CBM2015-00131
`Patent 8,061,598 B2
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`______________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`______________________
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`SMARTFLASH LLC,
`Patent Owner
`______________________
`
`Case CBM2015-00131
`Patent 8,061,598
`______________________
`
`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
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00131
`Patent 8,061,598 B2
`
`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 .......................................................................................13
`The Challenged Claims Are Analogous To Those Held
`Ineligible ...................................................................................16
`PO’s Preemption Arguments Are Misplaced ......................................18
`C.
`III. PO’S OTHER ARGUMENTS ARE IRRELEVANT TO THE
`MERITS ...........................................................................................................20
`A. Dr. Kelly’s Unrebutted Expert Opinions Are Reliable And Entitled To
`Significant Weight ...............................................................................20
`PO’s Arguments Regarding The Board’s Ability To Review
`The Challenged Claims Are Unfounded .............................................22
`1.
`Neither The Constitution, The ’598 Patent’s Prosecution, Nor
`The AIA Prohibits The Board From
`Considering § 101 Here ............................................................22
`Non-Final District Court § 101 Determinations
`Are Irrelevant ............................................................................23
`The ’598 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 ’598 Patent Does
`Not Cover A Technological Invention ......................................25
`
`
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`3.
`
`2.
`
`2.
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00131
`Patent 8,061,598 B2
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`
`CASES
`Accenture Global Servs., GmbH v. Guidewire Software, Inc.,
`728 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ................................................... 4, 7, 8, 16, 21, 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) ......................................................... 19, 20, 22, 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, 4, 16, 20
`buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc.,
`765 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ........................................................................9, 18
`Content Extraction& Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n,
`776 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ................................................................... 6, 9, 18
`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, 13, 14, 15, 16
`Diamond v. Diehr,
`450 U.S. 175 (1981) .............................................................................................20
`Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Elecs. for Imaging, Inc.,
`758 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ............................................................................. 8
`Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Gen-Probe, Inc.,
`424 F.3d 1276 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ............................................................................22
`Ethicon, Inc. v. Quigg,
`849 F.2d 1422 (Fed. Cir. 1988) ............................................................................24
`Fresenius USA, Inc. v. Baxter Int’l, Inc.,
`721 F.3d 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ............................................................................23
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00131
`Patent 8,061,598 B2
`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, 6, 8, 14, 15, 23
`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) ..............................2, 23
`Mortgage Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs. Inc.,
`811 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ............................................................................18
`OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc.,
`788 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ..................................................... 9, 15, 18, 20, 23
`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
`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, 20
`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
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00131
`Patent 8,061,598 B2
`CBM2013-00013, Paper 61 .....................................................................................10
`CBM2014-00050, Paper 51 .....................................................................................12
`CBM2014-00102/103, Paper 52 ..............................................................................10
`CBM2014-00106/107, Paper 52 ..............................................................................10
`CBM2014-00108/109, Paper 50 ..............................................................................10
`CBM2014-00108/109, Paper 8 ............................................................................1, 25
`CBM2014-00112/113, Paper 48 ...................................................................... passim
`CBM2014-00182, Paper 60 .......................................................................... 4, 10, 18
`CBM2014-00192, Paper 45 ............................................................................. passim
`CBM2014-00193, Paper 45 ............................................................................. passim
`CBM2014-00193, Paper 7 ...................................................................................1, 25
`CBM2014-00194, Paper 51 ............................................................................. passim
`CBM2015-00004, Paper 33 .............................................................................. 12, 22
`CBM2015-00016, Paper 56 ............................................................................. passim
`CBM2015-00017, Paper 46 ............................................................................. passim
`CBM2015-00017, Paper 22 .................................................................................1, 25
`CBM2015-00017, Paper 32 ....................................................................................... 2
`CBM2015-00121, Paper 17 .....................................................................................16
`CBM2015-00131, Paper 8 ............................................................................... passim
`CBM2015-00124, Paper 17 .....................................................................................16
`CBM2015-00133, Paper 21 .....................................................................................16
`CBM2015-00147, Paper 14 .......................................................................... 5, 11, 19
`IPR2013-00048, Paper 15 ........................................................................................22
`PGR2015-00013, Paper 18 ..................................................................................5, 19
`STATUTES
`35 U.S.C. § 101 ................................................................................................ passim
`35 U.S.C. § 102 ........................................................................................................12
`35 U.S.C. § 103 ........................................................................................................12
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00131
`Patent 8,061,598 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. 8,061,598
`
`Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,925,127
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,940,805
`
`August 2014 Emails Titled “RE: Smartflash: Meet and Con-
`fer Regarding Further Claim/Prior Art Limits.”
`U.S. Patent No. 4,999,806
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,675,734
`
`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. 5,103,392
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,530,235
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,629,980
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,915,019
`
`Patent
`European
`EP0809221A2
`International Publication No. WO 99/43136
`
`Application,
`
`Publication
`
`No.
`
`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
`
`v
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00131
`Patent 8,061,598 B2
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`1020
`
`1021
`
`1022
`
`1023
`
`1024
`
`1025
`
`1026
`
`1027
`
`1028
`
`1029
`
`1030
`
`1031
`
`1032
`
`1033
`
`1034
`
`1035
`
`1036
`
`1037
`
`
`
`Petition for Covered Business Method Patent Review
`U.S. Patent No. 8,033,458
`
`Declaration of Michael P. Duffey In Support of Apple Inc.’s
`Petition for Covered Business Method Patent Review
`Declaration of Megan F. Raymond In Support of Apple
`Inc.’s Petition for Covered Business Method Patent Review
`Claim Construction Memorandum Opinion from Smartflash
`LLC v. Apple Inc., No. 6:13cv447 (Dkt. 229)
`File History for U.S. Patent No. 8,061,598
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,337,483
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,725,375
`
`International Publication No. WO 95/34857
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,970,479
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,646,992
`
`Apr. 8-9, 2015 Deposition Transcript of Jonathan Katz,
`CBM2014-00102/106/108/112
`J. Taylor, “DVD-Video: Multimedia fro the Masses,” IEEE
`Multimedia, Vol. 6, No. 3, July-September 1999, pp.86-92
`U.S. Patent No. 5,903,721
`
`R. Mohan, J.R. Smith, C.S. Li, “Adapting Multimedia In-
`ternet Content for Universal Access,” IEEE Transaction 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
`
`International Publication No. WO99/13398
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,953,005
`
`vi
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00131
`Patent 8,061,598 B2
`EXHIBIT LIST
`1038
`
`1039
`
`1040
`
`1041
`
`1042
`
`1043
`
`1044
`
`1045
`
`1046
`
`1047
`
`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-
`nent for the deposition of John P. J. Kelley, Ph.D. dated
`February 3, 2016
`Brief for Plaintiffs-Appellees Smartflash LLC (Dkt. 40) in
`Smartflash LLC, et al. v. Apple Inc., et al., Appeal No.
`2016-1059, United States Court of Appeals for the Federal
`Circuit
`U.S. Patent No. 8,083,137
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,603,382
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,970,713
`
`Transcript of November 9, 2015 Oral Hearing in CBM2014-
`00192/-00193/-00194/-00199, and CBM2015-
`00015/00016/00017/-00018
`U.S. Patent No. 7,346,545
`
`Declaration of Michael P. Duffey In Support of Petitioner’s
`Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`
`
`vii
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00131
`Patent 8,061,598 B2
`
`GLOSSARY OF ABBREVIATIONS
`
`
`Description
`Shorthand
`’598 Patent or ’598 United States Patent No. 8,061,598
`§ 101
`35 U.S.C. § 101
`§ 112
`35 U.S.C. § 112
`Petition or P
`Case CBM2015-00131 Petition, Paper 1
`Decision or Dec
`Case CBM2015-00131 Institution Decision, Paper 8
`PO
`Patent Owner
`POSA
`Person of ordinary skill in the art
`Response or R
`Case CBM 2015-00131 Patent Owner Response, Paper 18
`Challenged Claims or
`’598 Patent, claims 3-6, 8-14, 16-25, 27-30, and 32-41
`Claims
`’221 Patent or ’221 United States Patent No. 8,118,221
`’458 Patent or ’458 United States Patent No. 8,033,458
`’772 Patent or ’772 United States Patent No. 8,336,772
`’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.
`
`
`
`viii
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00131
`Patent 8,061,598 B2
`INTRODUCTION
`I.
`
`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(R39-41), and § 101 cannot
`
`00017FWD, 20-21; 00194FWD, 22.
`
`be raised in CBM review (R43-46).
`
`The ’598 is not a CBM patent. R46-51. CBM2014-00108/109, Pap.8, 7-12;
`
`CBM2014-00193, Pap.7, 6-10;
`
`CBM2015-00017, Pap.22, 9-13; Dec8-12.
`
`Expert evidence is irrelevant to the
`
`00016FWD, 27-28; 00192/193FWDs, 24;
`
`purely legal issue of § 101. R5.
`
`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 (R26-31) and
`
`00194FWD, 14-18.
`
`(2) non-infringing alternatives exist
`
`(2) 00016/00193FWDs, 17-20;
`
`and there is no risk of inappropriate
`
`00192/00017FWDs, 18-20; 00194FWD,
`
`preemption (R31-38).
`
`PO points to no new law, and no differences between these Claims and those
`
`20-22.
`
`already found unpatentable, that should cause the Board’s conclusions here to be
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00131
`Patent 8,061,598 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 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.
`
`00017FWD, 6-9; 00193FWD, 6-9; 00016FWD, 6-9; 00192FWD, 5-9; 00194FWD,
`
`6-9; Ex.2049, 17-18; Ex.2050, 1-2; see also Dec13-15. As to the method Claims,
`
`PO offers only a bare assertion that they are not directed to an abstract idea. R1,
`
`18, 22. (2) As PO admits, PO’s argument about CBM’s unconstitutionality has
`
`been rejected by the Federal Circuit. R41 n.1 (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 ’598 claims are not directed to an abstract idea. See, e.g.,
`
`CBM2015-00017, Pap.32, 9-10; Dec14; R1, 18-22. PO’s entire Mayo Step 1 ar-
`
`gument is based on its legally incorrect assertion that the apparatus Claims cannot
`
`be directed to an abstract idea because they claim “machines.” R1, 18-22. PO’s ar-
`
`gument is squarely contradicted by well-established, controlling precedent. E.g.:
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00131
`Patent 8,061,598 B2
`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 so-
`cial 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) (“Regardless of what statutory category …, we look to the under-
`
`lying invention for patent-eligibility purposes.”). Indeed, machine, system, and
`
`medium claims may “be equivalent to an abstract mental process,” and numerous
`
`claims of these types have been found to be directed to abstract ideas. E.g., Ban-
`
`corp 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 (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.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00131
`Patent 8,061,598 B2
`2013); CBM2014-00182, Pap.60, 30-31. Thus, that the apparatus Claims cover
`
`“machines” does not change the fact that they are directed to an abstract idea.1
`
`Similarly, PO provides no support for its contentions that the method Claims
`
`(32-38) are patent eligible “useful processes” or that, for eligibility, claims need
`
`only be directed to a “real-world” process. R18, 22. While “inventions with specif-
`
`ic applications or improvements to technologies in the marketplace are not likely to
`
`be so abstract” as to be ineligible, Research Corp. Techs., Inc. v. Microsoft Corp.,
`
`627 F.3d 859, 869 (Fed. Cir. 2010), the method Claims here (like the apparatus
`
`Claims) provide “[n]o such technological advance” and “merely employ comput-
`
`ers” to facilitate the well-known concept of controlling access to content. Bancorp,
`
`687 F.3d at 1279; see also, e.g., Ex.1019 ¶¶76-77; P46-48, 51-53; Dec11-15.
`
`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-
`
`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-
`
`
`1 For these reasons, it is also irrelevant that Drs. Kelly and Tygar (Google’s expert
`
`in another CBM) agree the Claims cover “physical” objects. See R18-20.
`4
`
`
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00131
`Patent 8,061,598 B2
`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.1041, 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 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.”
`
`00017FWD, 6-9, 00193FWD, 6-9 (’598 cls. 1 (on which Cls. 5, 6, 13, 14, 40 de-
`
`pend), 2 (on which Cls. 3, 4 depend), 7 (on which Cls. 8-12, 17 depend), 15, and
`
`31(on which Cls. 32-34 depend) directed to “conditioning and controlling access to
`
`content”); Ex.2049, 2, 17-18; Ex.2050, 1-2 (’598 cls. 2, 7, 15, 31 directed to “con-
`
`ditioning and controlling access to data based on payment”).
`
`PO’s only remaining arguments in its Mayo Step 1 section (R20-22) 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 finding
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00131
`Patent 8,061,598 B2
`the “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.” 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 (P53-75), 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).
`
`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, R26-28, R30. The claimed hardware (e.g., “processor,” “program store,”
`
`“memory,” “interface,” “SIM,” a “portable” device) is the same sort of off-the-
`
`shelf computer componentry Alice deemed “purely functional and generic” be-
`
`cause it is in “[n]early every computer.” 134 S. Ct. at 2360. Indeed, the specifica-
`
`tion itself disclaims it 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.1042) and 7,603,382 (Ex.1043) reciting “database, a
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00131
`Patent 8,061,598 B2
`user profile, “communication medium,” and employing “interactive interface”);
`
`Accenture, 728 F.3d at 1338, 1344-46 (no inventive concept in claims (rep. cl. 1)
`
`reciting only “generalized software components,” such as “database[s],” “client
`
`component,” “server component,” “processor”); SmartGene, Inc. v. Advanced Bio-
`
`logical 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 (R17, 26-28, 30), PO does not even attempt to rebut Apple’s
`
`showing that all three are amply disclosed in the prior art and disavowed as in-
`
`ventive in the case law.2 P6-8, 12, 16-18, 32-33, 49, 64-65, 67-73 (showing, e.g.,
`
`content access governed by use rules in Ex.1003 (Ahmad), 2:62-3:19, 9:65-10:2,
`
`13:65-14:48, Ex.1004 (Kopp), 5:16-21, 6:41-47, Ex.1027 (Smith), 17:7-18:3,
`
`Ex.1013 (Stefik), 4:13-23, 6:42-49, Ex.1014 (Ginter) 55:33-56, 56:25-52; content
`
`access governed by use status data in Ex.1014 (Ginter), 145:58-146:22, Ex.1003
`
`
`2 PO also misrepresents that the Claims recite “continuously enforced” “access
`
`control to the digital content” (R17; cf. R28). In any event, PO does not and cannot
`
`explain how it would be inventive for generic computer components to “continu-
`
`ously” perform 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
`
`
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00131
`Patent 8,061,598 B2
`(Ahmad), Figs.5A-B, 2:62-3:19, 13:65-14:9, 14:20-48; combining different types
`
`of data in memory in Ex.1003 (Ahmad), 12:20-24, Ex.1013 (Stefik), Fig. 12,
`
`14:28-39, 19:14-15, Ex.1004 (Kopp), 5:16-21, 6:41-47); Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2359
`
`(not inventive to apply rules to data, such as “‘adjusting’ the shadow records as
`
`transactions are entered, allowing only those transactions for which the parties
`
`have sufficient resources”); Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 715-16 (not inventive to
`
`govern content access by use status data, such as “accessing an activity log to veri-
`
`fy that the total number of times which the sponsor message has been previously
`
`presented is less than the number of transaction cycles contracted by the sponsor”
`
`and then “allowing said consumer access to said media product after said step of
`
`facilitating the display of said sponsor message”); Accenture, 728 F.3d at 1338,
`
`1344-46 (not inventive to “generate[] tasks [based on] rules … to be completed
`
`upon the occurrence of an event” or store different data types in memory, such as a
`
`“transaction database comprising a claim folder 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
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00131
`Patent 8,061,598 B2
`two data sets and combining them is ineligible abstract process); 00017FWD, 17-
`
`18, 00193FWD, 17, 00016FWD, 13-14, 00192FWD, 13-14, 00194FWD, 18-20
`
`(“concept of storing two different types of information in the same place or on the
`
`same device is an age old practice.”); Ex.1019 ¶¶78, 86, 92; Ex.2108,3 311:8-14.
`
`Indeed, all of the claimed functions are merely well-understood, routine, and
`
`conventional computer activities: none is an inventive concept. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at
`
`2352 nn.1-2 (rep. cl. 33), 2360 (“[n]early every computer … [is] capable of 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.1044) 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-
`
`
`3 Cites to Ex.2108 refer to the transcript’s page:line numbers, not stamped pages.
`9
`
`
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00131
`Patent 8,061,598 B2
`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 “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”; “[e]ncrypting data … is [a] well
`
`known conventional activity”); 00102FWD, 10-34, 00106FWD, 10-22,
`
`00108FWD, 9-16, 00112FWD, 11-21 (compare, e.g., ’598 Cls. 3-6, 16-18, 20-22,
`
`29, 30, 32 with ’458 cl. 1 and ’598 cl. 26; ’598 Cls. 8-10, 23, 25 with ’458 cl. 1,
`
`’598 cl. 26, and ’317 cl. 6; ’598 Cl. 11 with ’221 cls. 1, 12 and ’458 cl. 1; ’598 Cl.
`
`12 with ’458 cl. 1, ’598 cl. 26,’317 cl. 6, and ’221 cls. 1, 12; ’598 Cl. 13 with ’317
`
`cl. 1; ’598 Cl. 14 with ’317 cls. 1, 16; ’598 Cl. 19 with ’458 cl. 1, ’598 cl. 26, and
`
`’317 cls. 1, 16; ’598 Cls. 25, 27, 28, 33 with ’458 cl. 1, ’598 cl. 26, and ’317, cls. 1,
`
`6; ’598 Cl. 34 with ’458 cl. 1, ’598 cl. 26, ’221 cl. 1, 12, ’317 cl. 12; ’598 Cls. 35-
`
`37 with ’317 cls. 1, 6, 8, 16, 18; ’598 Cl. 38 with ’458 cl. 1, ’598 cl. 26, and ’317
`
`cls. 1, 6, 8, 16, 18; ’598 Cl. 39-41 with ’458 cl. 1, ’598 cl. 26, ’317 cls. 1, 6, and
`
`’221 cls. 1, 11, 12); see also Ex.1019 ¶¶22, 77-96; 00017FWD, 10-12;
`
`00193FWD, 10-12; 00016FWD, 10-11; 00192FWD, 10; 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
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00131
`Patent 8,061,598 B2
`online sale of content, downloading (secure) content over the Internet, or display-
`
`ing to the user when access to content is permitted. Ex.1038,4 117:24-119:14,
`
`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 ’598 admits “[t]he physical embodiment of the system is not critical and
`
`… the terminals, data processing systems and the like ca