Case CBM2015-00102
`Patent 6,237,095
`Attorney Docket No. 150326-003USCBM
`
`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 CBM2015-00102
`Patent 6,237,095
`____________
`
`PATENT OWNER MAXIM INTEGRATED PRODUCTS, INC.’S
`PRELIMINARY RESPONSE TO PETITION FOR COVERED BUSINESS
`METHOD PATENT REVIEW OF UNITED STATES PATENT NO.
`6,237,095 PURSUANT TO 35 U.S.C. § 323, 37 C.F.R. § 42.304
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
` Case CBM2015-00102
`Patent 6,237,095
`Attorney Docket No. 150326-003USCBM
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.  INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................. 2 
`II.  THE ’095 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 ’095 Patent Is A Covered Business Method Patent. .............................. 5 
`1.  Whether the ’095 Patent is a covered business method patent
`depends on what the Patent claims. ........................................................ 6 
`2.  Claim 7 is disclaimed and cannot be a basis for standing. ................... 11 
`3.  Petitioners’ arguments based on claim 7 cannot support standing....... 12 
`4.  Petitioners’ citations to the specification in reference to what
`the Patent claims do not support standing. ........................................... 20 
`5.  Assertion of the Patent against providers of financial products or
`services does not support standing. ...................................................... 22 
`6.  The Board’s institution decision in an earlier case based on a
`disclaimed claim in another patent does not support standing. ............ 24 
`B.  Even If Petitioners Had Not Forfeited Other Standing
`Arguments, They Could Not Have Shown The Patent Is
`Directed To Financial Activities. ................................................................ 26 
`1.  Standing must be based on what the patent claims, not what
`it discloses but does not claim. ............................................................. 27 
`2.  The Patent’s remaining claims are undisputedly not directed to
`financial activities. ................................................................................ 28 
`3.  The Office previously found that subject matter to which the
`Patent is directed is not directed towards financial activities. .............. 31 
`4.  The Board has found that claims with similar subject matter
`are not directed to financial activities. .................................................. 34 
`i
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
` Case CBM2015-00102
`Patent 6,237,095
`Attorney Docket No. 150326-003USCBM
`
`
`C.  Review Must Also Be Denied Because The Patent Is For A
`Technological Invention. ............................................................................ 36 
`1.  Petitioners’ attempts to show that the Patent does not claim
`a novel and unobvious technological feature instead
`confirm the opposite. ............................................................................ 39 
`a.  The claims are apparatus claims replete with
`technical features. ........................................................................ 40 
`b.  Petitioners fail to refute the intrinsic evidence of novelty
`and nonobviousness in technical features of the claims. ............. 40 
`c.  Petitioners fail to disprove the claimed technical features’
`novelty and nonobviousness individually. .................................. 43 
`d.  Petitioners fail to disprove the claimed technical features’
`novelty and nonobviousness collectively. ................................... 49 
`e.  Petitioners’ untested expert testimony does not eliminate
`these flaws. .................................................................................. 51 
`f.  Petitioners also fail to overcome the extrinsic evidence of
`novelty and nonobviousness. ....................................................... 51 
`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. 53 
`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. .................... 58 
`A.  Petitioners’ Unpatentability Arguments Cannot Be Fully Addressed
`At The Institution Stage. ............................................................................. 58 
`B.  The Petition Make Claim Construction Proposals Under An
`Incorrect Standard. ...................................................................................... 59 
`1.  The Patent will expire before any final written decision...................... 60 
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
` Case CBM2015-00102
`Patent 6,237,095
`Attorney Docket No. 150326-003USCBM
`
`
`
`2.  No claims will be added or amended. .................................................. 61 
`3.  The same construction standard should apply at institution
`as at trial. ............................................................................................... 62 
`IV. PETITIONERS PROPOSE REDUNDANT GROUNDS OF REVIEW. ... 65 
`A.  The Board Routinely Rejects Redundant Or Duplicative Grounds. ........... 66 
`B.  Proposed Ground I, Which Asserts A Base Reference Plus Three
`Different Combinations Against The Same Claims Without Identifying
`Deficiencies In The Base Reference, Is Vertically Redundant. .................. 68 
`C.  Proposed Ground II, Which Asserts The Base Reference Plus
`Three More Combinations, Still Without Identifying Deficiencies
`In The Base Reference, Is Likewise Vertically Redundant. ....................... 69 
`V.  CONCLUSION ................................................................................................ 70 
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
` Case CBM2015-00102
`Patent 6,237,095
`Attorney Docket No. 150326-003USCBM
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`
`
`Cases
`Acumed LLC v. Stryker Corp., 483 F.3d 800 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ................................ 16
`Cuozzo Speed Techs., In re, LLC, 778 F.3d 1271 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ......................... 61
`Curtiss-Wright Flow Control Corp. v. Velan, Inc., 438 F.3d 1374
`(Fed. Cir. 2006) .................................................................................................... 16
`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)....................................................................... 64
`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) ......................................................... 12
`InterDigital Communs., LLC v. ITC, 690 F.3d 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .................... 16
`Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) .................. 60, 64
`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) .................................................................................... 11
`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
`Wahpeton Canvas Co. v. Frontier, Inc., 870 F.2d 1546 (Fed. Cir. 1989) ............... 15
`
`
`
`iv
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
` Case CBM2015-00102
`Patent 6,237,095
`Attorney Docket No. 150326-003USCBM
`
`
`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) ....................................... 41
`Bloomberg L.P. v. Quest Licensing Corp., CBM2014-00205,
`Paper 16 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 7, 2015) (per Giannetti, APJ) .......................... 44, 49, 57
`Canon Inc. v. Intellectual Ventures I, LLC, IPR2014-00535 to
` -00537, Paper 9 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 24, 2014) (per Boucher, APJ) .......................... 66
`Cisco Sys., Inc. v. AIP Acquisition, LLC, IPR2014-00247, Paper 17
` (P.T.A.B. Jun. 26, 2014) (per Lee, APJ) ............................................................. 61
`Dell Inc. v. Disposition Servs. LLC, CBM2013-00040, Paper 7
` (P.T.A.B. Feb. 5, 2014) (per. Clements, APJ) .................................................... 20
`E*Trade Fin. Corp. v. Droplets, Inc., CBM2014-00123, Paper 15
` (P.T.A.B. Oct. 30, 2014) (per Gaudette, APJ) ....................................... 38, 43, 57
`Experian Mktg. Sols., Inc. v. RPost Commc’ns, Ltd., CBM2014-00010,
`Paper 20 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 22, 2014) (per Turner, APJ) ............................ 22, 50, 55
`Fujitsu Semiconductor Ltd. v. Zond, LLC, IPR2014-00863, Paper 11
`(P.T.A.B. Oct. 23, 2014) (per Turner, APJ) ........................................................ 67
`Google, Inc. v. SimpleAir, Inc., CBM2015-00019, Paper 11
` (P.T.A.B. May 19, 2014) (per Arbes, APJ) ......................... 3, 5, 7, 12, 14, 17, 18
`Groupon, Inc. v. Blue Calypso, LLC, CBM2013-00033, Paper 10
`(P.T.A.B. Dec. 19, 2013) (per Benoit, APJ) ........................................................ 41
`GSI Commerce Solutions, Inc. v. Arunachalam, CBM2014-00101,
`Paper 10 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 7, 2014) (per McNamara, APJ) .................................... 57
`HTC Corp. v. E-Watch, Inc., IPR2014-00987, Paper 10
`(P.T.A.B. Jan. 7, 2015) (per Clements, APJ) ....................................................... 67
`
`
`
`v
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
` Case CBM2015-00102
`Patent 6,237,095
`Attorney Docket No. 150326-003USCBM
`
`
`HTC Corp. v. E-Watch, Inc., IPR2014-00987, Paper 6
`(P.T.A.B. Dec. 9, 2014) (per Clements, APJ)...................................................... 67
`Informatica Corp. v. Protegrity Corp., CBM2015-00010, Paper 13
`(P.T.A.B. May 11, 2015) (per Petravick, APJ) .................................................... 21
`Innolux Corp. v. Semiconductor Energy Lab. Co. Ltd., IPR2013-00065,
`Paper 11 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 30, 2013) (per Turner, APJ) ......................................... 67
`Interthinx, Inc. v. Corelogic Solutions, LLC, CBM2012-00007,
`Paper 15 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 31, 2013) (per McNamara, APJ)................ 18, 41, 60, 61
`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) ... 25, 38
`LG Elecs., Inc. v. Straight Path IP Group, Inc., IPR2015-00196,
`Paper 20 (P.T.A.B. May 15, 2015) (per Deshpande, ALJ).................................. 62
`Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., CBM2012-00003,
`Paper 15 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 12, 2013) (per Lee, APJ) .............................................. 41
`Motorola Mobility LLC v. Intellectual Ventures I LLC, CBM2014-00083,
`Paper 17 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 6, 2014) (per Kokoski, APJ) ....................................... 50
`Motorola Mobility LLC v. Intellectual Ventures I LLC, CBM2015-00005,
`Paper 10 (Mar. 27, 2015) (per Kokoski, APJ) ..................................................... 22
`PNC Fin. Servs. Grp., Inc. v. Intellectual Ventures I LLC,
`CBM2014-00032, Paper 13 (P.T.A.B. May 22, 2014) (per Jung, APJ) ....... 23, 24
`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, 19, 27, 28
`Salesforce.com, Inc. v. VirtualAgility, Inc., CBM2013-00024,
`Paper 16 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 19, 2013) (per Braden, APJ) .......................... 22, 41, 59
`
`
`
`vi
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`
`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, 17
`Toyota Motor Corp. v. Am. Vehicular Scis. LLC, IPR2013-00421,
`Paper 15 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 13, 2014) (per Kim, APJ) ............................................. 67
`Travelocity.com L.P. v. Cronos Techs., LLC, CBM2014-00082,
`Paper 10 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 15, 2014) (per Arpin, APJ) ........................................... 62
`Volusion, Inc. v. Versata Software, Inc., CBM2013-00017, Paper 8
`(P.T.A.B. Oct. 24, 2013) (Blankenship, APJ) ..................................................... 22
`Statutes
`35 U.S.C. § 253 ........................................................................................................ 12
`35 U.S.C. § 253(a) ................................................................................................... 11
`35 U.S.C. § 291 ........................................................................................................ 12
`35 U.S.C. § 323 .......................................................................................................... 1
`35 U.S.C. § 324 ................................................................................................. 58, 63
`35 U.S.C. § 324(a) ................................................................................................... 58
`35 U.S.C. § 324(b) ................................................................................................... 58
`35 U.S.C. § 326(e) ................................................................................................... 63
`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, 21
`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) ............................................................................................... 59
`vii
`
`
`
` Case CBM2015-00102
`Patent 6,237,095
`Attorney Docket No. 150326-003USCBM
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
` Case CBM2015-00102
`Patent 6,237,095
`Attorney Docket No. 150326-003USCBM
`
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.207(e) ........................................................................................ 11, 18
`37 C.F.R. § 42.208 ..................................................................................................... 1
`37 C.F.R. § 42.208(c) ............................................................................................... 63
`37 C.F.R. § 42.301(b) .............................................................................................. 49
`37 C.F.R. § 42.301(b) ....................................................................................... 37, 49
`37 C.F.R. § 42.304 ................................................................................................... 26
`37 C.F.R. § 42.304(a) .......................................................................................... 5, 43
`37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3) ....................................................................................... 39, 50
`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, 59
`Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756 (Aug. 14, 2012) .............. 37
`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, 37
`Legislative History
`157 Cong. Rec. 1363 (daily ed. Mar. 8, 2011) (statement of Sen. Schumer) .......... 42
`157 Cong. Rec. S5432 (daily ed. Sept. 8, 2011) (statement of Sen. Schumer) ......... 7
`H. R. Rep. No. 112-98, pt. 1 (2011) ........................................................................ 65
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`viii
`
`
`
`
`

`
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Exhibit 2001
`
`Exhibit 2002
`
`Exhibit 2003
`
` Case CBM2015-00102
`Patent 6,237,095
`Attorney Docket No. 150326-003USCBM
`
`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. 6,237,095, cl. 7 (09/003,541 Jul. 8, 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 CBM2015-00102
`Patent 6,237,095
`Attorney Docket No. 150326-003USCBM
`
`
`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. 6,237,095
`
`(“the ’095 Patent” or “the Patent”).1
`
`
`
`
`
`1 This case has been terminated as to one former petitioner, Navy Federal
`
`Credit Union (“NFCU”). Paper 10 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 26, 2015).
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
` Case CBM2015-00102
`Patent 6,237,095
`Attorney Docket No. 150326-003USCBM
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`I.
`
`Petitioners filed this petition for covered business method patent review
`
`(“the Petition”), challenging claims 1 – 8 of the ’095 Patent, on March 23, 2015.
`
`Petition at (“Pet.”) 22. A Notice of Filing Date issued April 9, 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 the limitations of a single claim of the Patent:
`
`namely, claim 7, the only claim of the Patent whose limitations are cited and
`
`discussed in the Petition to support Petitioners’ argument that the Patent claims
`
`activities that are financial in nature. Pet. 9-14. Whatever merit Petitioners’
`
`arguments based upon claim 7 may once have had, they are now of no avail to
`
`establish standing. Patent Owner has filed a statutory disclaimer removing claim 7
`
`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
`
`denied because Petitioners have presented no standing arguments based on the
`
`
`
`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 CBM2015-00102
`Patent 6,237,095
`Attorney Docket No. 150326-003USCBM
`
`
`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 one of the eight challenged claims has 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 CBM2015-00102
`Patent 6,237,095
`Attorney Docket No. 150326-003USCBM
`
`
`II. THE ’095 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 ’095 Patent is a
`
`covered business method patent.
`
`Petitioners’ arguments that the ’095 Patent is a covered business method
`
`patent are based on the limitations of one former claim of the Patent: claim 7.
`
`They cite the language of 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 ’095 Patent in litigation is, as Petitioners themselves admit, an insufficient
`
`basis for standing. Petitioners’ standing arguments therefore cannot show
`
`eligibility, because claim 7 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 ’095 Patent). Not only was that decision about a different patent than the one
`
`at issue, but like Petitioners’ standing arguments applicable to the ’095 Patent
`
`itself, that decision was based solely on a claim that no longer exists.
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
` Case CBM2015-00102
`Patent 6,237,095
`Attorney Docket No. 150326-003USCBM
`
`
`Nor, if it were even necessary to reach the question, could Petitioners have
`
`shown eligibility for review on any other basis. The ’095 Patent does not claim
`
`inventions directed to performing operations used in the practice, administration,
`
`or management of a financial product or service, but claims inventions with
`
`broader, more generic utility. 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
`’095 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
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
` Case CBM2015-00102
`Patent 6,237,095
`Attorney Docket No. 150326-003USCBM
`
`
`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 ’095 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 ’095 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 CBM2015-00102
`Patent 6,237,095
`Attorney Docket No. 150326-003USCBM
`
`
`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 is eligible for covered
`business method patent review, the focus is on “what the patent
`claims.” Id. at 48,736.
`
`Google, CBM2015-00019, Paper 11 at 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 CBM2015-00102
`Patent 6,237,095
`Attorney Docket No. 150326-003USCBM
`
`
`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]”
`
`(emphases added). The statute does not require merely that a covered business
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
` Case CBM2015-00102
`Patent 6,237,095
`Attorney Docket No. 150326-003USCBM
`
`
`method patent is a patent that describes a method or apparatus for performing such
`
`operations, or a patent that claims a method or apparatus that it describes as useful
`
`for, among other things, 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 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 CBM2015-00102
`Patent 6,237,095
`Attorney Docket No. 150326-003USCBM
`
`
`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
`
`Thompson v. Cherokee Nation, 334 F.3d 1075, 1086 (Fed. Cir. 2003)
`
`(“[L]egislative history itself is not binding on an agency and does not have the
`
`force of law, for the Constitution is quite explicit about the procedure that
`
`Congress must follow in legislating.”) (citation and internal quotation marks
`
`omitted). In short, “courts have no authority to enforce a principle gleaned solely
`
`from legislative history that has no statutory reference point.” Shannon v. United
`
`States, 512 U.S. 573, 584 (1994) (citations, internal quotation marks, and alteration
`
`marks omitted). Here, Petitioners have not even mentioned legislative history in
`
`their argument, and therefore have not met their burd