CBM2015-00124
`Patent 7,942,317 B2
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`______________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`______________________
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`SMARTFLASH LLC,
`Patent Owner
`______________________
`
`Case CBM2015-00124
`Patent 7,942,317
`______________________
`
`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
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00124
`Patent 7,942,317 B2
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`II.
`
`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 .................................. 6
`1.
`PO Fails To Identify Any Inventive Concept ............................. 6
`The DDR Claims Are Not Analogous To The Challenged
`2.
`Claims .......................................................................................12
`a)
`The Challenged Claims Neither Address an
`Internet-Specific Problem Nor “Override” Routine
`and Conventional Computer Action ...............................13
`The Challenged Claims Do Not “Parallel” the
`DDR Claims ....................................................................15
`The Challenged Claims Are Analogous To Those Held
`Ineligible ...................................................................................16
`PO’s Preemption Arguments Are Misplaced ......................................17
`C.
`III. CLAIM 19 IS INDEFINITE UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 2 .........................19
`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 ’317 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
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00124
`Patent 7,942,317 B2
`
`
`C.
`
`The ’317 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 ’317 Patent
`Does Not Cover A Technological Invention ............................25
`
`2.
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00124
`Patent 7,942,317 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) ........................................................ 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) ...................................................................... 9, 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) ............................................................................................ 19
`
`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
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00124
`Patent 7,942,317 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) .............................................................................................. 14
`
`Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA),
`792 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015) .............................................................. 3, 7, 8, 14
`
`Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc.,
`790 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ........................................................................ 3, 8
`
`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) .......................................................................... 17
`
`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.,
`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) ....................................................................... 7
`
`Suffolk Techs., LLC v. AOL Inc.,
`752 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2014) .......................................................................... 22
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00124
`Patent 7,942,317 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
`
`CBM2014-00106/107, Paper 52 ................................................................................ 9
`
`CBM2014-00108/109, Paper 50 ................................................................................ 9
`
`CBM2014-00112, Paper 7 ................................................................................... 1, 24
`
`CBM2014-00182, Paper 60 ................................................................................. 4, 17
`
`CBM2014-00192, Paper 45 ..............................................................................passim
`
`CBM2014-00193, Paper 45 ..............................................................................passim
`
`CBM2014-00194, Paper 51 ..............................................................................passim
`
`CBM2015-00004, Paper 33 ............................................................................... 11, 21
`
`CBM2015-00016, Paper 56 ..............................................................................passim
`
`CBM2015-00017, Paper 46 ..............................................................................passim
`
`CBM2015-00018, Paper 15 ................................................................................. 1, 24
`
`CBM2015-00113, Paper 7 ......................................................................................... 5
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00124
`Patent 7,942,317 B2
`
`CBM2015-00124, Paper 7 ................................................................................passim
`
`CBM2015-00147, Paper 14 ........................................................................... 5, 10, 18
`
`IPR2013-00048, Paper 15 ........................................................................................ 22
`
`PGR2015-00013, Paper 18 .................................................................................. 5, 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 ........................................................................................................ 23
`
`35 U.S.C. § 282 ........................................................................................................ 23
`
`35 U.S.C. § 321 ........................................................................................................ 23
`
`35 U.S.C § 324 ......................................................................................................... 23
`
`
`
`vi
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00124
`Patent 7,942,317 B2
`
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`1001
`
`1002
`
`1003
`
`1004
`
`1005
`
`1006
`
`1007
`
`1008
`
`1009
`
`1010
`
`1011
`
`1012
`
`1013
`
`1014
`
`1015
`
`1016
`
`1017
`
`1018
`
`
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,942,317
`
`Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,940,805
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,999,806
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,675,734
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,337,483
`
`File History for U.S. Patent No. 7,942,317
`
`Declaration of Megan F. Raymond In Support of Apple
`Inc.’s Petition for Covered Business Method Patent Review
`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)
`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
`vii
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00124
`Patent 7,942,317 B2
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`1019
`
`1020
`
`1021
`
`1022
`
`1023
`
`1024
`
`1025
`
`1026
`
`1027
`
`1028
`
`1029
`
`1030
`
`1031
`
`1032
`
`1033
`
`1034
`
`1035
`
`1036
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,878,245
`
`Claim Construction Memorandum Opinion from Smartflash
`LLC v. Apple Inc., No. 6:13cv447 (Dkt. 229)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,925,127
`
`JP Patent Application Publication No. H10-269289 (transla-
`tion)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,903,721
`
`International Publication Application No. WO95/34857
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,953,005
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,725,375
`
`August 2014 Emails Titled “RE: Smartflash: Meet and Con-
`fer Regarding Further Claim/Prior Art Limits.”
`Apr. 8-9, 2015 Deposition Transcript of Jonathan Katz,
`CBM2014-00102/106/108/112
`Taylor, Jim “DVD-Video: Multimedia for the Masses,”
`IEEE Multimedia, Vol. 6, No. 3, July-September 1999, pp.
`86-92
`U.S. Patent No. 5,646,992
`
`Rakesh Mohan, John R. Smith and Chung-Sheng Li ,
`“Adapting Multimedia Internet Content for Universal Ac-
`cess” IEEE (March 1999)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,761,485
`
`International Publication Application No. WO99/13398
`
`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 Depo-
`
`viii
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00124
`Patent 7,942,317 B2
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`1037
`
`1038
`
`1039
`
`1040
`
`1041
`
`1042
`
`1043
`
`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
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00124
`Patent 7,942,317 B2
`
`
`GLOSSARY OF ABBREVIATIONS
`
`
`Description
`Shorthand
`’317 Patent or ’317 United States Patent No. 7,942,317
`§ 101
`35 U.S.C. § 101
`§ 112
`35 U.S.C. § 112
`Petition or P
`Case CBM2015-00124 Petition, Paper 2
`Decision or Dec
`Case CBM2015-00124 Institution Decision, Paper 7
`PO
`Patent Owner
`POSA
`Person of ordinary skill in the art
`Response or R
`Case CBM2015-00124 Patent Owner Response, Paper 17
`Challenged Claims or
`’317 Patent, claims 2-5, 9-11, 14, 15, 17, and 19
`Claims
`’221 Patent or ’221 United States Patent No. 8,118,221
`’458 Patent or ’458 United States Patent No. 8,033,458
`’598 Patent or ’598 United States Patent No. 8,061,598
`’720 Patent or ’720 United States Patent No. 7,334,720
`’772 Patent or ’772 United States Patent No. 8,336,772
`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
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00124
`Patent 7,942,317 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 considering
`
`Board’s Rejection of PO’s Argument
`00016/00192/00193FWDs, 20;
`
`§ 101 (R53-54), and § 101 cannot be
`
`00017FWD, 20-21; 00194FWD, 22.
`
`raised in CBM review (R57-59).
`
`The ’317 is not a CBM patent. R60-66. CBM2014-00112, Pap.7, 8-12;
`
`CBM2015-00018, Pap.15, 5-9; Dec9-13
`
`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 because
`
`(1) 00016FWD, 14-17; 00192FWD, 14-
`
`(1) they are like the eligible claims in
`
`18; 00017/00193FWDs, 12-16;
`
`DDR Holdings (R29-40) and (2) non-
`
`00194FWD, 14-18.
`
`infringing alternatives exist and there is
`
`(2) 00016/00193FWDs, 17-20;
`
`no risk of inappropriate preemption
`
`00192/00017FWDs, 18-20; 00194FWD,
`
`(R41-52).
`Claim is definite despite Apple’s show-
`
`20-22.
`00016FWD, 20-23.
`
`ing of ambiguous antecedent. R59-60.
`
`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
`1
`
`
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00124
`Patent 7,942,317 B2
`
`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 Challenged Claims are system not
`
`method claims, is contradicted by established §101 law, and by the Board’s and
`
`district court’s correct finding that related claims are directed to abstract ideas.
`
`00194FWD, 6-9; 00016FWD, 6-9; 00192FWD, 5-9; 00017FWD, 6-9; 00193FWD,
`
`6-9; Ex.2049, 17-18; Ex.2050, 1-2; see also Dec14-16. As to the method Claims,
`
`PO offers only a bare assertion that they are not directed to an abstract idea. R1,
`
`25. (2) As PO admits, its argument about the unconstitutionality of CBMs has been
`
`rejected by the Federal Circuit. R54 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 ’317 claims are not directed to an abstract idea. See, e.g.,
`
`CBM2015-00018, Pap.25, 9; Dec15; R1, 19-25. PO’s entire Mayo Step 1 argument
`
`is based on its legally incorrect assertion that the system Claims cannot be directed
`
`to an abstract idea because they claim “machines.” R1, 19-25. PO’s argument is
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00124
`Patent 7,942,317 B2
`
`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) (“we look to the underlying invention for patent-eligibility pur-
`
`poses.”). 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.
`
`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); In-
`
`tellectual 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
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00124
`Patent 7,942,317 B2
`
`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
`
`PO provides no support for its contentions that the method Claims (9-11, 19)
`
`are patent eligible “useful processes” or that, for eligibility, claims need only be
`
`directed to a “real-world” process. R1, 25. While “inventions with specific applica-
`
`tions 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 Claims)
`
`provide “[n]o such technological advance” and “merely employ computers” to fa-
`
`cilitate the known concept of controlling access to content. Bancorp, 687 F.3d at
`
`1279; see also, e.g., Ex.1017 ¶¶75-76; P39-48; Dec12-16.
`
`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
`
`R11-13. 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-
`
`
`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 R20-21.
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00124
`Patent 7,942,317 B2
`
`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.1037, 27 (noting “the Supreme Court started from the observation that the
`
`claim language recited a patent-ineligible concept”) (emph. orig.).
`
`Given that PO’s only Step 1 arguments contradict established precedent, it is
`
`no surprise that the Board (in related CBMs) and the district court (in litigation)
`
`ruled that related claims are, indeed, directed to an abstract idea despite claiming
`
`machines—e.g., a “data access terminal,” and a “data access device.” 00194FWD,
`
`6-9 (’221 cl. 32 directed to “conditioning and controlling access to content”);
`
`00016FWD, 6-9, 00193FWD, 6-9; Ex.2049, 2, 17-18; Ex.2050, 1-2 (related claims
`
`directed to “conditioning and controlling access to data based on payment”).
`
`PO’s only remaining arguments in its Mayo Step 1 section (R22-25) relate to
`
`Mayo Step 2, not Step 1. See CBM2015-00147, Pap.14, 12, 14 (“however the ab-
`
`stract idea is characterized, the … claims do not meet [Mayo Step 2].”);
`
`CBM2015-00113, Pap.7, 13 (rejecting petitioner’s articulation of abstract idea and
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00124
`Patent 7,942,317 B2
`
`finding the “claims are … not merely the implementation of a known abstract
`
`idea”). Thus, PO 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.” Dec15.
`
`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 (P49-69), the Claims’ “additional features” recite only
`
`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. But in its Mayo Step 2 arguments, PO ducks the key issue.
`
`PO recites various Claim elements, but cannot and does not assert that those ele-
`
`ments are inventive. See R2-3, R24-25. The claimed hardware elements (e.g., “pro-
`
`cessor,” “program store,” “data access store,” and “communications interface”) are
`
`not “specialized physical components,” as PO urges (R24-25), 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,
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00124
`Patent 7,942,317 B2
`
`3:66-67, 11:27-29, 12:29-32, 13:35-38, 14:25-29; 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.1038)
`
`and 7,603,382 (Ex.1039) reciting “database, a user profile, “communication medi-
`
`um,” and employing “interactive interface”); Accenture, 728 F.3d at 1338, 1344-46
`
`(claims (rep. cl. 1) reciting only “generalized software components” for “generat-
`
`ing tasks [based on] rules … to be completed upon the occurrence of an event” un-
`
`patentable) (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 in-
`
`put, memory, look-up, comparison, and output.”).
`
`And, despite its elliptical suggestion that two of the claimed functions may
`
`have been inventive (R19, 30, 38-40), 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 P7-11, 13-19, 63-64 (showing e.g., content access based on pay-
`
`ment in, Ex.1004 (Chernow), 6:48-65, 7:53-63, Ex.1016 (von Faber), 7, Ex.1013
`
`
`2 PO also misrepresents that the Claims recite “continuously enforced” “access
`
`control to the digital content” (R19). 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
`
`
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00124
`Patent 7,942,317 B2
`
`(Poggio), Fig. 7, 10:7-20, 10:41-53; combining different types of data in memory
`
`in Ex.1011 (Stefik), 6:39-42, 6:51-56, 6:62-7:5, 14:28-35, 39:56-41:39, 50:41-44,
`
`Ex.1003 (Kopp), 5:16-21, 6:41-47); Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 712 (rep. cl. 1), 714-
`
`16 (not inventive to base content access on payment, such as “allowing said con-
`
`sumer 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 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 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) (claim generating two data sets and combining them is ineli-
`
`gible 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.1017 ¶82; Ex.2108,3 311:8-14.
`
`Indeed, all of the claimed functions are merely well-understood, routine, and
`
`
`3 Cites to Ex.2108 refer to the transcript’s page:line numbers, not stamped pages.
`8
`
`
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00124
`Patent 7,942,317 B2
`
`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.1040) 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;
`
`“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 (rep. cl. 1); CBM2014-00182, Pap.60,
`
`32-38 (no inventive concept in claims (rep. cl. 33) requiring “database,” “proces-
`
`sor,” “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.,
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00124
`Patent 7,942,317 B2
`
`’317 Cl. 2 with ’317 cls. 1, 16; ’317 Cls. 3-5 with ’317 cls. 1, 6, ’221 cls. 1, 12,
`
`’458 cl. 1, ’598 cl. 26; ’317 Cl. 9 with ’317 cls. 8, 18; ’317 Cls. 10, 11 with ’317
`
`cls. 6, 8, ’221 cls. 1, 12, ’458 cl. 1, ’598 cl. 26; ’317 Cls. 14, 15 with ’317 cls. 6, 8,
`
`12, 18, ’221 cls. 1, 12, ’458 cl. 1, and ’598 cl. 26; ’317 Cl. 17 with ’317 cls. 1, 6, 8,
`
`18, ’221 cls. 1, 12, ’458 cl. 1, and ’598 cl. 26; ’317 Cl. 19 with ’317 cls. 6, 8, 12,
`
`’221 cls. 1, 12, ’458 cl. 1, ’598 cl. 26); see also Ex.1017 ¶¶77-83; 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, payment authorization, use rules or access rules in connection with the
`
`online sale of content, downloading (secure) content over the Internet, or a system
`
`for managing royalty payments. Ex.1034,4 117:24-119:14, 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 ’317 admits “[t]he
`
`physical embodiment of the system is not critical and … the terminals, data pro-
`
`cessing systems and the like can all take a variety of forms.” Ex.1001, 12:29-32;
`
`see also id., 3:66-67, 11:27-29, 13:35-38, 14:25-29; 16:46-50, 18:7-17. Because
`
`none of the Claim elements—either alone or in combination—is an “inventive
`
`concept,” the Claims fail Mayo Step 2. E.g., Ex.2108, 38:14-39:7, 57:5-58:11,
`
`
`4 Cites to Ex.1034 refer to the transcript’s page:line numbers not stamped pages.
`10
`
`
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00124
`Patent 7,942,317 B2
`
`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.1017 ¶¶10-11, 77-83.
`
`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 lo