CBM2015-00133
`Patent 8,336,772 B2
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`______________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`______________________
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`SMARTFLASH LLC,
`Patent Owner
`______________________
`
`Case CBM2015-00133
`Patent 8,336,772
`______________________
`
`Before the Honorable JENNIFER S. BISK, RAMA G. ELLURU, GREGG I. AN-
`DERSON, and MATTHEW R. CLEMENTS, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`PETITIONER’S REPLY TO PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00133
`Patent 8,336,772 B2
`
`
`3.
`
`2.
`
`2.
`
`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 .................................. 5
`1.
`Po Fails To Identify Any Inventive Concept .............................. 5
`The DDR Claims Are Not Analogous To The
`2.
`Challenged Claims ....................................................................12
`The Challenged Claims Are Analogous To Those Held
`Ineligible ...................................................................................16
`PO’s Preemption Arguments Are Misplaced ......................................17
`C.
`III. PO’S OTHER ARGUMENTS ARE IRRELEVANT TO THE MERITS .......19
`A. Dr. Kelly’s Unrebutted Expert Opinions Are Reliable And
`Entitled To Significant Weight ...........................................................19
`PO’s Arguments Regarding The Board’s Ability To Review The
`Challenged Claims Are Unfounded ....................................................21
`1.
`Neither The Constitution, The ’772 Patent’s Prosecution,
`Nor The AIA Prohibits The Board From Considering
`§ 101 Here .................................................................................22
`Non-Final District Court § 101 Determinations Are
`Irrelevant ...................................................................................22
`The ’772 Patent Is A Covered Business Method Patent .....................23
`1.
`The Federal Circuit Has Already Rejected PO’s Proposed
`Interpretation Of Covered Business Method Patents................24
`The Board Correctly Determined That The ’772 Patent
`Does Not Cover A Technological Invention ............................24
`
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00133
`Patent 8,336,772 B2
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`
`CASES
`Accenture Global Servs., GmbH v. Guidewire Software, Inc.,
`728 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ................................................... 3, 6, 7, 15, 20, 23
`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) ..................................................................... 20, 23
`Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Can.,
`687 F.3d 1266 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ............................................................. 3, 6, 15, 19
`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) ..................................................... 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
`Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Gen-Probe, Inc.,
`424 F.3d 1276 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ............................................................................21
`Ethicon, Inc. v. Quigg,
`849 F.2d 1422 (Fed. Cir. 1988) ............................................................................23
`Fresenius USA, Inc. v. Baxter Int’l, Inc.,
`721 F.3d 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ............................................................................23
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00133
`Patent 8,336,772 B2
`
`Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA),
`792 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ......................................................... 3, 6, 8, 14, 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) .............................................................................................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) ..................................................... 8, 14, 17, 19, 23
`SightSound Techs., LLC v. Apple Inc.,
`Nos. 15-1159, -1160 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 15, 2015) ....................................................24
`SmartGene, Inc. v. Advanced Biological Labs.,
` SA, 555 F. App’x 950 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ................................................................. 6
`Suffolk Techs., LLC v. AOL Inc.,
`752 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ............................................................................21
`Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC,
`772 F.3d 709 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ...................................................................... passim
`Vehicle Intelligence & Safety LLC v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC,
`No. 2015-1411, 2015 WL 9461707 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 28, 2015) ........................3, 19
`Versata Dev. Grp., Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc.,
`793 F.3d 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ............................................................... 21, 22, 24
`
`
`
`PTAB RULINGS
`CBM2012-00007, Paper 15 .....................................................................................23
`CBM2012-00007, Paper 58 .....................................................................................23
`CBM2013-00013, Paper 61 ....................................................................................... 9
`CBM2014-00050, Paper 51 .....................................................................................11
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00133
`Patent 8,336,772 B2
`
`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
`CBM2015-00004, Paper 33 .............................................................................. 11, 21
`CBM2015-00016, Paper 56 ............................................................................. passim
`CBM2015-00017, Paper 46 ............................................................................. passim
`CBM2015-00031, Paper 11 ...................................................................................... 1
`CBM2015-00032, Paper 11 .................................................................................1, 24
`CBM2015-00113, Paper 7 ......................................................................................... 5
`CBM2015-00133, Paper 7 ........................................................ 1, 2, 5, 11, 13, 19, 24
`CBM2015-00147, Paper 14 .......................................................................... 5, 10, 18
`IPR2013-00048, Paper 15 ........................................................................................21
`PGR2015-00013, Paper 18 ..................................................................................4, 18
`
`STATUTES
`35 U.S.C. § 101 ................................................................................................ passim
`35 U.S.C. § 102 ........................................................................................................11
`35 U.S.C. §103 .........................................................................................................11
`
`iv
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00133
`Patent 8,336,772 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. 8,336,772
`
`Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,925,127
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,940,805
`
`J. Taylor, “DVD-Video: Multimedia for the Masses,” IEEE
`Multimedia, Vol. 6, No. 3, July-September 1999, pp. 86-92
`U.S. Patent No. 4,999,806
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,675,734
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,878,245
`
`File History for U.S. Patent No. 8,336,772
`
`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)
`
`v
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00133
`Patent 8,336,772 B2
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`1019
`
`1020
`
`1021
`
`1022
`
`1023
`
`1024
`
`1025
`
`1026
`
`1027
`
`1028
`
`1029
`
`1030
`
`1031
`
`1032
`
`1033
`
`1034
`
`1035
`
`1036
`
`1037
`
`
`
`Declaration of John P. J. Kelly In Support of Apple Inc.’s
`Petition for Covered Business Method Patent Review
`U.S. Patent No. 8,033,458
`
`Declaration of Michael P. Duffey In Support of Apple Inc.’s
`Petition for Covered Business Method Patent Review
`Declaration of Megan F. Raymond In Support of Apple
`Inc.’s Petition for Covered Business Method Patent Review
`Claim Construction Memorandum Opinion from Smartflash
`LLC v. Apple Inc., No. 6:13cv447 (Dkt. 229)
`File History for U.S. Patent No. 8,061,598
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,337,483
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,725,375
`
`International Publication No. WO 95/34857
`
`JP Patent Application Publication No. H10-269289 (transla-
`tion)
`File History for U.S. Patent No. 7,942,317
`
`File History for U.S. Patent No. 8,033,458
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,061,598
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,118,221
`
`File History for U.S. Patent No. 8,118,221
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,334,720
`
`File History for U.S. Patent No. 7,334,720
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,646,992
`
`August 2014 Emails Titled “RE: Smartflash: Meet and Con-
`fer Regarding Further Claim/Prior Art Limits.”
`
`vi
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00133
`Patent 8,336,772 B2
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`1038
`
`1039
`
`1040
`
`1041
`
`1042
`
`1043
`
`1044
`
`1045
`
`1046
`
`1047
`
`1048
`
`1049
`
`1050
`
`1051
`
`1052
`
`1053
`
`
`
`International Publication No. WO99/13398
`
`Apr. 8-9, 2015 Deposition Transcript of Jonathan Katz,
`CBM2014-00102/106/108/112
`U.S. Patent No. 5,761,485
`
`Rakesh Mohan, John R. Smith and Chung-Sheng Li ,
`“Adapting Multimedia Internet Content for Universal Ac-
`cess” IEEE (March 1999)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,953,005
`
`Excerpt of Transcript of Trial Afternoon Session, February
`16, 2015 from Smartflash LLC v. Apple Inc., No. 6:13cv447
`U.S. Patent No. 5,903,721
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,632,681
`
`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
`
`vii
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00133
`Patent 8,336,772 B2
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`1054
`
`Declaration of Michael P. Duffey In Support of Petitioner’s
`Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`
`
`viii
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00133
`Patent 8,336,772 B2
`
`
`GLOSSARY OF ABBREVIATIONS
`
`
`Description
`Shorthand
`’772 Patent or ’772 United States Patent No. 8,336,772
`§ 101
`35 U.S.C. § 101
`§ 112
`35 U.S.C. § 112
`Petition or P
`Case CBM2015-00133 Petition, Paper 2
`Decision or Dec
`Case CBM2015-00133 Institution Decision, Paper 7
`PO
`Patent Owner
`POSA
`Person of ordinary skill in the art
`Response or R
`Case CBM 2015-00133 Patent Owner Response, Paper 21
`Challenged Claims or
`’772 Patent, claims 2-4, 6, 7, 9, 11-13, 15-18, 20, 21, 23,
`Claims
`24, 27-29, 31, 33-36
`’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
`’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
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00133
`Patent 8,336,772 B2
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`All but two of PO’s arguments here are old, and have already been rejected
`
`by this Board in connection with its previous decisions on related claims:
`
`PO’s Old Argument
`The Board is estopped from consider-
`
`Board’s Rejection of PO’s Argument
`00016/00192/00193FWDs, 20;
`
`ing § 101 (R69-70), and § 101 cannot
`
`00017FWD, 20-21; 00194FWD, 22.
`
`be raised in CBM review (R72-75).
`
`The ’772 is not a CBM patent. R75-
`
`CBM2015-00031, Pap. 11, 7-11;
`
`80.
`
`CBM2015-00032, Pap.11, 6-10; Dec7-12.
`
`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, 14-18;
`
`cause (1) they are like the eligible
`
`00017/00193FWDs, 12-16; 00194FWD,
`
`claims in DDR Holdings (R26-56) and
`
`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 (R57-68).
`
`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
`
`any different than in its prior decisions finding related claims unpatentable.
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00133
`Patent 8,336,772 B2
`
`
`The only two new arguments PO raises here fare no better: (1) PO’s Mayo
`
`Step 1 argument, based on the fact that the Challenged Claims are apparatus not
`
`method claims, is contradicted by established law, and by the Board’s and district
`
`court’s correct finding that related claims are directed to abstract ideas.
`
`00016FWD, 6-9; 00192FWD, 5-9; 00017FWD, 6-9; 00193FWD, 6-9; 00194FWD,
`
`6-9; Ex.2049, 17-18; Ex.2050, 1-2; see also Dec12-14. (2) As PO admits, its argu-
`
`ment about the unconstitutionality of CBM review has been rejected by the Federal
`
`Circuit. R71 n.2 (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 ’772 claims are not directed to an abstract idea. See, e.g.,
`
`CBM2015-00031, Pap.23, 15-16; Dec13; R1, 18-22. PO’s entire Mayo Step 1 ar-
`
`gument is based on its legally incorrect assertion that the Claims cannot be directed
`
`to an abstract idea because they claim “machines.” R1, 18-22. PO’s argument is
`
`squarely contradicted by well-established, controlling precedent. For example:
`
`There is no dispute that a computer is a tangible system (in § 101 terms, a
`“machine”), or that many computer-implemented claims are formally ad-
`2
`
`
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00133
`Patent 8,336,772 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 Claims cover “machines” does not change the
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00133
`Patent 8,336,772 B2
`
`fact that they are directed to an abstract idea.1
`
`There is also no merit to PO’s criticisms of Dr. Kelly for examining “the
`
`content of the patent claims themselves” to determine whether they are directed to
`
`an abstract idea, and for “tailoring the purported abstract idea to the claims.” See
`
`R10-13. 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-
`
`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
`
`challenged 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.1048, 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-
`
`
`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 R19-20.
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00133
`Patent 8,336,772 B2
`
`igation) ruled that related claims are, indeed, directed to an abstract idea despite
`
`claiming machines—e.g., a “data access device” and a “data access terminal.”
`
`00016FWD, 6-9, 00194FWD, 6-9 (related apparatus claims directed to “[condi-
`
`tioning and] controlling access to content [based upon payment]”); Ex.2049, 2, 17-
`
`18, Ex.2050, 1-2 (’772 cls. 5, 10, 14 (on which Cls. 15-18 depend), 22, 26, 32 di-
`
`rected to “conditioning and controlling access to data based on payment”).
`
`PO’s only remaining arguments in its Mayo Step 1 section (R21-22) relate to
`
`Mayo Step 2, not Step 1. See CBM2015-00147, Pap.14, 12, 14 (“[H]owever the
`
`abstract idea is characterized, the … claims do not meet [Mayo Step 2].”);
`
`CBM2015-00113, Pap.7, 13 (rejecting petitioner’s articulation of abstract idea and
`
`finding “claims are … not merely the implementation of a known abstract idea”).
`
`PO thus fails to rebut Petitioner’s showing that the Claims are directed to an
`
`abstract idea, which the Board accurately articulated as “restricting access to stored
`
`data based on supplier-defined access rules and payment data.” 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 (P50-61), 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,
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00133
`Patent 8,336,772 B2
`
`2357; Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716; Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v.
`
`Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Bancorp,
`
`687 F.3d at 1278-80.
`
`In its Mayo Step 2 arguments, PO ducks the key issue. PO recites various
`
`Claim elements, but cannot and does not assert that those elements are inventive.
`
`See R53-56. The claimed hardware elements (e.g., “processor,” “program store,”
`
`“memory,” and “interface”) are the same sort of off-the-shelf computer compo-
`
`nents 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 dis-
`
`claims them as non-inventive. Ex.1001, 4:7-12, 11:33-35, 12:37-40, 13:43-46,
`
`16:13-26, 16:40-44, 16:55-59, 18:14-20, 24:25-27. See also, e.g., IV, 792 F.3d at
`
`1366-71 (no inventive concept in claims of USP 8,083,137 (Ex.1049) and
`
`7,603,382 (Ex.1050) reciting “database, a user profile, “communication medium,”
`
`and employing “interactive interface”); Accenture, 728 F.3d at 1338, 1344-46
`
`(claims (rep. cl. 1) reciting only “generalized software components” for “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.”).
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00133
`Patent 8,336,772 B2
`
`
`And, despite its elliptical suggestion that certain claimed elements may have
`
`been inventive (R17, 27, 53-56), PO does not even attempt to rebut Apple’s show-
`
`ing that they are amply disclosed in the prior art and disavowed as inventive in the
`
`case law. P7-12, 14-17, 67, 71 (showing, e.g., content access governed by use
`
`rules in Ex.1006 (Chernow), 5:10-18. Ex.1015 (Poggio), Fig. 6, 9:25-33, 10:25-28,
`
`Ex.1014 (Ginter), 56:25-57:16, Ex. 1038 (Peterson), 4:14-16, Ex.1004 (Kopp),
`
`5:16-21, 6:41-47; content access based on payment in Ex.1006 (Chernow), 6:48-
`
`65, 7:53-63, Ex.1015 (Poggio), Fig. 7, 10:7-20, Ex.1018 (von Faber), 7; set top box
`
`in Ex.1014 (Ginter), 34:1-6, 60:20-23; partial use status data in Ex.1014 (Ginter),
`
`145:48-146:22, in Ex.1027 (Smith), 9:15-17, 16:25-33, 17:27-29, Fig. 4, Ex.1004
`
`(Kopp), 5:16-21, 6:41-47; combining different types of data in memory in
`
`Ex.1013 (Stefik), 6:51-56, 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 715-716
`
`(not inventive to write partial use status data, such as “updating the total number of
`
`times the sponsor message has been presented” in activity log or to base content
`
`access on payment, such as “allowing said consumer access to said media product
`
`after said step of facilitating the display of said sponsor message”); Accenture, 728
`
`F.3d at 1338, 1344-46 (not inventive to “generate[] tasks [based on] rules … to be
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00133
`Patent 8,336,772 B2
`
`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 lev-
`
`els from the group comprising a policy level, a claim level, a participant level and a
`
`line level”); see also IV, 792 F.3d at 1368 (storing two types of data in a database
`
`not inventive); Internet Patents Corp., 790 F.3d at 1349 (“combining information”
`
`from multiple files or databases “to form” an output not inventive); Digitech Image
`
`Techs., LLC v. Elecs. for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2014)
`
`(claim generating two data sets and combining them is ineligible abstract process);
`
`00017FWD, 17-18, 00193FWD, 17, 00016FWD, 13-14, 00192FWD, 13-14,
`
`00194FWD, 18-20 (“concept of storing two different types of information in the
`
`same place or on the same device is an age old practice”); Ex.1019 ¶¶10, 12, 74,
`
`78, 80, 82, 86, 93, 99, 103; Ex.2108,2 311:8-14.
`
`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.1051) that “‘send[] … electronic messag-
`
`
`2 Cites to Ex.2108 refer to the transcript’s page:line numbers, not stamped pages.
`8
`
`
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00133
`Patent 8,336,772 B2
`
`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.,
`
`’772 Cls. 2-4, 6, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15-17, 19, 21, 23, 24, 27-29, 31, 33-36 with ’221 cls.
`
`1, 11-13, ’458 cl. 1, ’598 cl. 26, and ’317 cls. 1, 6, 8, 12, 16, 18; ’772 Cl. 12 with
`
`’221 cls. 1, 11-13, ’458 cl. 1, ’598 cl. 26, and ’317 cls. 1, 6, 7, 8, 12, 16, 18; ’772
`
`Cl. 18 with ’221 cls. 1, 2, 11-13, ’458 cl. 1, ’598 cl. 26, and ’317 cls. 1, 6, 8, 12,
`
`16, 18); see also Ex.1019 ¶¶77-105; 00016FWD, 10-11; 00192FWD, 10;
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00133
`Patent 8,336,772 B2
`
`00017FWD, 10-11; 00193FWD, 10-11; 00194FWD, 11-12; P50-76.
`
`Indeed, the first named inventor testified that he did not invent, e.g., data
`
`carriers, flash memory, receiving or transmitting digital content, downloading (se-
`
`cure) content over the Internet, paying for and downloading content wirelessly,
`
`online sale of or payment for content, payment authorization, use rules or access
`
`rules in connection with the online sale of content, mobile phones/devices, or dis-
`
`playing when access to content is permitted. Ex.1043,3 117:24-119:14, 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
`
`’772 admits “[t]he physical embodiment of the system is not critical and … the
`
`terminals, data processing systems and the like can all take a variety of forms.”
`
`Ex.1001, 12:37-40; see also id., 4:7-12, 11:33-35, 13:43-46, 16:13-26, 16:40-44,
`
`16:55-59, 18:14-20, 24:25-27. Because none of the Claim elements alone or in
`
`combination amounts to an “inventive concept,” they fail Mayo Step 2. E.g.,
`
`Ex.2108, 38:14-39:7, 57:5-58:11, 71:24-72:16, 73:11-74:18, 79:9-80:1, 87:6-88:7,
`
`111:15-112:19, 115:17-117:22, 119:17-120:18, 125:12-126:12, 131:24-132:11,
`
`149:16-150:3, 249:12-22, 298:2-22, 307:25-308:11, 310:5-24; Ex.1019 ¶¶10, 12,
`
`77-105.
`
`PO again misstates the law to argue Dr. Kelly’s Step 2 analysis “miss[es] the
`
`3 Cites to Ex.1043 refer to the transcript’s page:line numbers not stamped pages.
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00133
`Patent 8,336,772 B2
`
`mark, because [it] reflect[s] an analysis that looks for an inventive concept over the
`
`prior art, rather than over the abstract idea itself.” R8-10 (emph. orig.). The rele-
`
`vant inquiry is not, as PO suggests, whether a claim’s “additional features” are in-
`
`ventive over the abstract idea, but rather whether they provide an inventive concept
`
`despite the fact that the claim is directed to an abstract idea. The relevant analysis
`
`requires determining whether the elements that are left after removing the abstract
`
`idea (i.e., “additional features”) amount to an “inventive concept,” such that they
`
`“‘transform the nature of the claim’ into a patent-eligible application.” Alice, 134
`
`S. Ct. at 2355, 2357; see also Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc.,
`
`132 S. Ct. 1289, 1304 (2012) (distinguishing § 101 inquiry from §§ 102 and 103).
`
`Dr. Kelly thus performed the analysis Step 2 requires. E.g., Ex.2108, 37:20-38:11,
`
`86:2-15; Ex.1019 ¶¶10, 12, 74, -76, 84, 91, 97, 101, 105. And while not necessary,
`
`considering prior art can certainly inform whether the “additional features” are in-
`
`ventive. E.g., 00016FWD, 27-28 (prior art relevant to Step 2); CBM2015-00004,
`
`Pap.33, 40-41 (relying on prior art in finding claim elements conventional);
`
`CBM2014-00050, Pap.51, 36-37 (relying on multiple prior art references in Step 2
`
`analysis); Ex.2108, 118:5-16. Here, the unrebutted