. ................................................................................19
`
`3. The Office and a Court have both previously found that the Patent is
`not directed towards financial activities. ..............................................22
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`

`

` Case CBM2015-00098
`Patent 5,940,510
`Attorney Docket No. 150326-001USCBM
`
`
`
`4. The Board has found that claims with similar subject matter are not
`directed to financial activities. ..............................................................25
`
`C. Review Must Also Be Denied Because The Patent Is For A Technological
`Invention. ....................................................................................................27
`
`1. Petitioners’ attempts to show that the Patent does not claim a novel and
`unobvious technological feature instead confirm the opposite. ...........30
`
`2. Petitioners do not show that the Patent does not solve a technical
`problem with a technical solution, and the Patent in fact uses both
`hardware and software to solve a technical communication problem. 36
`
`III. EVEN IF THE PATENT HAD BEEN DEMONSTRATED TO BE A
`COVERED BUSINESS METHOD PATENT, THE PETITION WOULD
`STILL NOT SATISFY THE 35 U.S.C. § 324 THRESHOLD. ....................41
`
`A. Petitioners’ Unpatentability Arguments Cannot Be Fully Addressed At The
`Institution Stage. .........................................................................................41
`
`B. The “Broadest Reasonable Interpretation” Claim Construction Standard
`Should Not Apply In This Case. .................................................................42
`
`1. The Patent will expire before any final written decision. ....................43
`
`2. No claims will be added or amended. ..................................................44
`
`3. The same construction standard should apply at institution as at trial. 44
`
`IV. PETITIONERS PROPOSE REDUNDANT GROUNDS OF REVIEW. ...48
`
`A. The Board Routinely Rejects Redundant Or Duplicative Grounds. ...........48
`
`B. Proposed Grounds I And II, Which Are Both Based On The Same Art, Are
`Redundant. ..................................................................................................50
`
`V. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................51
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`

`

` Case CBM2015-00098
`Patent 5,940,510
`Attorney Docket No. 150326-001USCBM
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Cases
`
`Facebook, Inc. v. Pragmatus AV, LLC, 582 Fed. Appx. 864
`(Fed. Cir. 2014) (nonprecedential) ......................................................................47
`
`Genetics Inst., LLC v. Novartis Vaccines & Diagnostics, Inc.,
`655 F.3d 1291 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ............................................................................. 8
`
`Guinn v. Kopf, 96 F.3d 1419 (Fed. Cir. 1996) ........................................................... 7
`
`Maxim Integrated Products, Inc.. In re, MDL No 2354
`(W.D. Pa. Dec. 17, 2013) (Claim Construction Opinion) ............................ 23, 24
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303
`(Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) ........................................................... 42, 43, 45, 46, 47
`
`Vectra Fitness, Inc. v. TWNK Corp., 162 F.3d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 1998) ...................... 7
`
`Administrative Determinations
`
`Agilysys, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., CBM2014-00014, Paper 19
`(P.T.A.B. Mar. 26, 2014) (per Rice, APJ) ............................................................. 9
`
`Bloomberg L.P. v. Quest Licensing Corp., CBM2014-00205, Paper 16
`(P.T.A.B. Apr. 7, 2015) (per Giannetti, APJ) ............................................... 32, 40
`
`Canon Inc. v. Intellectual Ventures I, LLC, IPR2014-00535 to-00537,
`Paper 9 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 24, 2014) (per Boucher, APJ) ................................. 48, 50
`
`Cisco Sys., Inc. v. AIP Acquisition, LLC, IPR2014-00247, Paper 17
`(P.T.A.B. Jun. 26, 2014) (per Lee, APJ) ..............................................................43
`
`Dell Inc. v. Disposition Servs. LLC, CBM2013-00040, Paper 7
`(P.T.A.B. Feb. 5, 2014) (per. Clements, APJ) .....................................................12
`
`
`
`iii
`
`
`
`

`

` Case CBM2015-00098
`Patent 5,940,510
`Attorney Docket No. 150326-001USCBM
`
`
`E*Trade Fin. Corp. v. Droplets, Inc., CBM2014-00123, Paper 15
`(P.T.A.B. Oct. 30, 2014) (per Gaudette, APJ) ........................................ 29, 32, 39
`
`Experian Mktg. Sols., Inc. v. RPost Commc’ns, Ltd., CBM2014-00010,
`Paper 20 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 22, 2014) (per Turner, APJ) ............................ 14, 33, 37
`
`Fujitsu Semiconductor Ltd. v. Zond, LLC, IPR2014-00863, Paper 11
`(P.T.A.B. Oct. 23, 2014) (per Turner, APJ) ........................................................49
`
`Google, Inc. v. SimpleAir, Inc., CBM2015-00019, Paper 11
`(P.T.A.B. May 19, 2014) (per Arbes, APJ) .................... 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 17, 19
`
`GSI Commerce Solutions, Inc. v. Arunachalam, CBM2014-00101, Paper 10
`(P.T.A.B. Oct. 7, 2014) (per McNamara, APJ) ...................................................39
`
`HTC Corp. v. E-Watch, Inc., IPR2014-00987, Paper 6
`(P.T.A.B. Dec. 9, 2014) (per Clements, APJ) .....................................................49
`
`HTC Corp. v. E-Watch, Inc., IPR2014-00987, Paper 10
`(P.T.A.B. Jan. 7, 2015) (per Clements, APJ) .......................................................49
`
`Informatica Corp. v. Protegrity Corp., CBM2015-00010, Paper 13
`(P.T.A.B. May 11, 2015) (per Petravick, APJ) ....................................................13
`
`Innolux Corp. v. Semiconductor Energy Lab. Co. Ltd., IPR2013-00065,
`Paper 11 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 30, 2013) (per Turner, APJ) .........................................49
`
`Interthinx, Inc. v. Corelogic Solutions, LLC, CBM2012-00007,
`Paper 15 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 31, 2013) (per McNamara, APJ) ..................... 11, 43, 44
`
`J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. v. Intellectual Ventures II LLC, CBM2014-00160,
`Paper 11 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 29, 2015) (per Busch, APJ).......................... 5, 21, 22, 25
`
`JP Morgan Chase & Co. v. Maxim Integrated Products, Inc., CBM2014-00179,
`Paper 11 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 20, 2015) (per Begley, APJ) ................ 16, 17, 29, 33, 38
`
`LG Elecs., Inc. v. Straight Path IP Group, Inc., IPR2015-00196,
`Paper 20 (P.T.A.B. May 15, 2015) (per Deshpande, ALJ) .................................45
`
`Motorola Mobility LLC v. Intellectual Ventures I LLC, CBM2015-00005,
`Paper 10 (Mar. 27, 2015) (per Kokoski, APJ) .....................................................13
`
`
`
`iv
`
`
`
`

`

` Case CBM2015-00098
`Patent 5,940,510
`Attorney Docket No. 150326-001USCBM
`
`
`PNC Fin. Servs. Grp., Inc. v. Intellectual Ventures I LLC, CBM2014-00032,
`Paper 13 (P.T.A.B. May 22, 2014) (per Jung, APJ) ..................................... 15, 16
`
`Salesforce.com, Inc. v. Applications in Internet Time LLC, CBM2014-00162,
`Paper 11 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 2, 2015) (per Pettigrew, APJ) ............ 3, 6, 10, 11, 19, 20
`
`Salesforce.com, Inc. v. VirtualAgility, Inc., CBM2013-00024, Paper 16
`(P.T.A.B. Nov. 19, 2013) (per Braden, APJ) ................................................ 14, 42
`
`Toyota Motor Corp. v. Am. Vehicular Scis. LLC, IPR2013-00421,
`Paper 15 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 13, 2014) (per Kim, APJ) ...................................... 49, 51
`
`Travelocity.com L.P. v. Cronos Techs., LLC, CBM2014-00082,
`Paper 10 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 15, 2014) (per Arpin, APJ) ...........................................45
`
`Volusion, Inc. v. Versata Software, Inc., CBM2013-00017, Paper 8
`(P.T.A.B. Oct. 24, 2013) (Blankenship, APJ) .....................................................14
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 101 ........................................................................................................38
`
`35 U.S.C. § 253 .......................................................................................................... 7
`
`35 U.S.C. § 253(a) ..................................................................................................... 7
`
`35 U.S.C. § 291 .......................................................................................................... 8
`
`35 U.S.C. § 323 .......................................................................................................... 1
`
`35 U.S.C. § 324 ................................................................................................. 45, 46
`
`35 U.S.C. § 324(a) ...................................................................................................41
`
`35 U.S.C. § 324(b) ...................................................................................................41
`
`35 U.S.C. § 326(e) ...................................................................................................46
`
`America Invents Act of 2011 § 18(a)(1) .................................................................... 1
`
`America Invents Act of 2011 § 18(a)(1)(E) ............................................................... 4
`
`America Invents Act of 2011 § 18(d)(1) .................................................. 5, 6, 10, 28
`
`
`
`v
`
`
`
`

`

` Case CBM2015-00098
`Patent 5,940,510
`Attorney Docket No. 150326-001USCBM
`
`
`
`
`
`Regulations and Rulemaking
`
`37 C.F.R. § 1.321(a) ................................................................................................... 7
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.207 ..................................................................................................... 1
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.207(c) ...............................................................................................42
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.207(e) ...................................................................................... 7, 8, 17
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.208 ..................................................................................................... 1
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.208(c) ...............................................................................................46
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.300(a) .............................................................................................7, 8
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.301(b) ....................................................................................... 28, 32
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.304(a) ...........................................................................................5, 31
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.304(b) ..............................................................................................32
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3) ....................................................................................... 29, 33
`
`Changes to Implement Inter Partes Review Proceedings, Post-Grant
`Review Proceedings, and Transitional Program for Covered Business
`Method Patents; Final Rule, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,680 (Aug. 14, 2012)
`(codified at C.F.R. tit. 37, ch. 1) ......................................................................5, 42
`
`Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756 (Aug. 14, 2012) .............28
`
`Transitional Program for Covered Business Method Patents—Definitions of
`Covered Business Method Patent and Technological Invention; Final Rule,
`77 Fed. Reg. 48,734 (Aug. 14, 2012) ..............................................................6, 28
`
`Legislative History
`
`157 Cong. Rec. S5432 (daily ed. Sept. 8, 2011) (statement of Sen. Schumer) ......... 6
`
`H. R. Rep. No. 112-98, pt. 1 (2011).........................................................................48
`
`
`
`vi
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Exhibit 2001
`
`Exhibit 2002
`
`Exhibit 2003
`
` Case CBM2015-00098
`Patent 5,940,510
`Attorney Docket No. 150326-001USCBM
`
`Order of Dismissal With Prejudice, Maxim Integrated
`Prods., Inc. v. Navy Fed. Credit Union, Civil Action
`No. 5:14-cv 01032-XR (W.D. Tex. May. 18, 2015)
`
`Confidential Settlement Agreement between Maxim
`Integrated Products and Navy Federal Credit Union
`
`Disclaimer in Patent Under 37 CFR 1.321(a), U.S. Pat.
`No. 5,940,510, cl. 2 (08/594,975 Jun. 19, 2015)
`
`Exhibit 2004
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,805,702 to Curry et al.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`vii
`
`
`
`

`

` Case CBM2015-00098
`Patent 5,940,510
`Attorney Docket No. 150326-001USCBM
`
`
`Mail Stop PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent & Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
`
`
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 323, America Invents Act of 2011 (“AIA”)
`
`§ 18(a)(1), and 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.207-208, the undersigned, on behalf of and acting
`
`in a representative capacity for patent owner, Maxim Integrated Products, Inc.
`
`(“Patent Owner” or “Maxim”), submits the following Preliminary Response to the
`
`Petition for covered business method patent review (“CBMR”) filed in the above-
`
`captioned proceeding by American Express Company, American Express Travel
`
`Related Services Company, Inc., Compass Bank, Discover Financial Services,
`
`Discover Bank, Discover Products Inc., Navy Federal Credit Union, and State
`
`Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (“Petitioners”) against United States
`
`Patent No. 5,940,510 (“the ’510 Patent” or “the Patent”).1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 Patent Owner and Navy Federal Credit Union (“NFCU”) have filed an unopposed
`
`joint motion to terminate the case as to NFCU. Paper 8 (June 1, 2015).
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`

`

` Case CBM2015-00098
`Patent 5,940,510
`Attorney Docket No. 150326-001USCBM
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`I.
`
`Petitioners filed this petition for covered business method patent review
`
`(“the Petition”), challenging claims 1 – 6 of the ’510 Patent, on March 6, 2015.
`
`Petition at (“Pet.”) 22. A Notice of Filing Date issued March 24, 2015.
`
`The Petition asserts standing on, inter alia, the ground that the Patent is a
`
`covered business method patent. Its standing arguments, for which Petitioner has
`
`the burden of proof, rest upon a single claim: namely, claim 2, the only claim cited
`
`and discussed in the Petition to support Petitioner’s argument that the ’510 Patent
`
`claims activities that are financial in nature. Pet. 11-15. Whatever merit
`
`Petitioners’ arguments based upon claim 2 may once have had, they are now of no
`
`avail to establish standing. Patent Owner has filed a statutory disclaimer removing
`
`claim 2 from the patent. Ex. 2003. The law is clear that no review can be
`
`instituted based on disclaimed claims. Consequently, the Board’s decision on
`
`institution must be based solely on the remaining claims—which the Petition did
`
`not even attempt to demonstrate supported standing. And for good reason: the
`
`remaining claims lack the claim 2 limitations relied upon by Petitioners, and no
`
`matter which claim is considered, the Patent does not satisfy either prong of the
`
`definition of a covered business method patent.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`

`

` Case CBM2015-00098
`Patent 5,940,510
`Attorney Docket No. 150326-001USCBM
`
`
`Accordingly, as was found in cases such as Salesforce.com, Inc. v.
`
`Applications in Internet Time LLC, CBM2014-00162, Paper 11 at 7-10 (P.T.A.B.
`
`Feb. 2, 2015) (per Pettigrew, APJ), and Google, Inc. v. SimpleAir, Inc., CBM2015-
`
`00019, Paper 11 at 14 (P.T.A.B. May 19. 2014) (per Arbes, APJ), Petitioners have
`
`not met their burden to demonstrate that the patent-at-issue is a covered business
`
`method patent.
`
`Even if the patent were eligible for covered business method review, the
`
`Petition asserts the wrong claim construction standard, and proposes redundant
`
`grounds of review that would be duplicative to grant.
`
`For all of these reasons, it is respectfully submitted that review on the
`
`proposed grounds in the Petition should be denied.
`
`II. THE ’510 PATENT HAS NOT BEEN SHOWN TO BE ELIGIBLE
`FOR COVERED BUSINESS METHOD PATENT REVIEW.
`
`It has not been shown, and cannot be shown, that the ’510 Patent is a
`
`covered business method patent.
`
`Petitioners’ arguments that the ’510 Patent is a covered business method
`
`patent are based on former claim 2. They cite no other claims in support of
`
`standing—except for a wholly conclusory, and wholly unsupported, assertion that
`
`“the claims” as a whole support standing. Petitioners’ token attempt to also rely on
`
`the manner in which Patent Owner has asserted the ’510 Patent in litigation is, as
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`

`

` Case CBM2015-00098
`Patent 5,940,510
`Attorney Docket No. 150326-001USCBM
`
`
`Petitioners themselves admit, an insufficient basis on which to find standing.
`
`Petitioners’ standing arguments cannot show eligibility, because claim 2 has been
`
`statutorily disclaimed and, therefore, no review may be instituted based on
`
`arguments premised on that claim.
`
`The Board’s decision in an earlier case finding standing for covered business
`
`method review of the ’510 Patent, and briefly instituting review of the patent, does
`
`not support a finding of standing. Like Petitioners’ arguments, that decision was
`
`based solely on claim 2, which no longer exists.
`
`Nor could Petitioners have shown eligibility for review on any other basis.
`
`The patent does not claim inventions directed to performing operations used in the
`
`practice, administration, or management of a financial product or service. It is also
`
`a patent for a technological invention—an innovative technical solution to a
`
`technical communication security problem. Accordingly, it does not meet either
`
`prong of the definition of covered business method patent
`
`Consequently, Petitioners have not satisfied the jurisdictional requirements
`
`for covered business method review.
`
`A.
`
`Petitioners Fail To Meet Their Burden To Demonstrate That The
`’510 Patent Is A Covered Business Method Patent.
`
`“Under § 18(a)(1)(E) of the AIA, the Board may institute a transitional
`
`proceeding only for a patent that is a [covered business method] patent.” J.P.
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`

`

` Case CBM2015-00098
`Patent 5,940,510
`Attorney Docket No. 150326-001USCBM
`
`
`Morgan Chase & Co. v. Intellectual Ventures II LLC, CBM2014-00160, Paper 11
`
`at 5 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 29, 2015) (per Busch, APJ). “Petitioner[s] bear[] the burden of
`
`demonstrating that the patent is a covered business method patent.” Google,
`
`CBM2015-00019, Paper 11 at 9 (citing 37 C.F.R. § 42.304(a)) (patent number
`
`omitted). This “showing can only be made through sufficient proof” advanced by
`
`Petitioners. Changes to Implement Inter Partes Review Proceedings, Post-Grant
`
`Review Proceedings, and Transitional Program for Covered Business Method
`
`Patents; Final Rule, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,680, 48,709 (Aug. 14, 2012) (codified at
`
`C.F.R. tit. 37, ch. 1). More specifically, Petitioner bears the burden of
`
`demonstrating that the ’510 Patent claims a method (or corresponding apparatus)
`
`“‘used in the practice, administration, or management of a financial product or
`
`service,’” and is not a patent to a technological invention. Par Pharm., Inc. v. Jazz
`
`Pharms., Inc., CBM2014-00149, Paper 12 at 9 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 13, 2015) (per
`
`Murphy, APJ) (quoting AIA § 18(d)(1)). Petitioners have not met this burden.
`
`1. Whether the ’510 Patent is a covered business method
`patent depends on what the Patent claims.
`
`Importantly, according to statute, a “‘covered business method patent’
`
`means a patent that claims a method or corresponding apparatus for performing
`
`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
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`

`

` Case CBM2015-00098
`Patent 5,940,510
`Attorney Docket No. 150326-001USCBM
`
`
`patents for technological inventions.”
`
` AIA § 18(d)(1) (emphasis added).
`
`“Determination of whether a patent is a covered business method patent will be
`
`made based on the claims.” Transitional Program for Covered Business Method
`
`Patents—Definitions of Covered Business Method Patent and Technological
`
`Invention; Final Rule, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,734, 48,736 (Aug. 14, 2012) (Response to
`
`Comment 8) (emphasis added); see also Par Pharm., CBM2014-00149, Paper 12
`
`at 9 (“In making this determination, our focus is firmly on the claims.”).
`
`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.’” [Transitional Program—
`
`Definitions, 77 Fed. Reg.] at 48,735 (emphasis added) (citing 157
`
`Cong. Rec. S5432 (daily ed. Sept. 8, 2011) (statement of Sen.
`
`Schumer)). When determining whether a patent qualifies covered
`
`business method patent review, the focus is on “what the patent
`
`claims.” Id. at 48,736.
`
`Google, CBM2015-00019, Paper 11 at 9-10 (emphasis in original); accord
`
`Salesforce.com, CBM2014-00162, Paper 11 at 7-8 (same with same emphasis).
`
`Arguments on other bases, such as the specification or the patent’s technology
`
`classification, cannot show eligibility except to the extent they “address the
`
`language of the claims,” Salesforce.com, CBM2014-00162, Paper 11 at 10, or
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`

`

` Case CBM2015-00098
`Patent 5,940,510
`Attorney Docket No. 150326-001USCBM
`
`
`“explain [the] relationship between the cited portions of the [s]pecification and the
`
`specific language of [the] claim[s], which is the focus of our inquiry,” Google,
`
`CBM2015-00019, Paper 11 at 11.
`
`2.
`
`Claim 2 is disclaimed and cannot be a basis for standing.
`
`In a covered business method patent review,
`
`[t]he patent owner may file a statutory disclaimer under 35 U.S.C. [§]
`
`253(a) in compliance with [37 C.F.R.] § 1.321(a), disclaiming one or
`
`more claims in the patent. No post-grant review will be instituted
`
`based on disclaimed claims.
`
`Id. § 42.207(e) (all emphasis added); see 37 C.F.R. § 42.300(a) (providing that
`
`§ 42.207(e) applies to covered business method patent review).
`
`On June 23, 2015, Patent Owner filed a statutory disclaimer under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 253(a) in compliance with § 1.321(a), disclaiming claim 2 in the ’510 Patent. As
`
`a result of this statutory disclaimer, the Board must
`
`treat the [’510] patent as though claim [2] never existed. See Vectra
`
`Fitness, Inc. v. TWNK Corp., 162 F.3d 1379, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 1998)
`
`(“This court has interpreted the term ‘considered as part of the
`
`original patent’ in section 253 to mean that the patent is treated as
`
`though the disclaimed claims never existed.”); Guinn v. Kopf, 96 F.3d
`
`1419, (Fed. Cir. 1996) (“A statutory disclaimer under 35 U.S.C. § 253
`
`has the effect of canceling the claims from the patent and the patent is
`
`viewed as though the disclaimed claims had never existed in the
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`

`

` Case CBM2015-00098
`Patent 5,940,510
`Attorney Docket No. 150326-001USCBM
`
`
`patent.”); see also Genetics Inst., LLC v. Novartis Vaccines &
`
`Diagnostics, Inc., 655 F.3d 1291, 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (holding that
`
`the Board’s interference jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 291 required
`
`“the existence of an interference, and a claim that ‘never existed’ [due
`
`to a statutory disclaimer] cannot form the basis for an interference”).
`
`Google, CBM2015-00019, Paper 11 at 14.
`
`In short, not only can no review be instituted of disclaimed claim 2; no
`
`review can “be instituted based on” claim 2. 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.207(e), 42.300(a).
`
`3.
`
`Petitioners’ arguments based on claim 2 cannot support
`standing.
`
`Petitioners assert that standing exists because “the ’510 Patent is directed to
`
`a financial product or service.” Pet. 13. Petitioners purport to cite three things for
`
`this proposition: “the claims, the specification, and the patent owner’s litigation
`
`history.” Id. However, Petitioners admit that the focus is on the claims, and cite
`
`and discuss only one of the claims: claim 2. Pet. 13-15. Because claim 2 has been
`
`disclaimed, it can no longer be the basis for a determination of CBM eligibility.
`
`Petitioner’s eligibility arguments based on claim 2 should be given no weight.
`
`Petitioners themselves admit that, for a patent to be eligible for covered
`
`business method patent review, “the patent must claim a method or corresponding
`
`apparatus for performing data processing or other operations used in the practice,
`
`administration, or management of a financial product or service,” “except that the
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`

`

` Case CBM2015-00098
`Patent 5,940,510
`Attorney Docket No. 150326-001USCBM
`
`
`term does not include patents for technological inventions,” Pet. 11 (emphasis
`
`added, citation omitted), and that “in determining whether a patent is eligible for
`
`CBMR, ‘the focus is on the claims,’” Pet. 14 (emphasis added) (quoting Agilysys,
`
`Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., CBM2014-00014, Paper 19 at 10 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 26, 2014)
`
`(per Rice, APJ)).
`
`It is arguably unsurprising that Petitioners rested their standing arguments on
`
`claim 2. Petitioners base their arguments on former claim 2’s recitation of “credit
`
`card reader, . . . cash machine, [and] automatic teller machine” limitations. Pet. 13.
`
`Claim 2, however, was the only claim that recited these limitations, and it has been
`
`removed from the ’510 Patent as if it never existed. Accordingly, Petitioner’s
`
`standing arguments based on claim 2 are not persuasive, and are entitled to no
`
`weight.
`
`The Board’s decision in Google, CBM2015-00019, is illustrative. The
`
`petition in Google pointed to one claim of the challenged patent that recited what
`
`were said to be clearly financial limitations. However, the Board responded that
`
`the Google patent owner had “statutorily disclaimed” that claim and removed that
`
`limitation from the patent claims. Id., Paper 11 at 14. The “[p]etitioner’s
`
`argument regarding” the disclaimed claim was “therefore . . . not persuasive.” Id.
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`

`

` Case CBM2015-00098
`Patent 5,940,510
`Attorney Docket No. 150326-001USCBM
`
`
`(emphasis added). The Board then denied the Google petitioner’s request for
`
`covered business method review. Id. at 15.
`
`In the present case, Petitioners’ only mention of the remaining claims in the
`
`patent for standing purposes, other than claim 2, is conclusory. Petitioners assert at
`
`one point that the “claims that are directed to the relevant embodiments of the
`
`specification” support their eligibility arguments. Pet. 14. This statement might
`
`suggest that Petitioners were presenting standing arguments based on “claims”
`
`other than claim 2. Significantly, however, it proves to be only a conclusion
`
`without supporting argument. Petitioners actually specifically cite only claim 2,
`
`and mention claim 1 only to note that claim 2 depends from it. Pet. 13. They
`
`never cite language in the remaining claims in support of their argument that the
`
`claims demonstrate standing, “or assert that any specific claim is directed to a
`
`covered business method.” Salesforce.com, CBM2014-00162, Paper 11 at 10.
`
`They do not explain how statements in the written description are linked to
`
`recitations in the remaining claims in any way that supports standing. And they do
`
`not explain how any recitations in the remaining claims “relate[] to the practice,
`
`administration, or management of a financial product or service, as required by
`
`section 18(d)(1) of the AIA.” Salesforce.com, CBM2014-00162, Paper 11 at 10
`
`(emphasis in original).
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`

`

` Case CBM2015-00098
`Patent 5,940,510
`Attorney Docket No. 150326-001USCBM
`
`
`This case is distinguishable from other cases in which a patent owner
`
`disclaimed one or more claims, but the petitioner used the disclaimed claim or
`
`claims merely as an example or examples, and articulated arguments that other
`
`claims were of a similar nature and independently supported standing. Compare,
`
`e.g., Interthinx, Inc. v. Corelogic Solutions, LLC, CBM2012-00007, Paper 15 at 6-
`
`7 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 31, 2013) (per McNamara, APJ) (finding that statutory disclaimer
`
`did not nullify CBM eligibility when the petitioner argued that “‘[o]ther claims of
`
`the . . . [p]atent [we]re of a similar nature” to the disclaimed claim and even had
`
`the same language identified by petitioner as being financial). Nor is this a case in
`
`which Petitioners present standing arguments based on the subject matter of all of
`
`the claims, including but not limited to the disclaimed claim. Compare, e.g.,
`
`Salesforce.com, CBM2014-00162, Paper 11 at 8 (denying standing, but declining
`
`to treat statutory disclaimer as dispositive because Petitioner’s arguments
`
`“appl[ied] more broadly to the subject matter of all the claims”). But even had
`
`Petitioners made arguments that applied more broadly to the subject matter of all
`
`the claims, the arguments would have been insufficient to show standing unless
`
`they had cited specific other claims and specific language of other claims. See,
`
`e.g., id. at 10-11 (finding no standing for review, and rejecting Petitioner’s
`
`standing arguments based on the remaining claims, which “d[id] not cite any claim
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`

`

` Case CBM2015-00098
`Patent 5,940,510
`Attorney Docket No. 150326-001USCBM
`
`
`language or assert that any specific claim [wa]s directed to a covered business
`
`method”). The remaining claims, however, have no “financial” limitations like the
`
`“cash,” “credit card,” and other limitations in claim 2 that were cited, quoted, and
`
`relied upon by Petitioners in support of standing. Therefore, Petitioners could not
`
`have based standing arguments on any such language in the remaining claims.
`
`That is why no such arguments were offered.
`
`Nor, therefore, is this a case in which the effect of a statutory disclaimer of a
`
`claim can be side-stepped because the petitioner made persuasive arguments based
`
`on the language of another claim that was not disclaimed. Compare Dell Inc. v.
`
`Disposition Servs. LLC, CBM2013-00040, Paper 7 at 8 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 5, 2014)
`
`(per. Clements, APJ) (declining to address the effect of statutory disclaimer on
`
`eligibility because petitioner’s detailed arguments on separate, non-disclaimed
`
`claim persuasively showed eligibility for CBM review). Instead, Petitioners
`
`presented standing arguments based on claim 2 alone, which has been disclaimed.
`
`4.
`
`Petitioners’ citations to the specification in r