CBM2015-00123
`Patent 8,033,458 B2
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`______________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`______________________
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`SMARTFLASH LLC,
`Patent Owner
`______________________
`
`Case CBM2015-00123
`Patent 8,033,458
`______________________
`
`Before the Honorable JENNIFER S. BISK, RAMA G. ELLURU, JEREMY M.
`PLENZLER, and MATTHEW R. CLEMENTS, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`PETITIONER’S REPLY TO PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00123
`Patent 8,033,458 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
`Challenged Claims Are Directed To An Abstract Idea ......................... 2
`B. Mayo Step 2: PO Fails To Rebut Apple’s Showing That The
`Challenged Claims Have No Inventive Concept .................................. 5
`1.
`PO Fails To Identify Any Inventive Concept ............................. 5
`2.
`The DDR Claims Are Not Analogous To The Challenged
`Claims .......................................................................................12
`a)
`The Challenged Claims Neither Address an
`Internet-Specific Problem Nor Effect DDR’s
`“Override” .......................................................................12
`The Challenged Claims Do Not “Parallel” the
`DDR Claims ....................................................................14
`The Challenged Claims Are Analogous To Those Held
`Ineligible ...................................................................................15
`PO’s Preemption Arguments Are Misplaced ......................................17
`C.
`III. CLAIMS 3-5 ARE INDEFINITE UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 2 .................18
`IV. 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 Challenged Claims Are Unfounded .............................................22
`1.
`Neither The Constitution, The ’458 Patent’s Prosecution,
`Nor The AIA Prohibits The Board From Considering §
`101 Here ....................................................................................22
`Non-Final District Court § 101 Determinations Are
`Irrelevant ...................................................................................23
`
`b)
`
`3.
`
`B.
`
`2.
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00123
`Patent 8,033,458 B2
`
`
`C.
`
`The ’458 Patent Is A Covered Business Method Patent .....................24
`1.
`The Federal Circuit Has Already Rejected PO’s Proposed
`Interpretation Of Covered Business Method Patents................24
`The Board Correctly Determined That The ’458 Patent
`Does Not Cover A Technological Invention ............................25
`
`2.
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00123
`Patent 8,033,458 B2
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`CASES
`Accenture Global Servs., GmbH v. Guidewire Software, Inc.,
`728 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ...................................................................passim
`
`Page(s)
`
`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) ........................................................ 17, 18, 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) ............................................................ 3, 6, 15, 18
`
`buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc.,
`765 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ...................................................................... 9, 16
`
`Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n,
`776 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2014) .................................................................. 6, 8, 16
`
`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) ............................................................................................ 18
`
`Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Elecs. for Imaging, Inc.,
`758 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ............................................................................ 8
`
`Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Gen-Probe, Inc.,
`424 F.3d 1276 (Fed. Cir. 2005) .......................................................................... 22
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00123
`Patent 8,033,458 B2
`
`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
`
`Gottschalk v. Benson,
`409 U.S. 63 (1972) .............................................................................................. 13
`
`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) ........................................................................ 3, 8
`
`Invitrogen Corp. v. Biocrest Mfg., L.P.,
`327 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2003) .......................................................................... 20
`
`Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc.,
`132 S. Ct. 1289 (2012) .................................................................................passim
`
`McCormick Harvesting Mach. Co. v. Aultman,
`169 U.S. 606 (1898) ............................................................................................ 22
`
`MCM Portfolio LLC v. Hewlett-Packard Co.,
`No. 15-1091, 2015 WL 7755665 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 2, 2015) ............................ 2, 22
`
`Mortgage Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs. Inc.,
`811 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .......................................................................... 16
`
`OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc.,
`788 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ...................................................................passim
`
`SightSound Techs., LLC v. Apple Inc.,
`Nos. 15-1159, -1160, slip op. (Fed. Cir. Dec. 15, 2015) .................................... 24
`
`SmartGene, Inc. v. Advanced Biological Labs., SA,
`555 F. App’x 950 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ....................................................................... 6
`
`Suffolk Techs., LLC v. AOL Inc.,
`752 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2014) .......................................................................... 22
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00123
`Patent 8,033,458 B2
`
`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, 18
`
`Versata Dev. Grp., Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc.,
`793 F.3d 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2015) .............................................................. 21, 23, 24
`
`PTAB RULINGS
`CBM2012-00007, Paper 15 .....................................................................................24
`CBM2012-00007, Paper 58 .....................................................................................24
`CBM2013-00013, Paper 61 ....................................................................................... 9
`CBM2014-00050, Paper 51 .....................................................................................11
`CBM2014-00102/103, Paper 52 ................................................................................ 9
`CBM2014-00106, Paper 8 ...................................................................................1, 24
`CBM2014-00106/107, Paper 52 ................................................................................ 9
`CBM2014-00108/109, Paper 50 ................................................................................ 9
`CBM2014-00112/113, Paper 48 ................................................................................ 9
`CBM2014-00182, Paper 60 ............................................................................ 4, 9, 16
`CBM2014-00192, Paper 7 ...................................................................................1, 24
`CBM2014-00192, Paper 45 ............................................................................. passim
`CBM2014-00193, Paper 45 ............................................................................. passim
`CBM2014-00194, Paper 51 ............................................................................. passim
`CBM2015-00004, Paper 33 .............................................................................. 11, 21
`CBM2015-00016, Paper 23 .................................................................................1, 24
`CBM2015-00016, Paper 56 ............................................................................. passim
`CBM2015-00017, Paper 46 ............................................................................. passim
`CBM2015-00113, Paper 7 ......................................................................................... 5
`CBM2015-00123, Paper 7 ............................................................................... passim
`CBM2015-00147, Paper 14 .......................................................................... 5, 10, 18
`IPR2013-00048, Paper 15 ........................................................................................22
`v
`
`
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00123
`Patent 8,033,458 B2
`
`PGR2015-00013, Paper 18 ..................................................................................4, 18
`STATUTES
`35 U.S.C. § 101 ................................................................................................ passim
`35 U.S.C. § 102 ........................................................................................................11
`35 U.S.C. § 103 ........................................................................................................11
`35 U.S.C. § 112 ........................................................................................................20
`
`
`
`
`vi
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00123
`Patent 8,033,458 B2
`
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`1001
`
`1002
`
`1003
`
`1004
`
`1005
`
`1006
`
`1007
`
`1008
`
`1009
`
`1010
`
`1011
`
`1012
`
`1013
`
`1014
`
`1015
`
`1016
`
`1017
`
`1018
`
`1019
`
`
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,033,458
`
`Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,925,127
`
`File History for U.S. Patent No. 8,033,458
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,940,805
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,999,806
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,675,734
`
`August 2014 Emails Titled “RE: Smartflash: Meet and Con-
`fer Regarding Further Claim/Prior Art Limits.”
`U.S. Patent No. 4,878,245
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,334,720
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,337,483
`
`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 (transla-
`tion)
`Eberhard von Faber, Robert Hammelrath, and Frank-Peter
`Heider, “The Secure Distribution of Digital Contents,” IEEE
`(1997)
`
`vii
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00123
`Patent 8,033,458 B2
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`1020
`
`1021
`
`1022
`
`1023
`
`1024
`
`1025
`
`1026
`
`1027
`
`1028
`
`1029
`
`1030
`
`1031
`
`1032
`
`1033
`
`1034
`
`1035
`1036
`
`1037
`
`
`
`Declaration of John P. J. Kelly In Support of Apple Inc.’s
`Petition for Covered Business Method Patent Review
`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
`U.S. Patent No. 8,118,221
`
`File History for U.S. Patent No. 8,061,598
`
`Claim Construction Memorandum Opinion from Smartflash
`LLC v. Apple Inc., No. 6:13cv447 (Dkt. 229)
`U.S. Patent No. 7,725,375
`
`International Publication No. WO 95/34857
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,646,992
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,903,721
`
`R. Mohan, J.R. Smith, C.S. Li , “Adapting Multimedia Inter-
`net Content for Universal Access” IEEE Transactions on
`Multi-media, Vol. 1, No.1, 1999, pp.104-114
`JP Patent Application Publication No. H10-269289 (transla-
`tion)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,761,485
`
`Apr. 8-9, 2015 Deposition Transcript of Jonathan Katz,
`CBM2014-00102/106/108/112
`International Publication No. WO99/13398
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,953,005
`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
`
`viii
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00123
`Patent 8,033,458 B2
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`1038
`
`1039
`
`1040
`
`1041
`
`1042
`
`1043
`
`1044
`
`1045
`
`1046
`
`Declaration of James R. Batchelder In Support of Motion for
`Pro Hac Vice Admission
`March 7, 2016 Errata Sheet and Acknowledgment of Depo-
`nent for the deposition of John P. J. Kelley, Ph.D. dated Feb-
`ruary 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
`
`
`
`ix
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00123
`Patent 8,033,458 B2
`
`
`GLOSSARY OF ABBREVIATIONS
`
`
`Description
`Shorthand
`’458 Patent or ’458 United States Patent No. 8,033,458
`§ 101
`35 U.S.C. § 101
`§ 112
`35 U.S.C. § 112
`Petition or P
`Case CBM2015-00123 Petition, Paper 2
`Decision or Dec
`Case CBM2015-00123 Institution Decision, Paper 7
`PO
`Patent Owner
`POSA
`Person of ordinary skill in the art
`Response or R
`Case CBM 2015-00123 Patent Owner Response, Paper 17
`Challenged Claims or
`’458 Patent, claims 2-5, 7, 9, and 12
`Claims
`’221 Patent or ’221 United States Patent No. 8,118,221
`’772 Patent or ’772 United States Patent No. 8,336,772
`’598 Patent or ’598 United States Patent No. 8,061,598
`’720 Patent or ’720 United States Patent No. 7,334,720
`’317 Patent or ’317 United States Patent No. 7,942,317
`00102FWD
`CBM2014-00102/103 Final Written Decision, Paper 52
`00106FWD
`CBM2014-00106/107 Final Written Decision, Paper 52
`00108FWD
`CBM2014-00108/109 Final Written Decision, Paper 50
`00112FWD
`CBM2014-00112/113 Final Written Decision, Paper 48
`00016FWD
`CBM2015-00016 Final Written Decision, Paper 56
`00017FWD
`CBM2015-00017 Final Written Decision, Paper 46
`00192FWD
`CBM2014-00192 Final Written Decision, Paper 45
`00193FWD
`CBM2014-00193 Final Written Decision, Paper 45
`00194FWD
`CBM2014-00194 Final Written Decision, Paper 51
`
`*All emphasis added unless otherwise indicated.
`
`
`
`x
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00123
`Patent 8,033,458 B2
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`All but two of PO’s 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 consider-
`
`Board’s Rejection of PO’s Argument
`00016/00192/00193FWDs, 20;
`
`ing § 101 (R62-63), and § 101 cannot
`
`00017FWD, 20-21; 00194FWD, 22.
`
`be raised in CBM review (R66-68).
`
`The ’458 is not a CBM patent. R70-
`
`CBM2014-00106, Pap.8, 8-13; CBM2014-
`
`76.
`
`00192, Pap.7, 7-12; CBM2015-00016,
`
`Pap.23, 12-16; Dec7-11.
`
`Expert evidence is irrelevant to the
`
`00016FWD, 27-28; 00192/193FWDs, 24;
`
`purely legal issue of § 101. R5-6.
`
`00017FWD, 26; 00194FWD, 26-27.
`
`The Claims satisfy Mayo step 2 be-
`
`(1) 00016FWD, 14-17; 00192/00194FWD,
`
`cause (1) they are like the eligible
`
`14-18; 00017/00193FWDs, 12-16.
`
`claims in DDR (R31-50) and (2) non-
`
`(2) 00016/00193FWDs, 17-20;
`
`infringing alternatives exist and there
`
`00192/00017FWDs, 18-20; 00194FWD,
`
`is no undue preemption (R50-62).
`
`20-22.
`
`Claim is definite despite Apple’s
`
`00016FWD, 20-23.
`
`showing of ambiguous antecedent.
`
`R68-70.
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00123
`Patent 8,033,458 B2
`
`
`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 the Challenged Claims are 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. 00016FWD
`
`/00017FWD/00193FWD/00194FWD, 6-9; 00192FWD, 5-9; Ex.2049, 17-18;
`
`Ex.2050, 1-2; see also Dec12-13. (2) As PO admits, its argument about CBM’s un-
`
`constitutionality has been rejected by the Federal Circuit. R64 n.3 (citing MCM
`
`Portfolio LLC v. Hewlett-Packard Co., No. 15-1091, 2015 WL 7755665 (Fed. Cir.
`
`Dec. 2, 2015)).
`
`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 Chal-
`lenged Claims Are Directed To An Abstract Idea
`
`Despite multiple previous CBMs on this and related patents, PO argues here
`
`for the first time that the ’458 claims are not directed to an abstract idea. See, e.g.,
`
`CBM2015-00016, Pap.33, 10; Dec12; R1, 19-27. PO’s entire Mayo Step 1 argu-
`
`ment is based on its legally incorrect assertion that the Claims cannot be directed
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00123
`Patent 8,033,458 B2
`
`to an abstract idea because they claim “machines.” R1, 19-27. 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 ad-
`dressed 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 pur-
`
`poses.”). Indeed, machine, system, and medium claims may “be equivalent to an
`
`abstract mental process for purposes of patent ineligibility,” 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. 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
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00123
`Patent 8,033,458 B2
`
`(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);
`
`00194FWD, 4, 23; CBM2014-00182, Pap.60, 30-31. Thus, that the Claims cover
`
`“machines” does not change the fact that they are directed to an abstract idea.1
`
`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
`
`R10-14. The first step of Mayo is to “determine whether the claims at issue are di-
`
`rected” to an abstract idea. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355. Doing so requires “exam-
`
`in[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). Tell-
`
`ingly, PO fails to explain how one would determine if claims are directed to an ab-
`
`stract idea without examining them. Indeed, in PO’s own cited case, the Board crit-
`
`icized petitioner for failing to “examine the claim as a whole” when determining if
`
`the claims were directed to an abstract idea. PGR2015-00013, Pap.18, 10-11. And
`
`PO has acknowledged that the abstract idea must be derived from the claims.
`
`Ex.1040, 27 (noting “the Supreme Court started from the observation that the
`
`claim language recited a patent-ineligible concept”) (emph. orig.).
`
`
`1 For these reasons, it is also irrelevant that Drs. Kelly and Tygar (Google’s expert
`
`in another CBM) agree that the Claims cover “physical” objects. See R21-23.
`4
`
`
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00123
`Patent 8,033,458 B2
`
`
`Given that PO’s only Mayo Step 1 arguments contradict established prece-
`
`dent, it is no surprise that the Board (in related CBMs) and the district court (in lit-
`
`igation) ruled that related claims are, indeed, directed to an abstract idea despite
`
`claiming machines—e.g., a “data access device” and a “portable data carrier.”
`
`00016FWD, 6-9, 00193FWD, 6-9 (’458 cls. 6 and 8 (on which Cls. 7 &12 and 9
`
`depend, respectively) directed to “[conditioning and] controlling access to con-
`
`tent”); Ex.2049, 2, 17-18; Ex.2050, 1-2 (’458 cls. 8, 10, and 11 directed to “condi-
`
`tioning and controlling access to data based on payment”).
`
`PO’s only remaining arguments in its Mayo Step 1 section (R23-25) 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 (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 payment data.” Dec13.
`
`B. Mayo Step 2: PO Fails To Rebut Apple’s Showing That The Chal-
`lenged Claims Have No Inventive Concept
`
`1. PO Fails To Identify Any Inventive Concept
`
`As the Petition shows (P50-67), the Claims’ “additional features” recite only
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00123
`Patent 8,033,458 B2
`
`well-known, routine, and conventional computer components and activities, which
`
`is insufficient 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
`
`Claim elements, but cannot and does not assert that those elements are inventive.
`
`See R2, R25-27, R47. The claimed hardware elements (e.g., “processor,” “program
`
`store,” “memory,” “interface,” “SIM”) are not “specialized physical components,”
`
`as PO urges (R25-27), but rather the same sort of off-the-shelf components that Al-
`
`ice 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, 4:4-13, 11:28-29, 12:29-32, 16:46-50, 18:7-17. See also
`
`IV, 792 F.3d at 1366-71 (no inventive concept in claims of USP 8,083,137
`
`(Ex.1041) and 7,603,382 (Ex.1042) reciting “database, a user profile, “communica-
`
`tion 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
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00123
`Patent 8,033,458 B2
`
` …
`
` identify new computer hardware: it assumes the availability of physical compo-
`
`nents for input, memory, look-up, comparison, and output.”).
`
`And, despite its elliptical suggestion that combining different types or por-
`
`tions of data in memory may have been inventive (R18, 32, 39, 41, 48, 49), PO
`
`does not even attempt to rebut Apple’s showing that both are amply disclosed in
`
`the prior art and disavowed as inventive in the case law.2 P6-9, 13-15, 18-19, 46,
`
`65 (showing e.g., combining different types of data in memory in Ex.1005
`
`(Kopp), 5:16-21, 6:41-47, Ex.1014 (Stefik), Figs. 7, 10, 12, 9:59-10:1, 10:24-33,
`
`Table 1, 14:28-35, 19:14-15, Ex.1015 (Ginter), 57:27-40; combining different por-
`
`tions of data in memory in Ex. 1014 (Stefik), 6:39-42, 36:59-41:39, 50:41-44);
`
`Accenture, 728 F.3d at 1338, 1344-46 (not inventive to store different data types in
`
`memory, such as a “transaction database comprising a claim folder containing the
`
`information related to the insurance transaction decomposed into a plurality of lev-
`
`els 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
`
`
`2 PO also misrepresents that the Claims recite “continuously enforced” “access
`
`control to the digital content” (R32). In any event, PO does not and cannot explain
`
`how it would be inventive for generic computer components to “continuously” per-
`
`form functions they have performed for decades, see, e.g., Alice, 134 S. Ct. at
`
`2359, when they do not “improve the functioning of the computer itself.” Id.
`7
`
`
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00123
`Patent 8,033,458 B2
`
`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)
`
`(claim 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.1020 ¶78; 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 per-
`
`forming [] 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.1043) that “‘send[] … electronic messag-
`
`es 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, 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;
`
`
`3 Cites to Ex.2108 refer to the transcript’s page:line numbers, not stamped pages.
`8
`
`
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00123
`Patent 8,033,458 B2
`
`“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 in-
`
`ventive.”); CBM2013-00013, Pap.61, 8, 16-17 (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 re-
`
`quest … 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., ’458 Cl. 2 with ’458 cl. 1,’598 cl. 26,’317 cl. 6; ’458 Cl. 3 with
`
`’458 cl. 1 and ’598 cl. 26; ’458 Cl. 4 with ’458 cl. 1, ’598 cl. 26,’317 cls. 6, 16;
`
`’458 Cl. 5 with ’458 cl. 1, ’221 cl. 1, ’598 cl. 26,’317 cls. 1, 8, 16, 18; ’458 Cls. 7,
`
`9, 12 with ’458 cl. 1, ’598 cl. 26, ’221 cls. 1, 11, ’317 cls. 1, 6, 16); see also
`
`Ex.1020 ¶¶77-85; 00016FWD, 10-11; 00192FWD, 10; 00017FWD, 10-11;
`
`00193FWD, 10-11; 00194FWD, 11-12.
`
`Indeed, the first named inventor testified that he did not invent, e.g., data
`
`carriers, receiving or transmitting digital content, online sale of or payment for
`
`content, use or access rules in connection with the online sale of content, or dis-
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00123
`Patent 8,033,458 B2
`
`playing when access to content is permitted. Ex.1037,4 117:24-119:14, 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
`
`’458 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, 12:29-32; see also id., 4:4-13, 11:28-29, 16:46-50, 18:7-11. Because
`
`none of the Claims alone or in combination amounts to an “inventive concept,”
`
`they fail Mayo 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, 149:16-150:3, 249:12-22, 298:2-22, 307:25-
`
`308:11, 310:5-24; Ex.1020 ¶¶10-11, 77-85.
`
`PO again misstates the law to argue Dr. Kelly’s Mayo Step 2 analysis
`
`“miss[es] the mark, because [it] reflect[s] an analysis that looks for an inventive
`
`concept over the prior art, rather than over the abstract idea itself.” R9-10 (emph.
`
`orig.). The relevant inquiry is not, as PO suggests, whether a claim’s “additional
`
`features” are inventive over the abstract idea, but rather whether they provide an
`
`inventive concept despite the fact that the claim is directed to an abstract idea. The
`
`relevant analysis requires determining if the elements that are left after removing
`
`the abstract idea (i.e., “additional features”) amount to an “inventive concept,”
`
`4 Cites to Ex.1037 refer to the transcript’s page:line numbers, not stamped pages.
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00123
`Patent 8,033,458 B2
`
`such that they “‘transform the nature of the claim’ into a patent-eligible applica-
`
`tion.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355, 2357; see also Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Pro-
`
`metheus Labs., Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289, 1304 (2012) (distinguishing § 101 inquiry
`
`from §§ 102 and 103). Dr. Kelly thus performed the analysis Step 2 requires. E.g.,
`
`Ex.2108, 37:20-38:11, 86:2-15; Ex.1020 ¶¶10-11, 74, 80, 85. While not necessary,
`
`considering prior art can certainly inform whether “additional features” are in-
`
`ventive. E.g., 00016FWD, 27-28 (prior art relevant to Step 2); CBM2015-00004,
`
`Pap.33, 40-41(relying on prior art in finding claim elements conventional);
`
`CBM2014-00050, Pap.51, 36-37 (relying on multiple prior art references in Step 2
`
`analysis); Ex.2108, 118:5-16. The unrebutted evidence shows that the Claims re-
`
`cite only rou