Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`Paper 11
`Entered: June 23, 2014
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`HULU, LLC,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`INTERTAINER, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`Case CBM2014-00053
`Patent 8,468,099
`
`
`
`Before MICHAEL W. KIM, SUSAN L. C. MITCHELL,
`and JENNIFER M. MEYER, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`MEYER, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Denying Institution of Covered Business Method Patent Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.208
`
`
`
`GOOG 1013
`CBM of U.S. Patent 7,774,280
`Page 1
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Ex. 1013, p. 1
`
`

`
`CBM2014-00053
`Patent 8,468,099
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`On December 20, 2013, Hulu, LLC (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition for a
`
`covered business method patent review of claims 13-15 and 18 of U.S.
`
`Patent No. 8,468,099 (Ex. 1001, “the ’099 patent”). Paper 1. A corrected
`
`Petition was filed on January 14, 2014. Paper 8 (“Pet.”). Patent Owner,
`
`Intertainer, Inc. (“Patent Owner”) did not file a Preliminary Response.
`
`We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 324. The standard for
`
`instituting a covered business method patent review is set forth in 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 324(a), which provides as follows:
`
`THRESHOLD.—The Director may not authorize a post-
`grant review to be instituted unless the Director determines that
`the information presented in the petition filed under section
`321, if such information is not rebutted, would demonstrate that
`it is more likely than not that at least 1 of the claims challenged
`in the petition is unpatentable.
`
`Petitioner challenges claims 13-15 and 18 of the ’099 patent as
`
`unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §§ 103 and 112. Upon consideration of the
`
`information presented in the Petition, we conclude that the Petition does not
`
`demonstrate that it is more likely than not that the challenged claims are
`
`unpatentable. Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 324 and § 18(a) of the Leahy-Smith
`
`America Invents Act, Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284 (2011) (“AIA”), we
`
`do not authorize a covered business method patent review to be instituted as
`
`to claims 13-15 and 18 for the grounds of unpatentability asserted in the
`
`Petition.
`
`Accordingly, the Petition is DENIED.
`
`2
`
`GOOG 1013
`CBM of U.S. Patent 7,774,280
`Page 2
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Ex. 1013, p. 2
`
`

`
`CBM2014-00053
`Patent 8,468,099
`
`
`A.
`
`Related Proceedings
`
`Petitioner has been sued for infringement of the ’099 patent in a
`
`district court case titled, Intertainer, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, No. 2:13-cv-05499
`
`(C.D. Cal.). Pet. 4. In addition to this proceeding, Petitioner has also
`
`petitioned for covered business method patent review of certain claims of
`
`Patent Owner’s U.S. Patent No. 8,479,246 B2 (CBM2014-00052). Id. at 5.
`
`B.
`
`The ’099 Patent
`
`The ’099 patent, titled “Digital Entertainment Service Platform,”
`
`issued on June 18, 2013, based on application 12/587,667 (“the ’667
`
`application”), filed October 10, 2009. The ’667 application is a continuation
`
`of application 11/189,608, filed July 26, 2005 (abandoned), which is a
`
`continuation of application 09/947,592, filed September 5, 2001, which
`
`issued as U.S. Patent No. 6,925,469, which claims the benefit of provisional
`
`application 60/280,653, filed March 30, 2001.
`
`The ’099 patent relates to methods managing, distributing, and/or
`
`retailing digital media assets from various content suppliers. Ex. 1001,
`
`2:20-23. Content suppliers may provide media assets (e.g., streaming video)
`
`to a digital services platform and receive payments based on use of the
`
`media assets by consumers. Id. at 2:28-37, 2:65-3:2. The digital services
`
`platform allows consumers to access content from multiple suppliers at a
`
`single location, and allows content suppliers to define parameters regarding
`
`distribution of the media asset. Id. at 2:37-43, 3:2-11. Additional
`
`purchasing opportunities are embedded within the media assets, allowing
`
`consumers, for example, to purchase a related product simply by clicking on
`
`an embedded advertisement within a streaming video. Id. at 3:26-32,
`
`6:39-54.
`
`3
`
`GOOG 1013
`CBM of U.S. Patent 7,774,280
`Page 3
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Ex. 1013, p. 3
`
`

`
`CBM2014-00053
`Patent 8,468,099
`
`
`C.
`
`Illustrative Claim
`
`Of the challenged claims, only claim 13 is independent. Claim 13 of
`
`the ’099 patent, reproduced below, is illustrative of the challenged claims:
`
`13. A method for managing and marketing digital media
`content supplied by media content suppliers to consumers, the
`method comprising:
`
`providing a digital media content service platform
`operable to manage and distribute video content to a plurality of
`the consumers in accordance with business rules supplied by
`the media content suppliers, wherein distribution to geographic
`locations is one of the business rules supplied by the media
`content suppliers;
`
`providing the media content suppliers access to the
`digital media content service platform for permitting the media
`content suppliers to directly supply the video content to the
`digital media content
`service platform by electronic
`transmission;
`
`storing the video content supplied by the media content
`suppliers on the digital media content service platform;
`
`including coded information with the video content, the
`coded information being advertising information associating at
`least one advertisement with the video content;
`
`specifying at least one of the business rules for
`distributing the video content to a specified geographic
`location;
`
`the consumers by a geographic
`grouping
`associated with the consumers;
`
`location
`
`embedding purchasing opportunities for merchandise
`with the video content, the merchandise being other than the
`video content supplied to the digital media content service
`platform and purchasable by the consumer interacting with the
`embedded purchasing opportunities;
`
`the grouping of
`to
`the video content
`distributing
`consumers if the geographic location of the consumers
`corresponds to the specified geographic location in the at least
`
`4
`
`GOOG 1013
`CBM of U.S. Patent 7,774,280
`Page 4
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Ex. 1013, p. 4
`
`

`
`CBM2014-00053
`Patent 8,468,099
`
`
`one of the business rules, wherein the video content being
`distributed corresponds to a localized market for the grouping
`of consumers; and
`
`offering the merchandise to the consumers for purchase
`via the embedded purchasing opportunities.
`
`Ex. 1001, 15:1-16:10.
`
`D.
`
`The Applied References
`
`Petitioner relies upon the following references. Pet. 5.
`
`Patent No.
`U.S. Patent No. 6,201,536
`(“Hendricks ’536”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,463,585
`(“Hendricks ’585”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,774,664
`(“Hidary”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,950,804
`(“Strietzel”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,820,277
`(“Eldering”)
`
`Date of Issuance
`Mar. 13, 2001
`
`Exhibit No.
`Ex. 1004
`
`Oct. 8, 2002
`
`Ex. 1005
`
`Jun. 30, 1998
`
`Ex. 1006
`
`Sept. 27, 2005
`
`Ex. 1007
`
`Nov. 16, 2004
`
`Ex. 1008
`
`Petitioner further relies on the Declaration of V. Michael Bove, Jr.
`
`(“Bove Declaration,” Ex. 1012).
`
`E.
`
`The Asserted Grounds
`
`Petitioner challenges claims 13-15 and 18 on the following grounds.
`
`Pet. 5.
`
`Claims
`Challenged
`13-15, 18
`
`Basis
`
`§ 103
`
`13-15, 18
`13
`
`§ 103
`§ 112,
`indefiniteness
`
`Reference(s)
`
`Hendricks ’536, Hendricks ’585, and
`Hidary
`Strietzel, Eldering, and Hidary
`Not applicable
`
`5
`
`GOOG 1013
`CBM of U.S. Patent 7,774,280
`Page 5
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Ex. 1013, p. 5
`
`

`
`CBM2014-00053
`Patent 8,468,099
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`
`A.
`
`Claim Construction
`
`In a covered business method patent review, a “claim in an unexpired
`
`patent shall be given its broadest reasonable construction in light of the
`
`specification of the patent in which it appears.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.300(b).
`
`Under this standard, we construe claim terms using “the broadest reasonable
`
`meaning of the words in their ordinary usage as they would be understood
`
`by one of ordinary skill in the art, taking into account whatever
`
`enlightenment by way of definitions or otherwise that may be afforded by
`
`the written description contained in the applicant’s specification.” In re
`
`Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997). We presume that claim terms
`
`have their ordinary and customary meaning. See In re Translogic Tech.,
`
`Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (“The ordinary and customary
`
`meaning is the meaning that the term would have to a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art in question.” (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks
`
`omitted)). This presumption, however, may be rebutted when the patentee
`
`acts as his own lexicographer, giving the term a particular meaning in the
`
`specification with “reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision.” In re
`
`Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
`
`Petitioner has not provided proposed constructions for the claim terms
`
`“directly supply,” “embedded purchasing opportunity,” and “coded
`
`information,” but contends each of these terms is indefinite under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 112. In construing the claims, we have applied the broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation, taking into account the plain meaning of the terms and their
`
`usage in the specification.
`
`6
`
`GOOG 1013
`CBM of U.S. Patent 7,774,280
`Page 6
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Ex. 1013, p. 6
`
`

`
`CBM2014-00053
`Patent 8,468,099
`
`
`1.
`
`“directly supply”
`
`Independent claim 13 recites, among other things, “providing the
`
`media content suppliers access to the digital media content service platform
`
`for permitting the media content suppliers to directly supply the video
`
`content to the digital media content service platform by electronic
`
`transmission.” Petitioner asserts that the language “directly supply” in this
`
`claim limitation is indefinite. Pet. 54. Specifically, Petitioner asserts it is
`
`not clear if the video content must go from the media content supplier to the
`
`digital media content service platform without passing through intermediate
`
`systems and/or networks. Id. We disagree.
`
`The ’099 patent does not define explicitly “directly supply.” The
`
`specification, however, describes that the content supplier may deliver media
`
`assets “electronically using file transfer protocol methods or other known
`
`means of delivering digital data.” Ex. 1001, 4:29-32. The specification
`
`further describes a supplier console that is, for example, a computer
`
`“operable to run an enterprise software application permitting a content
`
`supplier to remotely deposit its media assets,” among other functions. Id. at
`
`8:18-24. As further described, this “enterprise software application is
`
`preferably installed at the content supplier’s location to facilitate the remote
`
`communication between the content supplier and [the digital services]
`
`platform.” Id. at 8:39-42. Accordingly, as the specification discloses that
`
`the media assets are supplied via intermediate networks and systems, such as
`
`FTP and enterprise servers, we are not persuaded that “directly supply”
`
`excludes passing through intermediate systems and/or networks.
`
`Merriam-Webster’s Online Dictionary defines “directly” as “in a
`
`direct way” and defines “direct” as “coming straight from a source.”
`
`7
`
`GOOG 1013
`CBM of U.S. Patent 7,774,280
`Page 7
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Ex. 1013, p. 7
`
`

`
`CBM2014-00053
`Patent 8,468,099
`
`MERRIAM-WEBSTER, http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/directly
`
`(last visited May 19, 2014); Id. at http://www.merriam-
`
`webster.com/dictionary/direct (last visited May 19, 2014). Merriam-
`
`Webster’s Online Dictionary defines “supply” as “to provide someone or
`
`something with (something that is needed or wanted).” Id. at
`
`http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/supply (last visited May 19,
`
`2014). When considered together, the focus of the definitions are the source
`
`and destination.
`
`Given the disclosure in the specification and these definitions, we
`
`construe “permitting the media content suppliers to directly supply the video
`
`content to the digital media content service platform by electronic
`
`transmission” as “the media content suppliers themselves (not another
`
`entity) provide the video content to the digital media content service
`
`platform.”
`
`2.
`
`“embedded purchasing opportunities”
`
`Independent claim 13 recites, among other things, “embedding
`
`purchasing opportunities for merchandise with the video content, the
`
`merchandise being other than the video content supplied to the digital media
`
`content service platform and purchasable by the consumer interacting with
`
`the embedded purchasing opportunities.” Petitioner asserts that the language
`
`“embedding/embedded purchasing opportunities” in this claim limitation is
`
`indefinite. Pet. 55. Specifically, Petitioner asserts “it is not clear if a hyper-
`
`link inserted within a video-stream which when selected opens a separate
`
`webpage which includes a form that may be completed for purchasing a
`
`product would constitute an ‘embedded purchasing opportunity.’” Id.
`
`8
`
`GOOG 1013
`CBM of U.S. Patent 7,774,280
`Page 8
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Ex. 1013, p. 8
`
`

`
`CBM2014-00053
`Patent 8,468,099
`
`
`The ’099 patent does not provide an explicit definition for “embedded
`
`purchasing opportunities.” The specification, however, provides examples
`
`of what may constitute embedded purchasing opportunities. One such
`
`example includes a point and click option embedded in a video stream,
`
`through which a user can purchase an item “through a user interface of the
`
`platform, which includes an electronic commerce fulfillment system to ship
`
`the product to the consumer.” Ex. 1001, 3:26-32, see Ex. 1001, 6:42-45.
`
`The Oxford Online Dictionary defines “embed” in the computing
`
`context as “incorporate (a text or code) within the body of a file or
`
`document.” OXFORD DICTIONARIES,
`
`http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/embed
`
`(last visited May 19, 2014).
`
`Given the disclosure in the specification and this definition, we
`
`construe “embedded purchasing opportunities” in the context of claim 13 as
`
`“text or code incorporated within video content, with which the consumer
`
`may interact, and thereby purchase merchandise via such interaction.”
`
`3.
`
`“coded information”
`
`Independent claim 13 recites, among other things, “including coded
`
`information with the video content, the coded information being advertising
`
`information associating at least one advertisement with the video content.”
`
`Petitioner asserts that the language “coded information” in this claim
`
`limitation is indefinite. Pet. 55-56.
`
`The ’099 patent does not provide an explicit definition for “coded
`
`information.” The specification, however, defines “intelligent media” as
`
`“content that includes coded information regarding the use of the content for
`
`tracking or targeting purposes.” Ex. 1001, 5:46-48. This intelligent media
`
`9
`
`GOOG 1013
`CBM of U.S. Patent 7,774,280
`Page 9
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Ex. 1013, p. 9
`
`

`
`CBM2014-00053
`Patent 8,468,099
`
`may include “advertising information to associate one or more
`
`advertisements with the media asset.” Id. at 5:55-56. Intelligent media, and
`
`coded information, is further discussed in application 09/605,695 (“the ’695
`
`application”), which was incorporated by reference into the ’099 patent. See
`
`id. at 5:57-62. The ’695 application1 describes a “smart media object”
`
`which is a media object associated with a “coded header representing a
`
`profile of that media object, the profile being derived at least partially from
`
`captured user activity information and other information associated with the
`
`media object,” e.g., advertising information. Ex. 3001 ¶ 0019. According to
`
`the ’695 application, a “coded header is preferably an encoded descriptor
`
`(i.e., data) associated with a specific media object that includes targeting
`
`information unique to a media object.” Id. ¶ 0018. As further described in
`
`the ’695 application, “any suitable coding system may be used” to generate
`
`the coded header. Id. ¶ 0029.
`
`Merriam-Webster’s Online Dictionary defines “code” in the
`
`computing context as “to change (information) into a set of letters, numbers,
`
`or symbols that can be read by a computer.” MERRIAM-WEBSTER,
`
`http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/code (last visited May 19,
`
`2014).
`
`Given the disclosure in the specification and this definition, we
`
`construe “coded information,” consistent with its ordinary meaning, as
`
`“information that has been changed into a form that can be read by a
`
`computer.”
`
`
`
`1 Citations to the ’695 application are to U.S. Appl. Pub. 2009/0144154
`(Ex. 3001).
`
`10
`
`GOOG 1013
`CBM of U.S. Patent 7,774,280
`Page 10
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Ex. 1013, p. 10
`
`

`
`CBM2014-00053
`Patent 8,468,099
`
`
`B.
`
`Covered Business Method Patent
`
`A “covered business method patent” is a patent that “claims a method
`
`or corresponding apparatus for performing data processing or other
`
`operations used in the practice, administration, or management of a financial
`
`product or service, except that the term does not include patents for
`
`technological inventions.” AIA § 18(d)(1); see 37 C.F.R. § 42.301(a). For
`
`purposes of determining whether a patent is eligible for a covered business
`
`method patent review, the focus is on the claims. See Transitional Program
`
`for Covered Business Method Patents—Definitions of Covered Business
`
`Method Patent and Technological Invention; Final Rule, 77 Fed. Reg.
`
`48,734, 48,736 (Aug. 14, 2012). A patent need have only one claim directed
`
`to a covered business method to be eligible for review. Id.
`
`1.
`
`Financial Product or Service
`
`In promulgating rules for covered business method patent reviews, the
`
`Office considered the legislative intent and history behind the AIA’s
`
`definition of “covered business method patent.” Id. at 48,735-36. The
`
`“legislative history explains that the definition of covered business method
`
`patent was drafted to encompass patents ‘claiming activities that are
`
`financial in nature, incidental to a financial activity or complementary to a
`
`financial activity.’” Id. at 48,735 (citing 157 CONG. REC. S5432 (daily ed.
`
`Sept. 8, 2011) (statement of Sen. Schumer)). The legislative history
`
`indicates that “‘financial product or service’ should be interpreted broadly.”
`
`Id.
`
`Petitioner contends that the ’099 patent is a covered business method
`
`patent because it claims activity that is “financial in nature,” and it is in a
`
`classification that the Office presumes to contain covered business method
`
`11
`
`GOOG 1013
`CBM of U.S. Patent 7,774,280
`Page 11
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Ex. 1013, p. 11
`
`

`
`CBM2014-00053
`Patent 8,468,099
`
`patents. Pet. 2-4. As Petitioner notes, classification in class 705 raises a
`
`presumption that a patent is a covered business method. Pet. 4 (citing 157
`
`CONG. REC. S1368, S1379 (daily ed. March 8, 2011) (statement of Sen.
`
`Kyl)); see 77 Fed. Reg. at 48,739. The’099 patent is classified in class 705,
`
`subclass 59.
`
`We agree with Petitioner that the ’099 patent claims subject matter
`
`that is “financial in nature, incidental to a financial activity or
`
`complementary to a financial activity.” See 77 Fed. Reg. at 48,735. As
`
`noted by Petitioner, the claims are directed to the “use and availability of
`
`advertising information that may be used to allow for the purchase of
`
`merchandise,” which is a financial activity. Pet. 3. Specifically, claim 13 is
`
`directed to “[a] method for managing and marketing digital media content”
`
`including “embedding purchasing opportunities for merchandise with the
`
`video content, the merchandise being . . . purchasable by the consumer
`
`interacting with the embedded purchasing opportunities.” Ex. 1001,
`
`15:1-16:10. The specification of the ’099 patent further confirms the
`
`claimed method’s connection to financial activities. For example, the
`
`specification discloses an embodiment in which the distributed video is “a
`
`first-run movie with digital commerce opportunities embedded in the video
`
`stream and accessible by the consumer (e.g. using an intuitive point and
`
`click)” through which the consumer can purchase an item. Id. at 3:26-32.
`
`We, thus, conclude that independent claim 13 satisfies the “financial product
`
`or service” component of the definition set forth in § 18(d)(1) of the AIA.
`
`2.
`
`Exclusion for Technological Inventions
`
`The definition of “covered business method patent” in § 18(d)(1) of
`
`the AIA does not include patents for “technological inventions.” To
`
`12
`
`GOOG 1013
`CBM of U.S. Patent 7,774,280
`Page 12
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Ex. 1013, p. 12
`
`

`
`CBM2014-00053
`Patent 8,468,099
`
`determine whether a patent is for a technological invention, we consider
`
`“whether the claimed subject matter as a whole recites a technological
`
`feature that is novel and unobvious over the prior art; and solves a technical
`
`problem using a technical solution.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.301(b). The following
`
`claim drafting techniques, for example, typically do not render a patent a
`
`“technological invention”:
`
`(a) Mere recitation of known technologies, such as
`computer hardware, communication or computer networks,
`software, memory, computer-readable
`storage medium,
`scanners, display devices or databases, or specialized machines,
`such as an ATM or point of sale device.
`
`(b) Reciting the use of known prior art technology to
`accomplish a process or method, even if that process or method
`is novel and non-obvious.
`
`(c) Combining prior art structures to achieve the normal,
`expected, or predictable result of that combination.
`
`Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,763-64 (Aug.
`
`14, 2012).
`
`Petitioner contends that the ’099 patent does not claim a technological
`
`feature that is novel and unobvious over the prior art, nor does it solve a
`
`technical problem using a technical solution. Pet. 3-4. Specifically,
`
`Petitioner contends that the claims of the ’099 patent are “directed to
`
`providing streaming video to consumers combined with advertisements
`
`allowing purchasing of merchandise,” both of which were well known in the
`
`art. Id. at 3. We agree with Petitioner that the ’099 patent is not for a
`
`technological invention, because we are unable to identify any limitation of
`
`claim 13 that is a technological feature that is novel or unobvious over the
`
`prior art.
`
`13
`
`GOOG 1013
`CBM of U.S. Patent 7,774,280
`Page 13
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Ex. 1013, p. 13
`
`

`
`CBM2014-00053
`Patent 8,468,099
`
`
`Because both prongs must be satisfied for a patent to be excluded
`
`from covered business method patent review for being a technological
`
`invention, we conclude that claim 13 does not define a “technological
`
`invention” within the meaning of 37 C.F.R. § 42.301(b), and that the
`
`’099 patent is eligible for a covered business method patent review.
`
`C.
`The Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability Based upon 35 U.S.C.
`§ 102(e) Prior Art References
`
`Petitioner’s grounds asserting obviousness of the challenged claims
`
`are defective because each ground relies on one or more references that are
`
`asserted to be prior art to the challenged claims only under pre-AIA 35
`
`U.S.C. § 102(e). Such § 102(e) references do not qualify as prior art on
`
`which a covered business method patent review may be based. See AIA
`
`§ 18(a)(1)(C); Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., CBM2012-
`
`00010, slip op. at 28 (PTAB Feb. 25, 2013) (Paper 16) (recognizing that
`
`§ 102(e) references do not qualify as prior art under AIA § 18(a)(1)(C));
`
`MeridianLink, Inc. v. DH Holdings, LLC, CBM2013-00008, slip op. at 2
`
`(PTAB Sept. 12, 2013) (Paper 24) (stating that, although a reference may be
`
`prior art under § 102(e), it does not meet the criteria to support a challenge
`
`under AIA § 18(a)(1)(C)).
`
`The ’099 patent was filed October 10, 2009, and claims priority to
`
`application 09/947,592, filed September 5, 2001, and to provisional
`
`application 60/280,653, filed March 30, 2001. Ex. 1001.
`
`Hendricks ’585 issued in 2002 from an application filed in 1998, and
`
`was not published prior to issuance. Ex. 1005. Thus, Hendricks ’585 is
`
`prior art to the ’099 patent only under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(e), as
`
`14
`
`GOOG 1013
`CBM of U.S. Patent 7,774,280
`Page 14
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Ex. 1013, p. 14
`
`

`
`CBM2014-00053
`Patent 8,468,099
`
`Petitioner acknowledges. Pet. 17. Accordingly, Hendricks ’585 is not prior
`
`art upon which a covered business method patent review may be instituted.
`
`Strietzel issued in 2005 from an application filed in February 2001,
`
`and was published in August 2002. Ex. 1007. Thus, Strietzel is prior art to
`
`the ’099 patent only under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(e), as Petitioner
`
`acknowledges. Pet. 31. Accordingly, Strietzel is not prior art upon which a
`
`covered business method patent review may be instituted.
`
`Eldering issued in 2004 from an application filed in 2000, and was not
`
`published prior to issuance. Ex. 1008. Thus, Eldering is prior art to the ’099
`
`patent only under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(e), as Petitioner acknowledges.
`
`Pet. 33. Accordingly, Eldering is not prior art upon which a covered
`
`business method patent review may be instituted.
`
`Because each of Petitioner’s obviousness grounds relies upon one or
`
`more of Hendricks ’585, Strietzel, and Eldering, references that are
`
`unavailable as prior art on which a covered business method patent review
`
`may be instituted, we deny review on each of those grounds.
`
`D.
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 2 Ground of Unpatentability
`
`Petitioner contends that claim 13 is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112
`
`¶ 2.2 Pet. 53-56. Petitioner contends that the claim terms “directly supply,”
`
`
`
`2 Section 4(c) of the AIA re-designated 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 2, as 35 U.S.C.
`§ 112(b). Because the ’099 patent has a filing date before September 16,
`2012 (the effective date of the relevant section of the AIA), we will refer to
`the pre-AIA version of 35 U.S.C. § 112 in this decision. We also note that,
`although the Petition cites to 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 1, the asserted ground and all
`arguments are directed to indefiniteness, which is brought appropriately
`under 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 2. Thus, we address the arguments herein in view
`of 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 2.
`
`15
`
`GOOG 1013
`CBM of U.S. Patent 7,774,280
`Page 15
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Ex. 1013, p. 15
`
`

`
`CBM2014-00053
`Patent 8,468,099
`
`“embedded purchasing opportunity,” and “coded information,” render claim
`
`13 indefinite. Id. at 54. Petitioner argues that no definition is given in the
`
`specification for any of these claim terms, nor does the prosecution history
`
`offer any definition or other objective basis to determine the bounds of these
`
`claim terms. Id. at 54-56. We are not persuaded that Petitioner has
`
`demonstrated that it is more likely than not that the claims are indefinite.
`
`The scope of the claims must be sufficiently definite to inform the
`
`public of the bounds of the protected invention, i.e., what subject matter is
`
`covered by the exclusive rights of the patent. Halliburton Energy Servs. Inc.
`
`v. M–I LLC, 514 F.3d 1244, 1249 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
`
`Petitioner contends that the claim term “directly supply” lacks a
`
`“meaningfully precise claim scope.” Pet. 54. As discussed above, we have
`
`construed the phrase “permitting the media content suppliers to directly
`
`supply the video content to the digital media content service platform by
`
`electronic transmission” as “the media content suppliers themselves (not
`
`another entity) provide the video content to the digital media content service
`
`platform.” Petitioner argues “it is not clear if the data must go from the
`
`supplier to the platform without passing through intermediate systems and/or
`
`networks.” Id. This, however, is a statement that the term is broad, not that
`
`it is indefinite. See In re Gardner, 427 F.2d 786, 788 (CCPA 1970)
`
`(“Breadth is not indefiniteness.”).
`
`Petitioner also contends that the claim term “embedded purchasing
`
`opportunities” lacks a “meaningfully precise claim scope.” Pet. 55. We
`
`have construed “embedded purchasing opportunities” as “text or code
`
`incorporated within video content, with which the consumer may interact,
`
`and thereby purchase merchandise via such interaction.” Petitioner argues
`
`16
`
`GOOG 1013
`CBM of U.S. Patent 7,774,280
`Page 16
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Ex. 1013, p. 16
`
`

`
`CBM2014-00053
`Patent 8,468,099
`
`“it is not clear if a hyper-link inserted within a video-stream which when
`
`selected opens a separate webpage which includes a form that may be
`
`completed for purchasing a product would constitute an ‘embedded
`
`purchasing opportunity.’” Id. Again, this is a statement that the term is
`
`broad, not that it is indefinite.
`
`Petitioner further contends that the claim term “coded information” is
`
`not defined within the specification. Id. at 55-56. We have construed
`
`“coded information” as “information that has been changed into a form that
`
`can be read by a computer.” Petitioner provides no other arguments with
`
`respect to this claim term.
`
`We are not persuaded Petitioner has provided sufficient evidence as to
`
`why a person of ordinary skill in the art, in view of the specification, would
`
`not have understood the scope of claim 13. For the foregoing reasons, we
`
`determine that Petitioner fails to demonstrate that it is more likely than not
`
`that claim 13, and claims 14, 15, and 18 which depend therefrom, are
`
`indefinite under § 112 ¶ 2.
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`
`For the foregoing reasons, the information presented in the Petition
`
`does not demonstrate that claims 13-15 and 18 of the ’099 patent, more
`
`likely than not, are unpatentable.
`
`IV. ORDER
`
`Accordingly, it is
`
`ORDERED that pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 324(a) and § 18(a) of the
`
`AIA, a covered business method patent review is hereby DENIED as to
`
`claims 13-15 and 18 of the ’099 patent.
`
`17
`
`GOOG 1013
`CBM of U.S. Patent 7,774,280
`Page 17
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Ex. 1013, p. 17
`
`

`
`CBM2014-00053
`Patent 8,468,099
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`Eliot Williams
`Harper Batts
`BAKER BOTTS LLP
`eliot.williams@bakerbotts.com
`Harper.batts@bakerbotts.com
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Amedeo F. Ferraro
`Thomas H. Martin
`MARTIN & FERRARO, LLP
`aferraro@martinferraro.com
`docketing@martinferraro.com
`
`18
`
`GOOG 1013
`CBM of U.S. Patent 7,774,280
`Page 18
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Ex. 1013, p. 18