Case CBM2015-00101
`Patent 6,105,013
`Attorney Docket No. 150326-002USCBM
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`COMPASS BANK, AMERICAN EXPRESS COMPANY, AMERICAN
`EXPRESS TRAVEL RELATED SERVICES COMPANY, INC.,
`DISCOVER FINANCIAL SERVICES, DISCOVER BANK, DISCOVER
`PRODUCTS INC., AND STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE
`INSURANCE COMPANY
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`MAXIM INTEGRATED PRODUCTS, INC.,
`Patent Owner
`____________
`
`Case CBM2015-00101
`Patent 6,105,013
`____________
`
`PATENT OWNER MAXIM INTEGRATED PRODUCTS, INC.’S
`PRELIMINARY RESPONSE TO PETITION FOR COVERED BUSINESS
`METHOD PATENT REVIEW OF UNITED STATES PATENT NO.
`6,105,013 PURSUANT TO 35 U.S.C. § 323, 37 C.F.R. § 42.304
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
` Case CBM2015-00101
`Patent 6,105,013
`Attorney Docket No. 150326-002USCBM
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.   INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................2  
`
`II.   THE ’013 PATENT HAS NOT BEEN SHOWN TO BE ELIGIBLE FOR
`COVERED BUSINESS METHOD PATENT REVIEW. .............................4  
`
`A.   Petitioners Fail To Meet Their Burden To Demonstrate That The ’013
`Patent Is A Covered Business Method Patent. .............................................5  
`
`1.   Whether the ’013 Patent is a covered business method patent depends
`on what the Patent claims. ......................................................................6  
`
`2.   Claim 14 (like claims 7 and 16) is disclaimed and cannot be a basis for
`standing. ...............................................................................................11  
`
`3.   Petitioners’ arguments based on claim 14 cannot support standing. ...12  
`
`4.   Petitioners’ citations to the specification in reference to what the Patent
`claims do not support standing. ............................................................18  
`
`5.   Assertion of the Patent against providers of financial products or
`services does not support standing. ......................................................20  
`
`6.   The Board’s institution decision in an earlier case based on a
`disclaimed claim in another patent does not support standing. ............22  
`
`B.   Even If Petitioners Had Not Forfeited Other Standing Arguments, They
`Could Not Have Shown The Patent Is Directed To Financial Activities. ..24  
`
`1.   Standing must be based on what the patent claims, not what it discloses
`but does not claim. ...............................................................................25  
`
`2.   The Patent’s remaining claims are undisputedly not directed to
`financial activities. ...............................................................................26  
`
`3.   The Office previously found that subject matter to which the Patent is
`directed is not directed towards financial activities. ............................28  
`
`4.   The Board has found that claims with similar subject matter are not
`directed to financial activities. .............................................................31  
`i
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
` Case CBM2015-00101
`Patent 6,105,013
`Attorney Docket No. 150326-002USCBM
`
`
`C.   Review Must Also Be Denied Because The Patent Is For A Technological
`Invention. ....................................................................................................33  
`
`1.   Petitioners’ attempts to show that the Patent does not claim a novel and
`unobvious technological feature instead confirm the opposite. ...........36  
`technical
`a.   The claims are apparatus claims replete with
`features. .......................................................................................37  
`b.   Petitioners fail to disprove the claimed technical features’
`novelty and nonobviousness individually. ...................................37  
`c.   Petitioners fail to disprove the claimed technical features’
`novelty and nonobviousness collectively. ....................................39  
`d.   Petitioners’ untested expert testimony does not eliminate these
`flaws. ...........................................................................................41  
`e.   Petitioners fail to refute the intrinsic evidence of novelty and
`nonobviousness in technical features of the claims. ...................42  
`f.   Petitioners also fail to overcome the extrinsic evidence of novelty
`and nonobviousness. ...................................................................46  
`
`the Patent does not solve a
`that
`2.   Petitioners do not show
`technical problem with a technical solution, and the Patent in fact uses
`both hardware and software to solve a technical communication
`problem. ...............................................................................................47  
`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. ....................52  
`
`A.   Petitioners’ Unpatentability Arguments Cannot Be Fully Addressed At The
`Institution Stage. .........................................................................................52  
`
`B.   The Petition Makes Incorrect Claim Construction Proposals. ...................53  
`
`Interpretation” Claim Construction
`1.   The “Broadest Reasonable
`Standard Should Not Apply In This Case. ...........................................53  
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
` Case CBM2015-00101
`Patent 6,105,013
`Attorney Docket No. 150326-002USCBM
`
`a.   The Patent will expire before any final written decision. ...........54  
`b.   No claims will be added or amended. .........................................55  
`c.   The same construction standard should apply at institution as at
`trial. .............................................................................................55  
`
`incorrect construction of “transaction
`2.   Petitioners propose an
`groups.” ................................................................................................59  
`
`their ordinary
`to
`terms should be construed according
`3.   Other
`meaning. ...............................................................................................60  
`IV.  PETITIONERS PROPOSE REDUNDANT GROUNDS OF REVIEW. ...60  
`
`A.   The Board Routinely Rejects Redundant Or Duplicative Grounds. ...........61  
`
`B.   Proposed Grounds I And II, Which Both Attack The Same Claims On The
`Same Statutory Basis, Are Redundant. .......................................................63  
`
`C.   Proposed Grounds III and IV are each vertically and horizontally
`redundant. ...................................................................................................64  
`V.   CONCLUSION ................................................................................................66  
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
` Case CBM2015-00101
`Patent 6,105,013
`Attorney Docket No. 150326-002USCBM
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`
`
`Cases  
`
`Cuozzo Speed Techs., In re, LLC, 778 F.3d 1271 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ........................55
`
`Donaldson Co., In re, 16 F.3d 1189 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (en banc) ........................9, 10
`
`Facebook, Inc. v. Pragmatus AV, LLC, 582 Fed. Appx. 864
`(Fed. Cir. 2014) (nonprecedential) ...............................................................58, 60
`
`Genetics Inst., LLC v. Novartis Vaccines & Diagnostics, Inc.,
`655 F.3d 1291 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ..........................................................................12
`
`Glaxo Operations UK, Ltd. v. Quigg, 894 F.2d 392 (Fed. Cir. 1990) ....................10
`
`Guinn v. Kopf, 96 F.3d 1419 (Fed. Cir. 1996) ........................................................11
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) ......53, 54, 57, 58
`
`Shannon v. United States, 512 U.S. 573 (1994) ......................................................10
`
`SRI Int’l, Inc. v. Matsushita Elec. Corp. of Am., 775 F.2d 1107
`(Fed. Cir. 1985) (en banc) ...................................................................................10
`
`Thompson v. Cherokee Nation, 334 F.3d 1075 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ............................10
`
`Vectra Fitness, Inc. v. TWNK Corp., 162 F.3d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 1998) ...................11
`
`Administrative Determinations
`
`Agilysys, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., CBM2014-00014, Paper 19
` (P.T.A.B. Mar. 26, 2014) (per Rice, APJ) ..........................................................13
`
`Bloomberg Inc., et al. v. Markets-Alert PTY Ltd., CBM2013-00005,
`Paper 18 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 29, 2013) (per Medley, APJ) .......................................44
`
`
`
`iv
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
` Case CBM2015-00101
`Patent 6,105,013
`Attorney Docket No. 150326-002USCBM
`
`
`Bloomberg L.P. v. Quest Licensing Corp., CBM2014-00205, Paper 16
` (P.T.A.B. Apr. 7, 2015) (per Giannetti, APJ) .........................................39, 40, 51
`
`Canon Inc. v. Intellectual Ventures I, LLC, IPR2014-00535 to
` -00537, Paper 9 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 24, 2014) (per Boucher, APJ) ....................61, 63
`
`Cisco Sys., Inc. v. AIP Acquisition, LLC, IPR2014-00247, Paper 17
` (P.T.A.B. Jun. 26, 2014) (per Lee, APJ) .............................................................55
`
`Dell Inc. v. Disposition Servs. LLC, CBM2013-00040, Paper 7
` (P.T.A.B. Feb. 5, 2014) (per. Clements, APJ) ..............................................17, 19
`
`E*Trade Fin. Corp. v. Droplets, Inc., CBM2014-00123, Paper 15
` (P.T.A.B. Oct. 30, 2014) (per Gaudette, APJ) ..................................35, 39, 43, 51
`
`Experian Mktg. Sols., Inc. v. RPost Commc’ns, Ltd., CBM2014-00010,
`Paper 20 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 22, 2014) (per Turner, APJ) ............................20, 41, 49
`
`FedEx Corp. v. Ronald A. Katz Tech. Licensing, L.P., CBM2015-00053,
`Paper 9 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 29, 2015) (per Wormmeester, APJ) ...............................17
`
`Fujitsu Semiconductor Ltd. v. Zond, LLC, IPR2014-00863, Paper 11
`(P.T.A.B. Oct. 23, 2014) (per Turner, APJ) ........................................................62
`
`Google, Inc. v. SimpleAir, Inc., CBM2015-00019, Paper 11
` (P.T.A.B. May 19, 2014) (per Arbes, APJ) .......................................3, 5, 7, 12, 14
`
`Groupon, Inc. v. Blue Calypso, LLC, CBM2013-00033, Paper 10
`(P.T.A.B. Dec. 19, 2013) (per Benoit, APJ) ........................................................44
`
`GSI Commerce Solutions, Inc. v. Arunachalam, CBM2014-00101,
`Paper 10 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 7, 2014) (per McNamara, APJ) ...................................51
`
`HTC Corp. v. E-Watch, Inc., IPR2014-00987, Paper 10
`(P.T.A.B. Jan. 7, 2015) (per Clements, APJ) .......................................................62
`
`HTC Corp. v. E-Watch, Inc., IPR2014-00987, Paper 6
`(P.T.A.B. Dec. 9, 2014) (per Clements, APJ) ......................................................62
`
`Informatica Corp. v. Protegrity Corp., CBM2015-00010, Paper 13
`(P.T.A.B. May 11, 2015) (per Petravick, APJ) ....................................................19
`
`
`
`
`
`v
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
` Case CBM2015-00101
`Patent 6,105,013
`Attorney Docket No. 150326-002USCBM
`
`
`Innolux Corp. v. Semiconductor Energy Lab. Co. Ltd., IPR2013-00065,
`Paper 11 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 30, 2013) (per Turner, APJ) ........................................62
`
`Interthinx, Inc. v. Corelogic Solutions, LLC, CBM2012-00007,
`Paper 15 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 31, 2013) (per McNamara, APJ) ...............15, 43, 54, 55
`
`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
`
`JP Morgan Chase & Co. v. Maxim Integrated Products, Inc.,CBM2014-00179,
`Paper 11 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 20, 2015) (per Begley, APJ) ......................22, 23, 35, 40
`
`LG Elecs., Inc. v. Straight Path IP Group, Inc., IPR2015-00196,
`Paper 20 (P.T.A.B. May 15, 2015) (per Deshpande, ALJ) ..................................56
`
`Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., No. CBM2012-00003,
`Paper 15 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 12, 2013) (per Lee, APJ) .............................................43
`
`Motorola Mobility LLC v. Intellectual Ventures I LLC, CBM2014-00083,
`Paper 17 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 6, 2014) (per Kokoski, APJ) ..................................40, 44
`
`Motorola Mobility LLC v. Intellectual Ventures I LLC, CBM2015-00005,
`Paper 10 (Mar. 27, 2015) (per Kokoski, APJ) ....................................................20
`
`PNC Fin. Servs. Grp., Inc. v. Intellectual Ventures I LLC, CBM2014-00032,
`Paper 13 (P.T.A.B. May 22, 2014) (per Jung, APJ) ......................................21, 22
`
`Salesforce.com, Inc. v. Applications in Internet Time LLC,
`CBM2014-00162, Paper 11 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 2, 2015)
`(per Pettigrew, APJ) ............................................................3, 7, 14, 15, 16, 25, 26
`
`Salesforce.com, Inc. v. VirtualAgility, Inc., CBM2013-00024, Paper 16
`(P.T.A.B. Nov. 19, 2013) (per Braden, APJ) ...........................................20, 44, 53
`
`Sony Corp. of Am. v. Network-1 Techs., Inc., CBM2015-00078, Paper 7
`(P.T.A.B. Jul. 1, 2015) (per Arbes, APJ) .........................................................8, 10
`
`Toyota Motor Corp. v. Am. Vehicular Scis. LLC, IPR2013-00421,
`Paper 15 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 13, 2014) (per Kim, APJ) .......................................62, 63
`
`
`
`vi
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
` Case CBM2015-00101
`Patent 6,105,013
`Attorney Docket No. 150326-002USCBM
`
`
`Travelocity.com L.P. v. Cronos Techs., LLC, CBM2014-00082,
`Paper 10 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 15, 2014) (per Arpin, APJ) ...........................................56
`
`Volusion, Inc. v. Versata Software, Inc., CBM2013-00017, Paper 8
`(P.T.A.B. Oct. 24, 2013) (Blankenship, APJ) ......................................................20
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 253 .......................................................................................................11
`
`35 U.S.C. § 253(a) ...................................................................................................11
`
`35 U.S.C. § 291 .......................................................................................................12
`
`35 U.S.C. § 323 .........................................................................................................1
`
`35 U.S.C. § 324 .................................................................................................52, 56
`
`35 U.S.C. § 324(a) ...................................................................................................52
`
`35 U.S.C. § 324(b) ...................................................................................................52
`
`35 U.S.C. § 326(e) ...................................................................................................57
`
`America Invents Act of 2011 § 18(a)(1) ...................................................................1
`
`America Invents Act of 2011 § 18(a)(1)(E) ..............................................................5
`
`America Invents Act of 2011 § 18(d)(1) .....................................................6, 8, 9, 19
`
`Regulations and Rulemaking
`
`37 C.F.R. § 1.321(a) ................................................................................................11
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.207 .....................................................................................................1
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.207(c) ..............................................................................................53
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.207(e) ..............................................................................................11
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.208 .....................................................................................................1
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.208(c) ..............................................................................................57
`
`
`
`vii
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
` Case CBM2015-00101
`Patent 6,105,013
`Attorney Docket No. 150326-002USCBM
`
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.300(a) ........................................................................................11, 12
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.301(b) ..............................................................................................40
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.301(b) ........................................................................................34, 40
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.304(a) ..........................................................................................5, 39
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3) .......................................................................................35, 40
`
`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) ......................................................................6, 53
`
`Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756 (Aug. 14, 2012) .............34
`
`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, 7, 11, 34
`
`Legislative History
`
`157 Cong. Rec. 1363 (daily ed. Mar. 8, 2011) (statement of Sen. Schumer) ..........44
`
`157 Cong. Rec. S5432 (daily ed. Sept. 8, 2011) (statement of Sen. Schumer) .........7
`
`H. R. Rep. No. 112-98, pt. 1 (2011) ........................................................................59
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`viii
`
`
`
`
`

`
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Exhibit 2001
`
`Exhibit 2002
`
`Exhibit 2003
`
` Case CBM2015-00101
`Patent 6,105,013
`Attorney Docket No. 150326-002USCBM
`
`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. 6,105,013, cls. 7, 14, 16 (09/041,190 Jul. 6, 2015)
`
`Exhibit 2004
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,805,702 to Curry et al.
`
`Exhibit 2005
`
`Exhibit 2006
`
`Exhibit 2007
`
`Exhibit 2008
`
`Disclaimer in Patent Under 37 CFR 1.321(a), U.S. Pat.
`No. 5,940,510, cl. 2 (08/594,975 Jun. 19, 2015)
`
`Restriction Requirement, U.S. Patent No. 5,805,702
`(08/595,014 Jul. 21, 1997)
`
`Originally-filed claims, U.S. Patent No. 5,805,702
`(08/595,014 Jan. 31, 1996)
`
`Hearing Transcript, In re Maxim Integrated Products,
`Inc., Misc. No. 12-244 (MDL No. 2354) (W.D. Pa.
`Mar. 20, 2013) (excerpt)
`
`ix
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
` Case CBM2015-00101
`Patent 6,105,013
`Attorney Docket No. 150326-002USCBM
`
`
`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 Compass Bank, American Express Company, American
`
`Express Travel Related Services Company, Inc., Discover Financial Services,
`
`Discover Bank, Discover Products Inc., and State Farm Mutual Automobile
`
`Insurance Company (“Petitioners”) against United States Patent No. 6,105,013
`
`(“the ’013 Patent” or “the Patent”).1
`
`
`
`
`
`1 This case has been terminated as to one former petitioner, Navy Federal
`
`Credit Union (“NFCU”). Paper 12 (Jun. 26, 2015).
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
` Case CBM2015-00101
`Patent 6,105,013
`Attorney Docket No. 150326-002USCBM
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`I.
`
`Petitioners filed this petition for covered business method patent review
`
`(“the Petition”), challenging claims 1 – 16 of the ’013 Patent, on March 23, 2015.
`
`Petition at (“Pet.”) 36, 55, 73, 77. A Notice of Filing Date issued April 3, 2015.
`
`Paper 3.
`
`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 of the Patent: namely, claim 14, the
`
`only claim of the Patent cited and discussed in the Petition to support Petitioners’
`
`argument that the Patent claims activities that are financial in nature. Pet. 9-13.
`
`Whatever merit Petitioners’ arguments based upon claim 14 may once have had,
`
`they are now of no avail to establish standing. Patent Owner has filed a statutory
`
`disclaimer removing claim 14 (as well as challenged claims 7 and 16) from the
`
`patent. Ex. 2003.2 The law is clear that no review can be instituted based on
`
`disclaimed claims. Consequently, the Board’s decision on institution must be
`
`
`
`2 More surprisingly, the Petition also based much of its standing argument
`
`on a claim of a different patent not at issue, namely former claim 2 of U.S. Patent
`
`No. 5,940,510. However, that claim too has been statutorily disclaimed. Ex. 2005.
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
` Case CBM2015-00101
`Patent 6,105,013
`Attorney Docket No. 150326-002USCBM
`
`
`denied because Petitioners have presented no standing arguments based on the
`
`remaining claims. And Petitioners did not attempt to demonstrate standing based
`
`on the remaining claims for good reason: the remaining claims lack the 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.
`
`Accordingly, Petitioners have received part of the relief they have requested,
`
`since three of the sixteen challenged claims have already been eliminated from the
`
`Patent; and, as has been 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.
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
` Case CBM2015-00101
`Patent 6,105,013
`Attorney Docket No. 150326-002USCBM
`
`
`II. THE ’013 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 ’013 Patent is a
`
`covered business method patent.
`
`Petitioners’ arguments that the ’013 Patent is a covered business method
`
`patent are based on one former claim of the Patent: claim 14. They cite no other
`
`claims in support of standing—except for the conclusory, unsupported assertion
`
`that “the claims” as a whole support standing. Petitioners’ token attempt to also
`
`rely on the manner in which Patent Owner asserts the ’013 Patent in litigation is, as
`
`Petitioners themselves admit, an insufficient basis for standing. Petitioners’
`
`standing arguments therefore cannot show eligibility, because claim 14 has been
`
`statutorily disclaimed, so no review may be instituted based on arguments
`
`premised on that claim.
`
`The Board’s decision in an earlier case involving a different patent, finding
`
`standing for covered business method review and briefly instituting review of that
`
`patent, does not support a finding of standing (even though Petitioners surprisingly
`
`cite and rely upon that decision heavily in their argument that standing exists for
`
`the ’013 Patent). Not only was that decision about a different patent than the one
`
`at issue, but like Petitioners’ standing arguments applicable to the ’013 Patent
`
`itself, that decision was based solely on a claim that no longer exists.
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
` Case CBM2015-00101
`Patent 6,105,013
`Attorney Docket No. 150326-002USCBM
`
`
`Nor, if it were even necessary to reach the question, could Petitioners have
`
`shown eligibility for review on any other basis. The ’013 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
`’013 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.
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
` Case CBM2015-00101
`Patent 6,105,013
`Attorney Docket No. 150326-002USCBM
`
`
`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 ’013 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 ’013 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
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
` Case CBM2015-00101
`Patent 6,105,013
`Attorney Docket No. 150326-002USCBM
`
`
`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
`
`“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.
`
`The fact that a claim may read on devices that “may have uses other than”
`
`those spelled out in the claim, “such as uses pertaining to banking, does not mean
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
` Case CBM2015-00101
`Patent 6,105,013
`Attorney Docket No. 150326-002USCBM
`
`
`that [the claim] ‘covers’ such activities for purposes of whether Congress’
`
`definition of covered business method patent is satisfied. Sony Corp. of Am. v.
`
`Network-1 Techs., Inc., CBM2015-00078, Paper 7 at 11-12 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 1, 2015)
`
`(per Arbes, APJ). That is true regardless whether the patent specification mentions
`
`that some of the inventions disclosed in the patent can—or even should—be used
`
`in relation to financial products or services—if the claims themselves nowhere
`
`contain such limitations.
`
`[A contrary] position, in essence, would mean that any patent
`claiming something that can be used in connection with a financial
`service (e.g., an Ethernet cable, a generic computer monitor, or even a
`ball point pen) would be eligible for covered business method patent
`review, regardless of what the patent claims. We are not persuaded
`that [such a] position is consistent with the statutory language, which
`requires [the Board] to focus on what the challenged patent claims.
`
`Id. at 12 (emphases added).
`
`
`
`Importantly, Congress’ instruction in AIA § 18(d)(1) that a “‘covered
`
`business method patent’ means a patent that claims a method or corresponding
`
`apparatus for performing . . . operations used in the practice, administration, or
`
`management of a financial product or service” (emphasis added) is unambiguous:
`
`such an “apparatus for performing [such] operations” must be “claim[ed].” The
`
`statute does not require merely that a covered business method patent is a patent
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
` Case CBM2015-00101
`Patent 6,105,013
`Attorney Docket No. 150326-002USCBM
`
`
`that describes a method or apparatus for performing such operations, or a patent
`
`that claims a method or apparatus that might be useful in performing such
`
`operations: it requires the patent to claim a method or corresponding apparatus for
`
`performing such operations.
`
`A patent that claims an apparatus that is not limited to “operations used in
`
`the practice, administration, or management of a financial product or service,” but
`
`that contains statements in the written description indicating that the claimed
`
`inventions could be used “for performing” such operations, is not a patent that
`
`claims a method or corresponding apparatus for performing such operations—it is
`
`just the opposite. To hold statements found merely in the specification of a patent
`
`that are about such operations, but that are not reflected in real limitations of the
`
`claims, would contradict Congress’ command.
`
`The various snippets of legislative history, such as statements by individual
`
`Senators, that exist in reference to the bills that became the AIA, cannot limit or
`
`contradict the plain meaning of the language in § 18(d)(1). As the Board’s
`
`reviewing Court has repeatedly emphasized, “[w]hen statutory interpretation is at
`
`issue, the plain and unambiguous meaning of a statute prevails in the absence of
`
`clearly expressed legislative intent to the contrary,” In re Donaldson Co., 16 F.3d
`
`1189, 1192-1193 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (en banc), and “an extraordinary showing of
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
` Case CBM2015-00101
`Patent 6,105,013
`Attorney Docket No. 150326-002USCBM
`
`
`contrary intentions” on Congress’ part must be shown to depart from or limit the
`
`plain meaning, Glaxo Operations UK, Ltd. v. Quigg, 894 F.2d 392, 396 (Fed. Cir.
`
`1990) (internal quotation marks omitted) (emphasis in original); see also
`
`Thomp