CBM2015-00121
`Patent 8,794,516 B2
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`______________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`______________________
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`SMARTFLASH LLC,
`Patent Owner
`______________________
`
`Case CBM2015-00121
`Patent 8,794,516
`______________________
`
`Before the Honorable JENNIFER S. BISK, RAMA G. ELLURU, and GREGG I.
`ANDERSON, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`PETITIONER’S REPLY TO PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00121
`Patent 8,794,516 B2
`
`
`I.
`II.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE NOT § 101 PATENT ELIGIBLE ..... 2
`A. Mayo Step 1: PO Fails To Rebut Apple’s Showing That The
`Claims Are Directed To An Abstract Idea ............................................ 2
`B. Mayo Step 2: PO Fails To Rebut Apple’s Showing That The
`Claims Have No Inventive Concept ...................................................... 6
`1.
`PO Fails To Identify Any Inventive Concept ............................. 6
`DDR’s Claims Are Not Analogous To The
`2.
`Challenged Claims .................................................................... 13
`The Claims Are Analogous To Those Held Ineligible ............. 16
`3.
`PO’s Preemption Arguments Are Misplaced ...................................... 18
`C.
`III. PO’S OTHER ARGUMENTS ARE IRRELEVANT TO THE MERITS .... 20
`A. Dr. Kelly’s Unrebutted Expert Opinions Are Reliable And
`Entitled To Significant Weight ........................................................... 20
`PO’s Arguments Regarding The Board’s Ability To Review
`The Claims Are Unfounded ................................................................ 22
`1.
`Neither The Constitution, The ’516’s Prosecution, Nor
`The AIA Prohibits The Board From Considering
`§ 101 Here ................................................................................. 22
`Non-Final District Court § 101 Determinations Are
`Irrelevant ................................................................................... 23
`The ’516 Is A Covered Business Method Patent ................................ 24
`1.
`The Federal Circuit Has Already Rejected PO’s
`Proposed Interpretation Of CBM Patents ................................. 24
`The Board Correctly Determined The ’516 Does Not
`Cover A Technological Invention ............................................. 25
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`2.
`
`2.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00121
`Patent 8,794,516 B2
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`
`CASES
`Accenture Global Servs., GmbH v. Guidewire Software, Inc.,
`728 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2013) .................................................................... passim
`Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l,
`134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014) ................................................................................. passim
`Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc.,
`788 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ......................................................... 18, 19, 21, 23
`Arrhythmia Research Tech., Inc. v. Corazonix Corp.,
`958 F.2d 1053 (Fed. Cir. 1992) ..................................................................... 21, 24
`Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Can.,
`687 F.3d 1266 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .................................................................... passim
`buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc.,
`765 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ..................................................................... 10, 17
`Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n,
`776 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ................................................................... 6, 9, 17
`CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc.,
`654 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2011) .............................................................................. 3
`DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P.,
`773 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2014) .................................................................... passim
`Diamond v. Diehr,
`450 U.S. 175 (1981) ............................................................................................. 20
`Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Elecs. for Imaging, Inc.,
`758 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2014) .............................................................................. 9
`Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Gen-Probe, Inc.,
`424 F.3d 1276 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ............................................................................ 22
`Ethicon, Inc. v. Quigg,
`849 F.2d 1422 (Fed. Cir. 1988) ..................................................................... 23, 24
`Fresenius USA, Inc. v. Baxter Int’l, Inc.,
`721 F.3d 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ............................................................................ 23
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00121
`Patent 8,794,516 B2
`
`Gottschalk v. Benson,
`409 U.S. 63 (1972) ............................................................................................... 15
`Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA),
`792 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015) .................................................................... passim
`Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc.,
`790 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ..........................................................................4, 9
`Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc.,
`132 S. Ct. 1289 (2012) ................................................................................. passim
`McCormick Harvesting Mach. Co. v. Aultman,
`69 U.S. 606 (1898) ............................................................................................... 22
`MCM Portfolio LLC v. Hewlett-Packard Company,
`812 F.3d 1284 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ............................................................................ 22
`Mortgage Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs. Inc.,
`811 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ..................................................................... 17, 18
`OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc.,
`788 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2015) .................................................................... passim
`Research Corp. Techs., Inc. v. Microsoft Corp.,
`627 F.3d 859 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ................................................................................ 4
`SightSound Techs., LLC v. Apple Inc.,
`809 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ............................................................................ 24
`SmartGene, Inc. v. Advanced Biological Labs., SA,
`555 F. App’x 950 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ......................................................................... 7
`Suffolk Techs., LLC v. AOL Inc.,
`752 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ............................................................................ 22
`Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC,
`722 F.3d 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ............................................................................ 19
`Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC,
`772 F.3d 709 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ...................................................................... passim
`Vehicle Intelligence & Safety LLC v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC,
`No. 2015-1411, 2015 WL 9461707 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 28, 2015) ....................... 3, 19
`Versata Dev. Grp., Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc.,
`793 F.3d 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ......................................................... 21, 22, 23, 24
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00121
`Patent 8,794,516 B2
`
`PTAB RULINGS
`CBM2012-00007, Paper 15 ..................................................................................... 23
`CBM2012-00007, Paper 58 ..................................................................................... 24
`CBM2013-00013, Paper 61 ..................................................................................... 10
`CBM2014-00050, Paper 51 ..................................................................................... 12
`CBM2014-00102/103, Paper 52 (“00102FWD”) .................................................... 10
`CBM2014-00106/107, Paper 52 (“00106FWD”) .................................................... 10
`CBM2014-00108/109, Paper 50 (“00108FWD”) .................................................... 10
`CBM2014-00112/113, Paper 48 (“00112FWD”) .................................................... 10
`CBM2014-00182, Paper 60 .......................................................................... 4, 10, 18
`CBM2014-00192, Paper 45 (“00192FWD”) ................................................... passim
`CBM2014-00193, Paper 45 (“00193FWD”) ................................................... passim
`CBM2014-00194, Paper 51 (“00194FWD”) ................................................... passim
`CBM2014-00194, Paper 9 .................................................................................. 1, 24
`CBM2015-00004, Paper 33 .............................................................................. 12, 21
`CBM2015-00016, Paper 56 (“00016FWD”) ................................................... passim
`CBM2015-00017, Paper 46 (“00017FWD”) ................................................... passim
`CBM2015-00031, Paper 11 ..................................................................................... 24
`CBM2015-00032, Paper 11 ..................................................................................... 24
`CBM2015-00113, Paper 7 ......................................................................................... 6
`CBM2015-00121, Paper 8 ............................................................................... passim
`CBM2015-00133, Paper 7 ....................................................................................... 25
`CBM2015-00147, Paper 14 .......................................................................... 6, 11, 19
`IPR2013-00048, Paper 15 ........................................................................................ 22
`PGR2015-00013, Paper 18 ................................................................................. 5, 19
`
`STATUTES
`35 U.S.C. § 101 ................................................................................................ passim
`35 U.S.C. § 102 ........................................................................................................ 12
`iv
`
`
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00121
`Patent 8,794,516 B2
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 ........................................................................................................ 12
`
`PATENTS AND PATENT APPLICATIONS
`U.S. Patent No. 8,794,516 (“’516 Patent” or “’516”) ...................................... passim
`U.S. Patent No. 7,942,317 (“’317 Patent” or “’317”) .............................................. 10
`U.S. Patent No. 8,033,458 (“’458 Patent” or “’458”) ....................................... 10, 16
`U.S. Patent No. 8,061,598 (“’598 Patent” or “’598”) ................................. 10, 16, 17
`U.S. Patent No. 8,118,221 (“’221 Patent” or “’221”) ............................. 1, 10, 16, 17
`U.S. Patent No. 4,999,806 .......................................................................................... 8
`U.S. Patent No. 5,629,980 .......................................................................................... 8
`U.S. Patent No. 5,915,019 .......................................................................................... 8
`U.S. Patent No. 7,346,545 ........................................................................................ 17
`U.S. Patent No. 7,603,382 .......................................................................................... 7
`U.S. Patent No. 7,970,713 .......................................................................................... 9
`U.S. Patent No. 8,083,137 .......................................................................................... 7
`European Patent App., Publication No. EP0809221A2 ............................................ 8
`International Publication No. WO99/13398 .............................................................. 8
`
`*All emphasis herein added unless otherwise indicated.
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00121
`Patent 8,794,516 B2
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`1001
`
`1002
`
`1003
`
`1004
`
`1005
`
`1006
`
`1007
`
`1008
`
`1009
`
`1010
`
`1011
`
`1012
`
`1013
`
`1014
`
`1015
`
`1016
`
`1017
`
`1018
`
`1019
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,794,516
`
`Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,925,127
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,940,805
`
`File History for U.S. Patent No. 7,334,720
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,999,806
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,675,734
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,878,245
`
`File History for U.S. Patent No. 8,794,516
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,942,317
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,103,392
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,530,235
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,629,980
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,915,019
`
`European Patent Application, Publication No. EP0809221A2
`
`International Publication No. WO 99/43136
`
`JP Patent Application Publication No. H11-164058
`(translation)
`Eberhard von Faber, Robert Hammelrath, and Frank-Peter
`Heider, “The Secure Distribution of Digital Contents,” IEEE
`(1997)
`Declaration of John P. J. Kelly In Support of Apple Inc.’s
`Petition for Covered Business Method Patent Review
`vi
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00121
`Patent 8,794,516 B2
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`1020
`
`1021
`
`1022
`
`1023
`
`1024
`
`1025
`
`1026
`
`1027
`
`1028
`
`1029
`
`1030
`
`1031
`
`1032
`
`1033
`
`1034
`
`1035
`
`1036
`
`1037
`
`1038
`
`1039
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,033,458
`
`Declaration of Michael P. Duffey In Support of Apple Inc.’s
`Petition for Covered Business Method Patent Review
`Declaration of Megan F. Raymond In Support of Apple Inc.’s
`Petition for Covered Business Method Patent Review
`Claim Construction Memorandum Opinion from Smartflash
`LLC v. Apple Inc., No. 6:13cv447 (Dkt. 229)
`File History for U.S. Patent No. 8,061,598
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,337,483
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,725,375
`
`International Publication No. WO 95/34857
`
`JP Patent Application Publication No. H10-269289
`(translation)
`File History for U.S. Patent No. 7,942,317
`
`File History for U.S. Patent No. 8,033,458
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,061,598
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,118,221
`
`File History for U.S. Patent No. 8,118,221
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,336,772
`
`File History for U.S. Patent No. 8,336,772
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,646,992
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,903,721
`
`International Publication No. WO99/13398
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,761,485
`
`vii
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00121
`Patent 8,794,516 B2
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`1040
`
`1041
`
`1042
`
`1043
`
`1044
`
`1045
`
`1046
`
`1047
`
`1048
`
`1049
`
`1050
`
`1051
`
`1052
`
`1053
`
`1054
`
`1055
`
`
`
`Rakesh Mohan, John R. Smith and Chung-Sheng Li ,
`“Adapting Multimedia
`Internet Content
`for Universal
`Access” IEEE (March 1999)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,953,005
`
`Plaintiffs’ Complaint for Patent Infringement, Smartflash
`LLC, et al. v. Apple Inc., Civil Action No. 6:15-cv-145
`U.S. Patent No. 7,334,720
`
`Apr. 8-9, 2015 Deposition Transcript of Jonathan Katz,
`CBM2014-00102/106/108/112
`J. Taylor, “DVD-Video: Multimedia for the Masses,” IEEE
`Multimedia, Vol. 6, No. 3, July-September 1999, pp. 86-92
`Excerpt of Transcript of Trial Afternoon Session, February
`16, 2015 from Smartflash LLC v. Apple Inc., No. 6:13cv447
`Declaration of James R. Batchelder In Support of Motion for
`Pro Hac Vice Admission
`March 7, 2016 Errata Sheet and Acknowledgment of
`Deponent for the deposition of John P. J. Kelley, Ph.D. dated
`February 3, 2016
`Brief for Plaintiffs-Appellees Smartflash LLC (Dkt. 40) in
`Smartflash LLC, et al. v. Apple Inc., et al., Appeal No. 2016-
`1059, United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
`U.S. Patent No. 8,083,137
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,603,382
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,970,713
`
`Transcript of November 9, 2015 Oral Hearing in CBM2014-
`00192/-00193/-00194/-00199, and CBM2015-
`00015/00016/00017/-00018
`U.S. Patent No. 7,346,545
`
`Declaration of Michael P. Duffey In Support of Petitioner’s
`Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`viii
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00121
`Patent 8,794,516 B2
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`All but two of Patent Owner’s (“PO”) arguments here are old, and have
`
`already been rejected by this Board in connection with its previous decisions on
`
`related claims:
`
`PO’s Old Argument
`The Board is estopped from
`
`Board’s Rejection of PO’s Argument
`00016/00192/00193FWDs, 20;
`
`considering § 101 (Pap.17
`
`00017FWD, 20-21; 00194FWD, 22.
`
`(“Response”/“R”), 62-64), and § 101
`
`cannot be raised in CBM review (R67-
`
`69).
`
`The ’516 is not a CBM patent. R70-
`
`Pap.8 (“Dec”), 6-10; see also CBM2014-
`
`75.
`
`00194, Pap.9, 7-12 (finding related ’221 is
`
`CBM patent based on analogous ’221
`
`claim 32).
`
`Expert evidence is irrelevant to the
`
`00016FWD, 27-28; 00192/193FWDs, 24;
`
`“purely legal” issue of § 101. R7.
`
`00017FWD, 26; 00194FWD, 26-27.
`
`’516 claims 1-28 (“Challenged
`
`(1) 00016FWD, 14-17;
`
`Claims”/“Claims”) satisfy Mayo step
`
`00192/00194FWDs, 14-18;
`
`2 because (1) they are like DDR’s
`
`00017/00193FWDs, 12-16.
`
`eligible claims (R32-48) and (2) non-
`
`(2) 00016/00193FWDs, 17-20;
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00121
`Patent 8,794,516 B2
`
`infringing alternatives exist and there
`
`00192/00017FWDs, 18-20; 00194FWD,
`
`is no risk of inappropriate preemption
`
`20-22.
`
`(R48-62).
`
`
`PO points to no new law, and no differences between these Claims and those
`
`already found unpatentable, that should cause the Board’s conclusions here to be
`
`any different than in its prior decisions finding related claims unpatentable.
`
`The only two new arguments PO raises here fare no better: (1) PO’s Mayo
`
`Step 1 argument, based on the fact that some Claims are system/apparatus not
`
`method claims, is contradicted by established law, and by the Board’s and district
`
`court’s correct finding that related claims are directed to abstract ideas. As to the
`
`method Claims, PO offers only a bare assertion that they are not directed to an
`
`abstract idea. (2) As PO admits, PO’s argument about CBM’s unconstitutionality
`
`has been rejected by the Federal Circuit.
`
`In short, PO fails to rebut Apple’s showing of unpatentability.
`
`II. THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE NOT § 101 PATENT ELIGIBLE
`
`A. Mayo Step 1: PO Fails To Rebut Apple’s Showing That The Claims
`Are Directed To An Abstract Idea
`
`Although in multiple previous CBMs on related claims and in its
`
`Preliminary Response PO did not dispute that the claims were directed to an
`
`abstract idea, PO argues here that the ’516 Claims are not directed to an abstract
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00121
`Patent 8,794,516 B2
`
`idea. See, e.g., Pap.6; CBM2015-00031, Pap.23, 15-16; R1-2, 21-29. PO’s entire
`
`Mayo Step 1 argument is based on its legally incorrect assertion that the
`
`apparatus/system Claims cannot be directed to an abstract idea because they claim
`
`“machines.” R1, 21-24, 27-29. PO’s argument is squarely contradicted by well-
`
`established, controlling precedent. For example:
`
`There is no dispute that a computer is a tangible system (in § 101 terms, a
`“machine”), or that many computer-implemented claims are formally
`addressed to patent-eligible subject matter. But if that were the end of the §
`101 inquiry, an applicant could claim any principle of the physical or social
`sciences by reciting a computer system configured to implement the relevant
`concept. Such a result would make the determination of patent eligibility
`“depend simply on the draftman’s art,” … thereby eviscerating the rule that
`“‘… abstract ideas are not patentable.’”
`Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2358-59 (2014) (internal
`
`citations omitted). It is the “underlying invention”—not the form of the claims—
`
`that is relevant. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1374
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[W]e look to the underlying invention for patent-eligibility
`
`purposes.”). Indeed, machine, system, and medium claims may “be equivalent to
`
`an abstract mental process,” and numerous claims of these types have been found
`
`to be directed to abstract ideas. E.g., Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assurance
`
`Co. of Can., 687 F.3d 1266, 1276-77 (Fed. Cir. 2012); see also, e.g., Alice, 134 S.
`
`Ct. at 2360; Vehicle Intelligence & Safety LLC v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, No.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00121
`Patent 8,794,516 B2
`
`2015-1411, 2015 WL 9461707, at *1 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 28, 2015); Internet Patents
`
`Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1345, 1348–49 (Fed. Cir. 2015);
`
`Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1369–71
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2015); Accenture Global Servs., GmbH v. Guidewire Software, Inc., 728
`
`F.3d 1336, 1338-39, 1344-45 (Fed. Cir. 2013); CBM2014-00182, Pap.60, 30-31.
`
`Thus, that some Claims cover “machines” does not change the fact that they are
`
`directed to an abstract idea.1
`
`Similarly, PO fails to support its contentions that the method Claims (14-20,
`
`25-28) are patent eligible “useful processes” or that, for eligibility, claims need
`
`only be directed to a “real-world” process. R1, 24, 29. While “inventions with
`
`specific applications or improvements to technologies in the marketplace are not
`
`likely to be so abstract” as to be ineligible, Research Corp. Techs., Inc. v.
`
`Microsoft Corp., 627 F.3d 859, 869 (Fed. Cir. 2010), the method Claims here (like
`
`the system/apparatus Claims) provide “[n]o such technological advance” and
`
`“merely employ computers” to facilitate the well-known concept of controlling
`
`access to content. Bancorp, 687 F.3d at 1279; see also, e.g., Ex.1019 ¶¶75-76, 86,
`
`89-92; Pap.2 (“Petition”/“P”), 43-51, 53-61; Dec11-18.
`
`
`1 For these reasons, it is also irrelevant that Drs. Kelly and Tygar (Google’s expert
`
`in another CBM) agree that these Claims cover “physical” objects. See R23-24.
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00121
`Patent 8,794,516 B2
`
`
`There is also no merit to PO’s criticisms of Dr. Kelly for examining “the
`
`content of the patent claims themselves” to determine whether they are directed to
`
`an abstract idea, and for “tailoring the purported abstract idea to the claims.” See
`
`R12-15. Mayo Step 1 requires “determin[ing] whether the claims at issue are
`
`directed” to an abstract idea. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355. Doing so requires
`
`“examin[ing] the claims because claims are the definition of what a patent is
`
`intended to cover.” Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 714 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2014). Tellingly, PO fails to explain how one would determine if claims are
`
`directed to an abstract idea without examining them. Indeed, in PO’s own cited
`
`case, the Board criticized petitioner for failing to “examine the claim as a whole”
`
`in its Mayo Step 1 analysis. PGR2015-00013, Pap.18, 10-11. And PO has
`
`acknowledged that the abstract idea must be derived from the claims. Ex.1049, 27
`
`(noting “the Supreme Court started from the observation that the claim language
`
`recited a patent-ineligible concept”) (emph. orig.).
`
`For the foregoing reasons, it is no surprise that the Board (in related CBMs)
`
`and the district court (in litigation) ruled that related claims are directed to an
`
`abstract idea despite claiming, e.g., a “data access device” and a “data access
`
`terminal.” 00194FWD, 6-9, 00016FWD, 6-9 (related claims directed to
`
`“[conditioning and] controlling access to content [based upon payment]”);
`
`Ex.2049, 2, 17-18, Ex.2050, 1-2 (related claims directed to “conditioning and
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00121
`Patent 8,794,516 B2
`
`controlling access to data based on payment”); 00017FWD/00193FWD, 6-9;
`
`00192FWD, 5-9; Dec11-13.
`
`PO’s only remaining arguments in its Mayo Step 1 section (R25-28) relate to
`
`Mayo Step 2, not Step 1. See CBM2015-00147, Pap.14, 12, 14 (“[H]owever the
`
`abstract idea is characterized, the … claims do not meet [Mayo Step 2].”);
`
`CBM2015-00113, Pap.7, 13-14 (rejecting petitioner’s articulation of abstract idea
`
`and finding “claims are … not merely the implementation of a known abstract
`
`idea”).
`
`PO thus fails to rebut Petitioner’s showing that the Claims are directed to an
`
`abstract idea, which the Board accurately articulated as “restricting access to stored
`
`data based on supplier-defined access rules and validation of payment.” Dec12.
`
`B. Mayo Step 2: PO Fails To Rebut Apple’s Showing That The Claims
`Have No Inventive Concept
`
`1. PO Fails To Identify Any Inventive Concept
`
`As shown in P51-73, the Claims’ “additional features” recite only well-
`
`known, routine, conventional computer components/activities, which fail to
`
`establish an inventive concept. See Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355, 2357; Ultramercial,
`
`772 F.3d at 716; Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank,
`
`Nat’l Ass’n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Bancorp, 687 F.3d at 1278-80.
`
`In its Mayo Step 2 arguments, PO ducks the key issue. PO recites various
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00121
`Patent 8,794,516 B2
`
`Claim elements, but cannot and does not assert that they are inventive. See R2-4,
`
`21-22, 24-26, 27-29, 34, 39, 45-46. The claimed hardware elements (e.g.,
`
`“processor,” “program/data store,” “non-volatile memory,” “display,” and
`
`“interface”) are not “specialized physical components,” as PO urges (R27-28), but
`
`rather the same sort of off-the-shelf computer components that Alice deemed
`
`“purely functional and generic” because they are found in “[n]early every
`
`computer.” 134 S. Ct. at 2360. Indeed, the specification itself disclaims them as
`
`non-inventive. Ex.1001, 4:7-16, 11:33-35, 12:37-40, 13:43-46, 16:13-26, 16:40-49,
`
`16:55-59, 18:14-22, 24:25-27. See also, e.g., Ex.1019 ¶¶77, 82, 87, 90; Ex.2108,
`
`71:24-72:16, 87:6-88:7, 131:24-133:2, 249:12-22; IV, 792 F.3d at 1366-71 (no
`
`inventive concept in claims of USP 8,083,137 (Ex.1050) and 7,603,382 (Ex.1051)
`
`reciting “database, a user profile, “communication medium,” and employing
`
`“interactive interface”); Accenture, 728 F.3d at 1338, 1344-46 (claims (rep. cl. 1)
`
`reciting only “generalized software components” for “generating tasks [based on]
`
`rules … to be completed upon the occurrence of an event” unpatentable) (internal
`
`quotations omitted); SmartGene, Inc. v. Advanced Biological Labs., SA, 555 F.
`
`App’x 950, 955 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“The claim does not … identify new computer
`
`hardware: it assumes the availability of physical components for input, memory,
`
`look-up, comparison, and output.”).
`
`And, despite its elliptical suggestion that certain claimed elements may have
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00121
`Patent 8,794,516 B2
`
`been inventive (R21, 34, 45-47), PO does not even attempt to rebut Apple’s
`
`showing that they are amply disclosed in the prior art and disavowed as inventive
`
`in the case law. P5-12, 14-17 (showing, e.g., content access based on payment2 in
`
`Ex.1006 (Chernow), 6:48-65, 7:53-63, Ex.1015 (Poggio), Fig. 7, 10:7-20, Ex.1018
`
`(von Faber), 7-8, Ex.1038 (Peterson), 4:18-20, 9:18-10:6; combining different
`
`types of data in memory in Ex.1013 (Stefik), 6:51-56, 19:14-15); identifier data
`
`identifying data in Ex.1015 (Poggio), Fig. 3, 6:37-7:39, Ex.1038 (Peterson), 4:18-
`
`20, 9:18-10:6, Ex.1014 (Ginter), Figs. 72B-D, 102:59-67; Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2359
`
`(not inventive to apply rules to data, such as “‘adjusting’ the shadow records as
`
`transactions are entered, allowing only those transactions for which the parties
`
`have sufficient resources”); Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 715-716 (not inventive to
`
`base content access on payment, such as “allowing said consumer access to said
`
`media product after said step of facilitating the display of said sponsor message”);
`
`Accenture, 728 F.3d at 1338, 1344-46 (not inventive to “generate[] tasks [based
`
`on] rules … to be completed upon the occurrence of an event” or store different
`
`data types in memory, such as a “transaction database comprising a claim folder
`
`
`2 Contrary to PO’s contention (R46), Claims 5-13 do not require the content data
`
`supply server to receive payment validation data from the handheld multimedia
`
`terminal. See ’516, Cls. 5-13.
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00121
`Patent 8,794,516 B2
`
`containing … a plurality of levels from the group comprising a policy level, a
`
`claim level, a participant level and a line level”); see also IV, 792 F.3d at 1368
`
`(storing two types of data in a database not inventive); Internet Patents Corp., 790
`
`F.3d at 1349 (“combining information” from multiple files or databases “to form”
`
`an output not inventive); Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Elecs. for Imaging, Inc.,
`
`758 F.3d 1344, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (generating two data sets and combining
`
`them is ineligible abstract process); 00017FWD, 17-18, 00193FWD, 17,
`
`00016FWD, 13-14, 00192FWD, 13-14, 00194FWD, 18-20 (“concept of storing
`
`two different types of information in the same place or on the same device is an
`
`age old practice”); Ex.1019 ¶¶10-11, 75-76, 78, 81, 83, 85-86, 88-89, 92;
`
`Ex.2108,3 311:8-14.
`
`Indeed, all of the claimed functions are merely well-understood, routine, and
`
`conventional computer activities: none is an inventive concept. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at
`
`2352 nn.1-2 (rep. cl. 33), 2360 (“[n]early every computer … [is] capable of
`
`performing [] basic calculation, storage, and transmission functions”); OIP Techs.,
`
`Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363-64 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (no inventive
`
`concept in claims of USP 7,970,713 (Ex.1052) that “‘send[] … electronic
`
`messages over a network’” and “stor[e]” data ); Content Extraction, 776 F.3d at
`
`1345 (rep. cl. 1), 1347-49 (collecting, recognizing, and storing data are routine,
`
`
`3 Cites to Ex.2108 refer to the transcript’s page:line numbers, not stamped pages.
`9
`
`
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00121
`Patent 8,794,516 B2
`
`conventional activities); Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 712 (rep. cl. 1), 714-16
`
`(“selecting an ad,” “restricting public access,” “facilitating display,” “allowing the
`
`consumer access,” “updating the activity log,” and “receiving payment,” add no
`
`inventive concept; “that the system … restricts public access also represents only
`
`insignificant pre-solution activity”) (internal quotations omitted); buySAFE, Inc. v.
`
`Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1351-52, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ((rep. cls. 1, 14), “a
`
`computer [that] receives and sends [] information over a network … is not even
`
`arguably inventive.”); CBM2013-00013, Pap.61, 8, 16 (rep. cl. 1); CBM2014-
`
`00182, Pap.60, 32-38 (no inventive concept in claims (rep. cl. 33) requiring
`
`“database,” “processor,” “storing data and associated rules in separate databases,”
`
`“receiving a request to access” data, “determining whether the … rules associated
`
`with the request … are satisfied,” and “granting the user access to the requested
`
`data”); 00102FWD, 10-34, 00106FWD, 10-22, 00108FWD, 9-16, 00112FWD, 11-
`
`21 (compare, e.g., ’516 Cls. 1-4, 25-28 with ’221 cls. 1, 11-13, ’458 cl. 1, ’598 cl.
`
`26, ’317 cls. 1, 6, 8, 12, 16, 18; ’516 Cls. 5, 6, 10-13 with ’221 cls. 1, 11-13, ’458
`
`cl. 1, ’317 cls. 1, 6, 8, 12, 16; ’516 Cls. 7-9 with ’221 cls. 1, 2, 11-13, ’458 cl. 1,
`
`’317 cls. 1, 6, 8, 12, 16; ’516 Cls. 14, 18-20 with ’221 cls. 1, 13, ’317 cls. 1, 6, 16;
`
`’516 Cls. 15-17 with ’221 cls. 1, 12-13, ’458 cl. 1, ’317 cls. 1, 6, 8, 16; ’516 Cls.
`
`21, 24 with ’221 cls. 1, 2, 11, ’317 cls. 1, 12; ’516 Cl. 22 with ’221 cls. 1, 2, 11-12,
`
`’458 cl. 1, ’317 cls. 1, 12; 516 Cl. 23 with ’221 cls. 1, 2, 11-13, ’458 cl. 1, ’317 cls.
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00121
`Patent 8,794,516 B2
`
`1, 12); see also Ex.1019 ¶¶77-92; 00016FWD, 10-11; 00192FWD, 10;
`
`00017FWD, 10-11; 00193FWD, 10-11; 00194FWD, 11-12; P50-76.
`
`Indeed, the first named inventor testified that he did not invent, e.g., flash
`
`memory, receiving or transmitting digital content, downloading (secure) content
`
`over the Internet, paying for and downloading content wirelessly, online sale of or
`
`payment for content, payment authorization, use rules or access rules in connection
`
`with the online sale of content, mobile phones/devices, or displaying when access
`
`to content is permitted. Ex.1046,4 117:24-119:14, 120:14-121:8, 122:19-125:25,
`
`126:11-129:18. And, unlike Hulu’s patent, which claimed components that are not
`
`“generic computers” (CBM2015-00147, Pap.14, 14), the ’516 admits “[t]he
`
`physical embodiment of the system is not critical and … the terminals, data
`
`processing systems and the like can all take a variety of forms.” Ex.1001, 12:37-
`
`40; see also id., 4:7-16, 11:33-35, 13:43-46, 16:13-26, 16:40-49, 16:55-59, 18:14-
`
`22, 24:25-27. Because none of the Claim elements alone or in combination
`
`amounts to an “inventive concept,” they fail Step 2. E.g., Ex.2108, 38:14-39:7,
`
`57:5-58:11, 71:24-72:16, 73:11-74:18, 79:9-80:1, 87:6-88:7, 111:15-112:19,
`
`115:17-117:22, 119:17-120:18, 125:12-126:12, 131:24-132:11, 149:1