Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
` Paper No. 16
` Entered: November 19, 2013
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`SALESFORCE.COM, INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`VIRTUALAGILITY, INC.
`Patent Owner
`____________
`
`Case CBM2013-00024
`Patent 8,095,413
`____________
`
`Before JAMESON LEE, ADAM V. FLOYD, and
`GEORGIANNA W. BRADEN, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`BRADEN, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Covered Business Method Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.208
`
`
`Page 00001
`
`Apple Exhibit 1014
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
` Paper No. 16
` Entered: November 19, 2013
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`SALESFORCE.COM, INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`VIRTUALAGILITY, INC.
`Patent Owner
`____________
`
`Case CBM2013-00024
`Patent 8,095,413
`____________
`
`Before JAMESON LEE, ADAM V. FLOYD, and
`GEORGIANNA W. BRADEN, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`BRADEN, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Covered Business Method Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.208
`
`
`Page 00001
`
`Apple Exhibit 1014
`
`
`
`Case CBM2013-00024
`Patent 8,095,413
`
`
`Petitioner, Salesforce.com, Inc., filed a petition (Paper 4) (“Pet.”) to
`
`institute a covered business method review of claims 1-21 of U.S. Patent No.
`
`8,095,413 (“the ’413 patent”) pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 321 et seq. Patent
`
`Owner, VirtualAgility, Inc., filed a preliminary response (Paper 13)
`
`(“Prelim. Resp.”). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 324.1
`
`The standard for instituting a covered business method review is set
`
`forth in 35 U.S.C. § 324(a):2
`
`THRESHOLD—The Director may not authorize a post-
`grant review to be instituted unless the Director determines that
`the information presented in the petition filed under section
`321, if such information is not rebutted, would demonstrate that
`it is more likely than not that at least 1 of the claims challenged
`in the petition is unpatentable.
`
`Petitioner challenges claims 1-21 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§§ 101, 102, and 103. Pet. 1, 3-4.
`
`Upon consideration of the petition and preliminary response, we grant
`
`the petition, because Petitioner has demonstrated that claims 1-21 are, more
`
`likely than not, unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102, and 103.
`
`
`
`I. BACKGROUND
`
`A. The ’413 Patent (Ex. 1001)
`
`The ’413 patent, titled “Process Management Information,” issued on
`
`
`1 See Section 18(a) of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, Pub. L. 112-
`29, 125 Stat. 284, 329 (2011) (“AIA”).
`
` 2
`
` See Section 18(a)(1) of the AIA, which provides that the transitional
`program for covered business method patents will be regarded as a post-
`grant review under chapter 32 of title 35 United States Code and will employ
`the standards and procedures of a post-grant review, subject to certain
`exceptions.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`Page 00002
`
`
`
`Case CBM2013-00024
`Patent 8,095,413
`
`January 10, 2012. The ’413 patent issued from Application 09/312,740,
`
`filed May 14, 1999, which claims priority to Provisional Application
`
`60/133,152, filed on May 7, 1999.
`
`The disclosed invention of the ’413 patent is directed generally to a
`
`method and apparatus for managing collaborative activity (e.g., strategic
`
`planning and project management). Ex. 1001, col. 1, ll. 32-33, col. 5, ll. 25-
`
`31. To aid in the management of collaborative activity, a computer database
`
`is created with data, and the data represents models of the collaborative
`
`activity. Ex. 1004, p. 0116. The models, which include model entities, are
`
`then arranged into hierarchies, and the data regarding collaborative activity
`
`can be shared between different people. Ex. 1001, col. 1, ll. 27-31; col. 5, ll.
`
`25-33.
`
`For one embodiment, the Specification describes a method of
`
`acquiring a first set of data that can represent a first model entity. Ex. 1001,
`
`col. 2, ll. 50-54. The first model entity can represent an organization of
`
`people (id. at col. 2, ll. 39-40), customer relationships (id. at col. 2, ll. 51-
`
`52), a program management office (id. at col. 3, ll. 38-39), or a scalable
`
`process (id. at col. 4, ll. 29-30). The first set of data includes “fundamental
`
`components.” id. at col. 2, ll. 41-42. These “fundamental components” can
`
`include data related to customer information (id. col. 2, ll. 62-67), company
`
`capability information (id. at col. 3, ll. 16-26), or economic information (id.
`
`at col. 3, ll. 25-34; col. 3, l. 65—col. 4, l. 4; col. 4, ll. 15-20). The data can
`
`also be a list of goals for an organization or for a project. Id. at col. 5, ll. 42-
`
`44.
`
`The method associates the first set of data (i.e., first model entity)
`
`with a second set of data. The second set of data represents a second model
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`Page 00003
`
`
`
`Case CBM2013-00024
`Patent 8,095,413
`
`entity, and the second model entity represents a portfolio of management
`
`concepts. Id. at col. 2, ll. 43-44. The first model entity can be associated
`
`with the second model entity so that the two model entities are considered
`
`related. Id.
`
`The model entities are organized into a plurality of hierarchies, and a
`
`model can belong to more than one hierarchy. Id. at col. 9, ll. 33-37; col. 11,
`
`ll. 12-14; claims 1 and 8. The hierarchies provide different contexts through
`
`which users may view and access model entities. Ex. 1004, 0016.
`
`According to the Specification, examples of such hierarchies include a
`
`priority of goals handled by the manager module. Ex. 1001, col. 5, l. 44—
`
`col. 6, l. 58. Figure 1 of the ’413 patent is reproduced below:
`
`
`
`Figure 1 of the ’413 patent, reproduced above, illustrates the basic
`
`structure of a suite of modules, including (i) functions performed by a
`
`manager module and (ii) pathways to other modules in the system.
`
`Ex. 1001, col. 8, ll. 30-33. According to the ’413 patent, the manager
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`Page 00004
`
`
`
`Case CBM2013-00024
`Patent 8,095,413
`
`module can be used to manage a project, organize project goals, and allocate
`
`resources for a project. Id. at col. 5, l. 49—col. 6, l. 32.
`
`The ’413 patent also discloses facilitating strategic planning by
`
`employing a company comparison module and a baseline module that would
`
`facilitate users setting new goals, displaying already existing goals, and/or
`
`identifying and developing potential new goals. Ex. 1001, col. 10, ll. 11-44.
`
`The manager module, described above, keeps a hierarchy of goals and
`
`contributing goals in constant view and up-to-date with changing
`
`circumstances. Figure 3 of the ’413 patent is reproduced below:
`
`
`
`As shown in Figure 3, reproduced above, the goal hierarchy can
`
`illustrate an organization’s total goals and any contributing goals affecting
`
`the enterprise, or the goal hierarchy can illustrate an organization’s
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`Page 00005
`
`
`
`Case CBM2013-00024
`Patent 8,095,413
`
`priorities, such as top goals (see FIG. 14) or specific goal (see FIG. 15).
`
`Ex. 1001, col. 11, ll. 12-18. According to the ’413 patent, if an organization
`
`is addressing budget issues, then a user can use the claimed method to sort
`
`by goal or project cost (see FIG. 19), or by priority or return on investment
`
`(“payback”) (see FIG. 20). Id. at col. 11, ll. 27-31. The sorted information
`
`can be provided to help the user decide where to commit resources based on
`
`factors such as benefit and risk. Id.
`
`According to the Specification, once data regarding project goals or
`
`cost have been loaded into a model entity, the information can be presented
`
`as a goal or cost hierarchy. This hierarchy can be used in different ways.
`
`For example, once the data is available, a user can readily access financial
`
`information, such as (i) the cost of or investment in each particular goal or
`
`initiative, (ii) the economic return anticipated for achievement of the particular
`
`goal or initiative, (iii) the ratio of return on investment, or (iv) the potential
`
`profit or loss of a scalable process. Ex. 1001, col. 5, ll. 5-8; col. 14, ll. 21-29.
`
`Such information allows people within the organization to assess the relative
`
`value of one goal versus another. Id. at col. 14, ll. 30-31.
`
`A major purpose of the ’413 invention is to aid an organization in the
`
`planning and managing of goals and projects. Ex. 1001, col. 11, ll. 63-65.
`
`The claimed invention aims to achieve this purpose by facilitating the listing
`
`of goals in a hierarchy and allowing information regarding goals (allocated
`
`resources, time lines, progress reports, costs, etc.) to be readily available to
`
`multiple individuals within the organization. Id. at col. 11, l. 65; col. 12, ll.
`
`4-16.
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`Page 00006
`
`
`
`Case CBM2013-00024
`Patent 8,095,413
`
`
`C. Exemplary Claims
`
`Claims 1, 7, 8, and 20 are independent claims, of which claims 1 and
`
`8 are representative and reproduced below:
`1. A system for supporting management of a collaborative activity
`by persons involved therein, the persons not being specialists in
`information technology, the system being implemented using a
`processor and a storage device accessible to the processor, and
`the system comprising:
`
` a
`
` representation of a model of the collaborative activity in the
`storage device, the model of the collaborative activity including
`model entities,
`the model entities providing access
`to
`information concerning
`the collaborative activity, being
`organized into a plurality of hierarchies having a plurality of
`types, and a given model entity being capable of simultaneously
`belonging to a hierarchy having one of the types and a
`hierarchy having another of the types; and
`
`said processor being configured to provide a graphical user
`interface to a person of the persons for providing outputs to the
`person and responding to inputs from the person by performing
`operations on a model entity as limited by a type of access
`which the person has to the model entity,
`
`the operations including controlling access to the model entity,
`creating, modifying, and/or deleting the model entity, assigning
`the model entity to a location in a hierarchy, accessing and/or
`modifying the information concerning the collaborative activity
`via the model entity, viewing model entities as ordered by a
`hierarchy to which the entities belong, and viewing model
`entities as ordered by a value in the information concerning the
`collaborative activity to which the entities give access.
`
`
`8. A method of supporting management of a collaborative activity
`by persons involved therein, the persons not being specialists in
`information technology and the method being performed in a
`system which includes a processor and a storage device
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`Page 00007
`
`
`
`Case CBM2013-00024
`Patent 8,095,413
`
`
`accessible to the processor, the storage device containing a
`model of the collaborative activity, the model including
`representations of model entities, a given representation of a
`model entity being capable of simultaneously belonging to
`hierarchies including a hierarchy and another hierarchy, and the
`representations of model entities providing access
`to
`information relating to the collaborative activity, the processor
`providing an interface for a person of the persons, and the
`method comprising the steps performed in the system of:
`
`receiving a definition of a model entity belonging to the model
`of the collaborative activity from a person of the persons via the
`interface and responding thereto by producing a representation
`of the model entity in the storage device; and
`
`receiving a first indication of a first hierarchical relationship
`between the model entity and another model entity belonging to
`the hierarchy from the person via the interface and responding
`thereto by relating the model entity to the other model entity in
`the hierarchy and
`
`indication of a second hierarchical
`receiving a second
`relationship between the model entity and a third model entity
`belonging to the other hierarchy from the person via the
`interface and responding thereto by relating the model entity to
`the third model entity in the other hierarchy.
`
`D. Prior Art Relied Upon
`
`Petitioner relies upon the following references:3
`
`Lowery
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Ito
`
`
` Managing Projects with
` Microsoft® Project 4.0
` For Windows™ and
` Macintosh®, Wiley & Sons, Inc.
`
`
`
`
` U.S. Patent No. 5,761,674
`
`1994
`
`
`
`Ex. 1005
`
`Jun. 2, 1998
`
`Ex. 1007
`
`
`3 Petitioner also relies on the declaration of Peter Alexander, Ph.D. (Ex.
`1002).
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`Page 00008
`
`
`
`Case CBM2013-00024
`Patent 8,095,413
`
`
`E. Alleged Grounds of Unpatentability
`
`Petitioner alleges the following grounds of unpatentability:
`
`Reference(s)
`
`Basis
`
`Not applicable
`Lowery
`Ito
`Lowery and Ito
`
`
`
` § 101
`§ 102(a)
`§ 102(a)
`§ 103(a)
`
`F. Related Proceedings
`
`Claims
`Challenged
`1-21
`1-21
`1-21
`1-21
`
`The ’413 patent is involved currently as an asserted patent in the
`
`following district court litigation: VirtualAgility, Inc. v. Salesforce.com, Inc.,
`
`et al., E.D. Tex. (Marshall Division), Case No. 2:13-cv-00011 (filed January
`
`4, 2013). Pet. 10.
`
`
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`
`A. Whether the ’413 Patent is a Covered Business Method Patent
`
`Section 18 of the AIA provides for the creation of a transitional
`
`program for reviewing covered business method patents. Section 18 limits
`
`reviews to persons, or their privies, that have been sued or charged with
`
`infringement of a “covered business method patent.” AIA §§ 18(a)(1)(B),
`
`18(d)(1); see 37 C.F.R. § 42.302(a). It is undisputed that Petitioner has been
`
`sued for infringement of the ’413 patent. The only dispute is whether the
`
`’413 patent is a “covered business method patent,” as defined in the AIA.
`
`See Pet. 6-10; Prelim. Resp. 15-30. For the reasons explained below, we
`
`conclude that the ’413 patent is a “covered business method patent.”
`
`1. Financial Product or Service
`
`A “covered business method patent” is a patent that “claims a method
`
`or corresponding apparatus for performing data processing or other
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`Page 00009
`
`
`
`Case CBM2013-00024
`Patent 8,095,413
`
`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); see 37 C.F.R. § 42.301(a). For
`
`purposes of determining whether a patent is eligible for a covered business
`
`method (“CBM”) patent review, the focus is on the claims. See 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.301(a), definition of CBM patent; see also 77 Fed. Reg. 48734, 48736
`
`(Aug. 14, 2012) Response to Comments on Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,
`
`response to comment 8. A single eligible claim qualifies a patent for CBM
`
`patent review. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.301(a).
`
`In promulgating rules for CBM review, the Office considered the
`
`legislative intent and history behind the AIA’s definition of “covered
`
`business method patent.” See 37 C.F.R. § 42.301(a), definition of CBM
`
`patent; see also 77 Fed. Reg. 48734, 48736 (Aug. 14, 2012) Response to
`
`Comments on Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, responses to comments 3
`
`and 5. 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.” See 157 Cong. Rec. S5432 (daily ed.
`
`Sept. 8, 2011) (statement of Sen. Schumer). The statements of Senator
`
`Schumer indicate that “financial product or service” should be interpreted
`
`broadly. Id.
`
`Claim 8 is directed to a method for supporting management of a
`
`collaborative activity using a system that includes a processor, a storage
`
`device, and an interface provided by the processor. The method includes the
`
`steps of:
`(i)
`
`
`
`receiving a definition of a model entity and responding to the
`
`10
`
`
`Page 00010
`
`
`
`Case CBM2013-00024
`Patent 8,095,413
`
`
`definition of a model entity by producing a representation of the
`
`model entity,
`
`(ii)
`
`receiving a first indication of a hierarchical relationship
`
`between the model entity and another model entity belonging to
`
`a hierarchy and relating the model entity to another model
`
`entity in the hierarchy, and
`
`(iii)
`
`receiving a second indication of a second hierarchical
`
`relationship between the model entity and a third model entity
`
`belonging to a hierarchy and relating the model entity to the
`
`third model entity in the hierarchy.
`
`Although claim 8 does not expressly refer to financial activity, such as
`
`those described in the Specification, the claimed method has particular
`
`application involving financial activities. The Specification discloses that
`
`the method can be used to evaluate: (i) budgeting issues, (ii) the cost of or
`
`investment in each particular goal or initiative, (iii) the economic return
`
`anticipated for achievement of the particular goal or initiative, (iv) the ratio
`
`of return on investment, or (v) the potential profit or loss of a scalable
`
`process. Ex. 1001, col. 5, ll. 5-8; col. 14, ll. 21-29. When applied to the
`
`activities listed above, and based on the legislative history that a covered
`
`business method patent is to cover activities that are financial in nature, the
`
`method of claim 8 represents a financial product or service used by an
`
`organization, which allegedly improves the financial health of the
`
`organization.
`
`According to Petitioner, the ’413 patent is a covered business method
`
`patent, because it claims methods and apparatus used in the practice,
`
`administration, or management of a financial product or service, including
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`Page 00011
`
`
`
`Case CBM2013-00024
`Patent 8,095,413
`
`activities that are financial in nature, incidental to a financial activity, or
`
`complementary to a financial activity. Pet. 7. The Specification discloses
`
`the management and modeling of “collaborative activity” that can include
`
`financial aspects or activities of an organization. Ex. 1001, col. 11, ll. 27-31;
`
`Figures 19-22. Several examples from the Specification, which can be
`
`implemented by the method of claim 8, are reproduced below:
`
`[I]f the topic is budgets, the user can sort by goal or project cost
`(see FIG. 19), or by priority or return on investment (“payback”)
`(see FIG. 20) and can be provided with information that can help
`the user decide where to commit resources based on factors such
`as benefit and risk.
`
`Ex. 1001, col. 11, ll. 27-31; Figs. 19-20 (emphasis omitted).
`
`include an economics
`The fundamental components may
`component . . . [which] may include a description of a profit and
`loss aspect of the scalable process or a description of an
`investments aspect of the scalable process.
`
`Id. at col. 5, ll. 1-8.
`
`[A] user can readily access financial information related to
`decision making and priorities . . . . economic return anticipated
`for achievement of the particular goal or initiative.
`
`Id. at col. 14, ll. 21-27.
`
`Access to information, such as that described above, that is organized in
`
`a usable manner allows people within the organization to assess the relative
`
`value of one goal versus another or the potential profit or loss of a project. Ex.
`
`1001, col. 14, ll. 29-31; col. 5, ll. 1-8. The Specification discloses that the
`
`hierarchy organization allows goals or initiatives to be sorted by category, such
`
`as costs, thereby helping people decide whether the level of investment
`
`required can be afforded. Id. at col. 16, ll. 48-53. Additionally, according to
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`Page 00012
`
`
`
`Case CBM2013-00024
`Patent 8,095,413
`
`the Specification, the claimed invention allows management teams “to
`
`quickly plan, design, and work on a common portfolio of strategic goals and
`
`initiatives” in order “make the business grow and prosper.” Id. at col. 5,
`
`ll. 28-31.
`
`Based on the foregoing examples noted by Petitioner and the language of
`
`claim 8, the Board is persuaded that claim 8 recites a method for performing
`
`data processing or other operations, used in the practice, administration, or
`
`management of a financial product or service, as required by Section
`
`18(d)(1) of the AIA.
`
`Patent Owner contends that Congress intended covered business
`
`method reviews to apply only to a “narrow range of patents,” relying on
`
`various statements in the legislative history of the AIA. Prelim. Resp. 15-
`
`25. In particular, Patent Owner asserts that “Congress expressly chose not to
`
`make all patents that cover methods that can be used by a business available
`
`for CBM review, but only those directly related to financial products or
`
`services” used in the financial services industry. Id. at 16.
`
`The Board is not persuaded by Patent Owner’s contention, because
`
`the legislative history indicates that the phrase “financial product or service”
`
`is not limited to the products or services directly related to the financial
`
`services industry and is to be interpreted broadly. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.301(a),
`
`definition of covered business method patent. Senator Schumer, for
`
`example, stated:
`
`Nothing in the America Invents Act limits use of section
`18 to banks, insurance companies or other members of the
`financial services industry. Section 18 does not restrict itself to
`being used by petitioners whose primary business is financial
`products or services. Rather, it applies to patents that can
`apply to financial products or services.
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`Page 00013
`
`
`
`Case CBM2013-00024
`Patent 8,095,413
`
`157 Cong. Rec. S5432 (daily ed. Sept. 8, 2011) (statement of Sen. Schumer)
`
`(emphasis added). Although the claims of the ’413 patent do not recite
`
`elements directly related only to a financial services business, the
`
`Specification describes application of the claimed method to activities that
`
`are financial in nature.
`
`Patent Owner further argues that a determination that the ’413 patent
`
`is a covered business method patent would contravene the intent of Congress
`
`when it enacted the AIA. Patent Owner further contends that such a
`
`determination would give the phrase “financial products and services” a
`
`different meaning depending on the implemented procedure, which could
`
`result in inconsistent, even irreconcilable, administration of the same statute
`
`by the same agency. Prelim. Resp. 18. Patent Owner’s argument is not
`
`persuasive. The Board reviews each petition based on its own facts, and
`
`construes each claim in the context of the specification of the particular
`
`involved patent. A specification that describes no financial product or
`
`service application is different from a specification that does describe such
`
`an application. Here, as discussed above, the Specification describes
`
`applying the invention as a financial product or service for use by an
`
`organization to improve the financial health of the organization.
`
`Patent Owner finally argues that the ’413 patent is not a covered
`
`business method patent, because the claimed invention is not limited to use
`
`in a business, but is applicable to any collaborative activity. Id. at 23.
`
`According to Patent Owner, the Specification of the ’413 patent makes clear
`
`that the inventor contemplated applying the invention in non-business
`
`contexts such as universities, government agencies, and social and political
`
`organizations. Id. at 20 (citing Ex. 1001, col. 2, ll. 23-27). However, the
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`Page 00014
`
`
`
`Case CBM2013-00024
`Patent 8,095,413
`
`question is not whether the claimed invention only has application in
`
`business contexts, but whether the claimed invention is a method or
`
`apparatus for performing data processing or other operations used in the
`
`practice, administration, or management of a financial product or service,
`
`technological inventions excepted.
`
`The Patent Owner’s argument is not persuasive. As discussed above,
`
`the ’413 patent discloses use of the claimed method and apparatus for the
`
`practice, administration, or management of collaborative activity that can
`
`include financial aspects or activities of an organization. See Ex. 1001, col.
`
`5, ll. 1-8; col. 11, ll. 27-31; col. 14, ll. 21-31; Figs. 19-20.
`
`For the reasons stated above, and based on the particular facts of this
`
`proceeding, we conclude that claim 8 of the ’413 patent meets the “financial
`
`product or service” component of the definition in Section 18(d)(1) of the
`
`AIA.
`
`2. Technological Invention
`
`The definition of “covered business method patent” in Section
`
`18(d)(1) of the AIA excludes patents for “technological inventions.” To
`
`determine whether a patent is for a technological invention, we consider
`
`“[w]hether the claimed subject matter as a whole recites a technological
`
`feature that is novel and unobvious over the prior art; and solves a technical
`
`problem using a technical solution.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.301(b). The following
`
`claim drafting techniques, for example, typically do not render a patent a
`
`“technological invention”:
`
`(a) Mere recitation of known technologies, such as
`computer hardware, communication or computer networks,
`software, memory, computer-readable
`storage medium,
`scanners, display devices or databases, or specialized machines,
`such as an ATM or point of sale device.
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`Page 00015
`
`
`
`Case CBM2013-00024
`Patent 8,095,413
`
`
`(b) Reciting the use of known prior art technology to
`accomplish a process or method, even if that process or method
`is novel and non-obvious.
`
`(c) Combining prior art structures to achieve the normal,
`expected, or predictable result of that combination.
`
`Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48756, 48763-64 (Aug. 14,
`
`2012).
`
`The method of claim 8 uses various technical components: a
`
`“processor,” a “storage device,” and an “interface.” According to Petitioner,
`
`all of these components are generic hardware devices known and used in the
`
`prior art. Pet. 9-10. Petitioner points to the Specification of the ’413 patent,
`
`which discloses, for instance, that a computer could be “industry standard
`
`server components.” Id. (citing Ex. 1001, col. 7, l. 60).
`
`Patent Owner does not dispute that the individual technical
`
`components described in the Specification for implementing the claimed
`
`invention are conventional components, known in the art, such as the
`
`processor and the storage unit. The Patent Owner contends that they qualify
`
`as technical components, because they require a specific structure, function,
`
`and operation. Prelim. Resp. 27-28.
`
`However, Patent Owner does not sufficiently identify or explain the
`
`specific structure, function, and operation required by the recited
`
`components, which would extend beyond that which can be provided by a
`
`processor and storage device of conventional design and configuration, with
`
`conventional programming techniques. According to the Specification, only
`
`conventional components and programming, used in their known ways to
`
`achieve expected results, are needed for the processor and storage device.
`
`Ex. 1001, col. 7, ll. 59-67; col. 17, ll. 53-63.
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`Page 00016
`
`
`
`Case CBM2013-00024
`Patent 8,095,413
`
`
`The challenged claims are directed to creating models or
`
`representation of models for organizing information relating to a
`
`collaborative activity (e.g., defining projects and organizing goals for that
`
`project) and making such information easily accessible to collaborators on a
`
`project. Ex. 1001, col. 2, ll. 37-47; Fig. 3. All the components used to
`
`implement the claimed method are known and conventional components.
`
`Ex. 1001, col. 7, ll. 54-67; col. 17, ll. 35-50.
`
`Furthermore, software that supports management and organization of
`
`collaborative activity is well known. Ex. 1004, p. 0115. The file history for
`
`the ’413 patent states that the prior art software generally fell into two
`
`categories: (1) software which is usable by non-technical people but
`
`provides the user with only a single simple model for collaboration, and (2)
`
`software which permits the user to make any kind of model for the
`
`collaboration but is not usable by non-technical people. Id.
`
`According to the Patent Owner, the problem with the first class of
`
`software is the inflexibility of only having one model, while the problem
`
`with the second class of software is its complexity to non-technical users.
`
`Ex. 1004, p. 0115. However, neither problem is a technical problem from
`
`the perspective of one with ordinary skill in the art. Software supporting
`
`more than one model is available and non-technical personnel may be
`
`specifically trained on such software. Training non-technical people to use
`
`particular software does not constitute a technical solution. Additionally,
`
`organizing data into hierarchies or determining the relationship between
`
`hierarchies is not a technical solution to any problem. Organizing data by
`
`hierarchies may be done by use of conventional charts and tables.
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`Page 00017
`
`
`
`Case CBM2013-00024
`Patent 8,095,413
`
`
`Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, the Board determines that the
`
`invention of claim 8 does not constitute a technological invention.
`
`B. Claim Construction
`
`Consistent with the statute and legislative history of the AIA, the
`
`Board interprets claims of an unexpired patent using the broadest reasonable
`
`construction in light of the specification of the patent in which they appear.
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.300(b); see also Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed.
`
`Reg. 48756, 48766 (Aug. 14, 2012). Also, claim terms are given their
`
`ordinary and customary meaning, as would be understood by one of ordinary
`
`skill in the art at the time of the invention and in the context of the entire
`
`patent disclosure. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2007). An inventor may rebut that presumption by providing a
`
`definition of the term in the specification with reasonable clarity,
`
`deliberateness, and precision. In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir.
`
`1994).
`
`Neither Petitioner nor Patent Owner contends that any special
`
`definition has been provided in the Specification for any claim term. For the
`
`purposes of this decision, the Board concludes the same.
`
`
`1. “system being implemented using a processor
`and a storage device accessible to the processor”
`
`The preamble of claim 1 recites a “system being implemented using a
`
`processor and a storage device.” Petitioner contends that the recited
`
`processor and storage device need not be components of the claimed system
`
`because they are not positively recited elements. Pet. 11 (citing Ex. 1002 at
`
`¶ 39). The Board is not persuaded by Petitioner’s reasoning. The processor
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`Page 00018
`
`
`
`Case CBM2013-00024
`Patent 8,095,413
`
`and storage device recited in the preamble of each independent claim serve
`
`as the antecedent basis for “said processor” and “the storage device” recited
`
`in the body of each claim. See, e.g., C.W. Zumbiel Co., Inc., v. Kappos and
`
`Graphic Packaging Int’l, 702 F.3d 1371, 1385 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (noting that
`
`a preamble constitutes a limitation when the elements in the body of a claim
`
`depend on it for antecedent basis). Furthermore, if the plain language of a
`
`claim indicates that a system is implemented by certain components, then
`
`those components constitute required parts of the system. “Implemented,”
`
`in that setting, can mean “constituted” or “formed.” Therefore, the Board
`
`construes the clause as setting forth that the processor and the storage device
`
`are both components of the claimed system.
`2. “model entities”
`
`Petitioner contends that the ’413 patent does not define the term
`
`“entities” with respect to a model—a term found in all the challenged
`
`claims. Pet. 12. Therefore, Petitioner relies on a non-technical dictionary
`
`definition to support a broad construction of “entity” to include anything that
`
`has a distinct and separate existence. Id.
`
`Patent Owner contends that the term “model entities” should be
`
`construed as a set of assembled computer data or data item that represents
`
`fundamental components of the model. Prelim. Resp. 12. In support of that
`
`contention, Patent Owner cites to the Specification, which states:
`
` In one aspect, the invention features a method for use in
`processing management information. The method includes
`acquiring a first set of computer data representing a model of an
`organization of people,
`the model having
`fundamental
`components, the first set of computer data including data items
`representing the fundamental components . . . .
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`Page 00019
`
`
`
`Case CBM2013-00024
`Patent 8,095,413
`
`Ex. 1001, col. 2, ll. 37-42 (emphasis added).
`
`The Patent Owner then contends that a data set only qualifies as a
`
`“model entity” if the data set provides a user with the capability to perform
`
`specified operations on the model. Id. (citing Ex. 1001 at col. 18, ll. 12-25).
`
`According to the Patent Owner
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
