CBM2015-00130
`Patent 8,118,221 B2
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`______________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`______________________
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`SMARTFLASH LLC,
`Patent Owner
`______________________
`
`Case CBM2015-00130
`Patent 8,118,221
`______________________
`
`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
`
`

`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................. 1
`I.
`II. 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
`The Challenged Claims Are Analogous To Those Held
`Ineligible ...................................................................................16
`PO’s Preemption Arguments Are Misplaced ......................................18
`C.
`III. CLAIM 22 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 ’221 Patent’s Prosecution,
`Nor The AIA Prohibits The Board From Considering
`§ 101 Here .................................................................................22
`Non-Final District Court § 101 Determinations
`Are Irrelevant ............................................................................23
`THE ’221 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 ’221 Patent Does
`Not Cover A Technological Invention ......................................25
`
`
`
`3.
`
`2.
`
`2.
`
`CBM2015-00130
`Patent 8,118,221 B2
`
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00130
`Patent 8,118,221 B2
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`
`Cases
`Accenture Global Servs., GmbH v. Guidewire Software, Inc.,
`728 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ......................................................... 3, 7, 8, 16, 24
`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, 22, 24
`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, 4, 16, 19
`buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc.,
`765 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ........................................................................8, 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) ..................................................... 1, 12, 13, 14, 15
`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
`Ethicon, Inc. v. Quigg,
`849 F.2d 1422 (Fed. Cir. 1988) ............................................................................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
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00130
`Patent 8,118,221 B2
`
`Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA),
`792 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ......................................................... 3, 6, 8, 14, 24
`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) .............................................................................................23
`MCM Portfolio LLC v. Hewlett-Packard Co.,
`No. 15-1091, 2015 WL 7755665 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 2, 2015) ..................................23
`Mortgage Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs. Inc.,
`811 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ............................................................................17
`Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc.,
`134 S. Ct. 2120 (2014)..........................................................................................20
`OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc.,
`788 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ..................................................... 9, 14, 17, 19, 24
`Research Corp. Techs., Inc. v. Microsoft Corp.,
`627 F.3d 859 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ................................................................................ 4
`SightSound Techs., LLC v. Apple Inc.,
`No 15-1160 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 15, 2015) ..................................................................25
`SightSound Techs., LLC v. Apple Inc.,
`Nos. 15-1159, -1160, slip op. (Fed. Cir. Dec. 15, 2015) ......................................25
`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,
`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
`Versa Corp. v. Ag-Bag Int’l Ltd.,
`392 F.3d 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ............................................................................20
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00130
`Patent 8,118,221 B2
`
`Versata Dev. Grp., Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc.,
`793 F.3d 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ......................................................... 22, 23, 24, 25
`
`
`PTAB RULINGS
`CBM2012-00007, Paper 15 .....................................................................................24
`CBM2012-00007, Paper 58 .....................................................................................24
`CBM2014-00050, Paper 51 .....................................................................................12
`CBM2014-00102, Paper 8 ...................................................................................1, 25
`CBM2014-00102/103, Paper 52 ................................................................................ 9
`CBM2014-00106/107, Paper 52 ................................................................................ 9
`CBM2014-00108/109, Paper 50 ................................................................................ 9
`CBM2014-00112/113, Paper 48 ................................................................................ 9
`CBM2014-00182, Paper 60 ............................................................................ 3, 9, 17
`CBM2014-00192, Paper 45 ............................................................................. passim
`CBM2014-00193, Paper 45 ............................................................................. passim
`CBM2014-00194, Paper 51 ............................................................................. passim
`CBM2014-00194, Paper 9 ...................................................................................1, 25
`CBM2015-00004, Paper 33 .............................................................................. 12, 22
`CBM2015-00016, Paper 56 ............................................................................. passim
`CBM2015-00016, Paper 33 .....................................................................................20
`CBM2015-00017, Paper 46 ............................................................................. passim
`CBM2015-00130, Paper 9 ............................................................................... passim
`CBM2015-00147, Paper 14 .......................................................................... 5, 11, 19
`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
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00130
`Patent 8,118,221 B2
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112 ........................................................................................................19
`35 U.S.C. § 282 ........................................................................................................23
`35 U.S.C. § 321 ........................................................................................................23
`
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00130
`Patent 8,118,221 B2
`
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`1001
`
`1002
`
`1003
`
`1004
`
`1005
`
`1006
`
`1007
`
`1008
`
`1009
`
`1010
`
`1011
`
`1012
`
`1013
`
`1014
`
`1015
`
`1016
`
`1017
`
`1018
`
`1019
`
`1020
`
`
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,118,221
`
`Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint
`
`File History for U.S. Patent No. 8,061,598
`
`File History for U.S. Patent No. 8,336,772
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,675,734
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,999,806
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,878,245
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,334,720
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,942,317
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,940,805
`
`File History of U.S. Patent No. 8,118,221
`
`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)
`International Publication No. WO 95/34857
`
`Eberhard von Faber, Robert Hammelrath, and Frank-Peter
`Heider, “The Secure Distribution of Digital Contents,” IEEE
`vi
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00130
`Patent 8,118,221 B2
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`1021
`
`1022
`
`1023
`
`1024
`
`1025
`
`1026
`
`1027
`
`1028
`
`1029
`
`1030
`
`1031
`
`1032
`
`1033
`
`1034
`
`1035
`1036
`
`1037
`
`1038
`
`1039
`
`
`
`(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
`International Publication No. WO 99/13398
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,033,458
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,061,598
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,336,772
`
`File History for U.S. Patent No. 7,334,720
`
`File History for U.S. Patent No. 7,942,317
`
`File History for U.S. Patent No. 8,033,458
`
`Claim Construction Memorandum Opinion from Smartflash
`LLC v. Apple Inc., No. 6:13cv447 (Dkt. 229)
`U.S. Patent No. 4,337,483
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,725,375
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,925,127
`
`JP Patent Application Publication No. H10-269289 (transla-
`tion)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,953,005
`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
`J. Taylor, “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
`
`vii
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00130
`Patent 8,118,221 B2
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`1040
`
`1041
`
`1042
`
`1043
`
`1044
`
`1045
`
`1046
`
`1047
`
`1048
`
`1049
`
`1050
`
`1051
`
`1052
`
`1053
`
`
`
`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
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,903,721
`
`Excerpt of Transcript of Trial Afternoon Session, February
`16, 2015 from Smartflash LLC v. Apple Inc., No. 6:13cv447
`Declaration of Megan F. Raymond In Support of Apple
`Inc.’s Petition for Covered Business Method Patent Review
`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
`
`viii
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00130
`Patent 8,118,221 B2
`
`
`GLOSSARY OF ABBREVIATIONS
`
`
`Description
`Shorthand
`’221 Patent or ’221 United States Patent No. 8,118,221
`§ 101
`35 U.S.C. § 101
`§ 112
`35 U.S.C. § 112
`Petition or P
`Case CBM2015-00130 Petition, Paper 2
`Decision or Dec
`Case CBM2015-00130 Institution Decision, Paper 9
`PO
`Patent Owner
`POSA
`Person of ordinary skill in the art
`Response or R
`Case CBM2015-00130 Patent Owner Response, Paper 19
`Challenged Claims or
`’221 Patent, claims 3-10, 15-31, and 33
`Claims
`’772 Patent or ’772 United States Patent No. 8,336,772
`’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
`’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.
`
`
`
`ix
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00130
`Patent 8,118,221 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 (R62-64), and § 101 cannot be
`
`00017FWD, 20-21; 00194FWD, 22.
`
`raised in CBM review (R67-69).
`
`The ’221 is not a CBM patent. R71-77. CBM2014-00194, Pap.9, 7-12;
`
`CBM2014-00102, Pap.8, 8-12; Dec7-12
`
`Expert evidence is irrelevant to the
`
`00016FWD, 27-28; 00192/193FWDs, 24;
`
`purely legal issue of § 101. R6-7
`
`00017FWD, 26; 00194FWD, 26-27.
`
`The Claims satisfy Mayo step 2 be-
`
`(1) 00016FWD, 14-17; 00192FWD, 14-
`
`cause (1) they are like the eligible
`
`18; 00017/00193FWDs, 12-16;
`
`claims in DDR Holdings (R31-46) and
`
`00194FWD, 14-18.
`
`(2) non-infringing alternatives exist and
`
`(2) 00016/00193FWDs, 17-20;
`
`there is no risk of inappropriate preemp-
`
`00192/00017FWDs, 18-20; 00194FWD,
`
`tion (R46-62).
`
`20-22.
`
`Claim is definite despite Apple’s show-
`
`00016FWD, 20-23.
`
`ing of ambiguous antecedent. R69-71.
`
`
`PO points to no new law, and no differences between these Claims and those
`1
`
`
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00130
`Patent 8,118,221 B2
`
`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 Challenged Claims are appa-
`
`ratus/system 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 ab-
`
`stract 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 its argument about CBM’s un-
`
`constitutionality 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 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 ’221 claims are not directed to an abstract idea. See, e.g.,
`
`CBM2014-00194, Pap.24, 11; Dec13; R1, 20-27. PO’s entire Mayo Step 1 argu-
`
`ment is based on its legally incorrect assertion that the apparatus/system Claims
`
`cannot be directed to an abstract idea because they claim “machines.” R1, 20-27.
`
`PO’s argument is contradicted by well-established, controlling precedent. E.g.:
`
`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-
`2
`
`
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00130
`Patent 8,118,221 B2
`
`
`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,” 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
`
`F.3d 1336, 1338-39, 1344-45 (Fed. Cir. 2013); 00194FWD, 4, 23; CBM2014-
`
`00182, Pap.60, 30-31. Thus, that the apparatus Claims cover “machines” does not
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00130
`Patent 8,118,221 B2
`
`change the fact that they are directed to an abstract idea.1
`
`Similarly, PO fails to support its contentions that the method Claims (15-16,
`
`24-27) are patent eligible “useful processes” or that, for eligibility, claims need on-
`
`ly be directed to a “real-world” process. R27. While “inventions with specific ap-
`
`plications 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 comput-
`
`ers” to facilitate the known concept of controlling access to content. Bancorp, 687
`
`F.3d at 1279; see also, e.g., Ex.1021 ¶¶75-76; P43-49; Dec10-14.
`
`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
`
`R11-16. 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-
`
`
`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 R22-23.
`4
`
`
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00130
`Patent 8,118,221 B2
`
`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.1047, 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 ab-
`
`stract idea despite claiming, e.g., a “data access terminal,” and a “data access de-
`
`vice.” 00194FWD, 6-9 (’221 cl. 32, on which Cl. 33 depends, directed to “condi-
`
`tioning and controlling access to content”); 00016FWD, 6-9, 00193FWD, 6-9
`
`(’458 cls. 6, 8, 10, 11 directed to “[conditioning and] controlling access to con-
`
`tent”); Ex.2049, 2, 17-18; Ex.2050, 1-2 (’221 cls. 2, 11, and 32 directed to “condi-
`
`tioning and controlling access to data based on payment”).
`
`PO’s only remaining arguments in its Mayo Step 1 section (R23-27) 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
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00130
`Patent 8,118,221 B2
`
`abstract idea, which the Board accurately articulated as “restricting access to stored
`
`data based on supplier-defined access rules and validation of payment.” Dec14.
`
`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 (P49-72), the Claims’ “additional features” recite only
`
`well-known, routine, conventional computer components/activities, which fails to
`
`establish an inventive concept under Mayo Step 2. 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—never identifying
`
`what Claim elements are inventive, or why. See R2-3, R26-27, R37. The claimed
`
`hardware elements (e.g., “processor,” “program store,” “memory,” “interface,” and
`
`a “portable” device) are not “specialized physical components,” as PO urges (R26-
`
`27), 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, 4:4-13, 11:28-29, 12:29-32, 13:35-38,16:46-50, 18:7-17.
`
`See also IV, 792 F.3d at 1366-71 (no inventive concept in claims of USP 8,083,137
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00130
`Patent 8,118,221 B2
`
`(Ex.1048) and 7,603,382 (Ex.1049) 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
`
`… 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 three of the claimed functions may
`
`have been inventive (R20, 32, 36-37, 45), PO does not even attempt to rebut Ap-
`
`ple’s showing that all are amply disclosed in the prior art and disavowed as in-
`
`ventive in the case law.2 P6-9, 11-13, 16-18, 64-65 (showing, e.g., retrieving and
`
`outputting data in Ex.1005 (Hair), 5:41-56, Ex.1015 (Ginter), 238:5-17, 286:60-
`
`287:4, Ex.1016 (Poggio), Fig. 6, 8:20-57, 9:34-44; content access based on pay-
`
`
`2 PO also misrepresents that the Claims recite “continuously enforced” “access
`
`control to the digital content” (R20). 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
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00130
`Patent 8,118,221 B2
`
`ment in Ex.1006 (Chernow), 6:48-65, 7:53-63, Ex.1016 (Poggio), Fig. 7, 10:7-20,
`
`Ex. 1019 (Smith), Fig. 5, 18:21-33; combining different types of data in memory
`
`in Ex.1014 (Stefik), 6:51-56, 6:62-7:5, 19:14-15, Ex. 1015 (Ginter), 57:27-40); Al-
`
`ice, 134 S. Ct. at 2352 nn.1-2 (rep. cl. 33), 2360 (“[n]early every computer … [is]
`
`capable of performing [] basic … transmission functions”); Ultramercial, 772 F.3d
`
`at 712 (rep. cl. 1), 714-16 (not inventive to base content access on payment, such
`
`as “allowing said consumer access to said media product after said step of facilitat-
`
`ing 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 data-
`
`base comprising a claim folder containing … a plurality of levels from the group
`
`comprising a policy level, a claim level, a participant level and a line level”); see
`
`also 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 net-
`
`work … is not even arguably inventive.”); 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
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00130
`Patent 8,118,221 B2
`
`information in the same place or on the same device is an age old practice”);
`
`Ex.1021 ¶¶79, 81, 84, 87, 91; 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. 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.1050) that “‘send[] … electronic messages over a
`
`network’” and “stor[e]” data ); Content Extraction, 776 F.3d at 1345 (rep. cl. 1),
`
`1347-49; Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 712 (rep. cl. 1), 714-16 (“selecting an ad,” “re-
`
`stricting 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); 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., ’221
`
`Cls. 3, 4 with ’221 cl. 1 and ’317 cls. 1, 16; ’221 Cl. 5 with ’221 cl. 1, ’458 cl. 1,
`
`’598 cl. 26, ’317 cls. 1, 6, 16; ’221 Cl. 6 with ’221 cl. 1, ’598 cl. 26, ’317 cl. 6;
`
`
`3 Cites to Ex.2108 refer to the transcript’s page:line numbers, not stamped pages.
`9
`
`
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00130
`Patent 8,118,221 B2
`
`’221 Cl. 7 with ’221 cl. 1, ’598 cl. 26, ’317 cls. 6, 16; ’221 Cl. 8 with ’221 cls. 1,
`
`12, ’458 cl. 1, ’ 598 cl. 26; ’221 Cl. 9 with ’221 cls. 1, 12, ’458 cl. 1, ’598 cl. 26,
`
`’317 cl. 16; ’221 Cl. 10 with ’221 cls. 1, 12 and ’317 cls. 1, 8, 16, 18; ’221 Cl. 15
`
`with ’221 cls. 1, 12-14, ’458 cl. 1, ’598 cl. 26, ’317 cl. 16; ’221 Cl. 16 with ’221
`
`cls. 1, 12, ’458 cl. 1, ’598 cl. 26, ’317 cls. 6, 16; ’221 Cls. 17, 18, 22, 23 with ’221
`
`cls. 1, 11, ’458 cl. 1, ’317 cls. 1, 16; ’221 Cls. 19, 20 with ’221 cls. 1, 11, ’458 cl.
`
`1, ’317 cls. 1, 6, 16; ’221 Cl. 21 with ’221 cls. 1, 11, 12, ’458 cl. 1, ’598 cl. 26,
`
`’317 cls. 1, 6, 16; ’221 Cls. 24-27 with ’221 cl. 1, ’458 cl. 1, ’598 cl. 26; ’221 Cl.
`
`28 with ’317 cl. 12; ’221 Cl. 29 with ’317 cls. 12, 13; ’221 Cls. 30, 31 with ’221
`
`cls. 1, 12, ’458 cl. 1, ’598 cl. 26, ’317 cls. 6, 8, 12, 13, 18; ’221 Cl. 33 with ’221 cl.
`
`1 and ’317 cls. 1, 6.); see also Ex.1021 ¶¶77-92; 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/rental 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, charging
`
`different prices for content rentals and purchases, or displaying when access to
`
`content is permitted. Ex.1043,4 117:24-119:14, 120:14-121:8, 122:19-125:25,
`
`126:11-129:18. And, unlike Hulu’s patent, which claimed components that are not
`
`4 Cites to Ex.1043 refer to the transcript’s page:line numbers, not stamped pages.
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00130
`Patent 8,118,221 B2
`
`“generic computers” (CBM2015-00147, Pap.14, 14), the ’221 admits “[t]he physi-
`
`cal 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, 13:35-38,16:46-50, 18:7-17. Because none of the Claims’ el-
`
`ements—alone or in combination—amounts to an “inventive concept,” they fail