UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`—————————————————
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`—————————————————
`
`PLAID TECHNOLOGIES INC.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`YODLEE, INC. and YODLEE.COM, INC.,
`Patent Owner
`
`—————————————————
`Case CBM2016-____
`Patent 6,199,077
`—————————————————
`
`PETITION FOR POST-GRANT REVIEW OF A
`COVERED BUSINESS METHOD PATENT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop Patent Board
`
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`4.
`5.
`
`I.
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`II. OVERVIEW OF THE ’077 PATENT .......................................................... 1
`
`A. Summary of the Specification ................................................................ 1
`
`B. Summary of the Relevant Prosecution File History ............................. 3
`
`C. Priority Date ............................................................................................. 4
`
`D. State of the Art ......................................................................................... 6
`III. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ........................................................................... 7
`
`A. Proposed Claim Constructions ............................................................... 8
`1.
`“Internet Portal (System)” (All claims) ....................................................... 8
`2.
`“List of Addresses of Internet Sites” (Claims 1-6) ...................................... 8
`3.
`“Gatherer” / “Gatherer Agent” / “Gathering Software Agent” /
`“Path Agent” (All Claims) ............................................................................. 9
`“Dedicated to Each Site” (All Claims) ......................................................... 9
`“Authenticating too Each Site Accessed as the Person” /
`“Authenticating to the Sites as the Person” (All Claims) ......................... 10
`“Gathering Cycle” (All Claims) .................................................................. 10
`6.
`IV. GROUNDS FOR STANDING ..................................................................... 11
`
`A. The ’077 Patent Is a Covered Business Method Patent ..................... 11
`1. The ’077 Patent Claims a Method or Apparatus Used in the
`Practice, Administration, or Management of a Financial Product
`or Service ...................................................................................................... 11
`2. None of the Claims of the ’077 Patent Are Directed to a
`Technological Invention .............................................................................. 17
`B. Petitioner Has Been Sued for Infringement of the ’077 Patent
`and Is Not Estopped From Challenging the ’077 Patent Claims ...... 22
`V. STATEMENT OF THE PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED FOR
`EACH CLAIM CHALLENGED ....................................................... 22
`A. Claims for Which Review Is Requested .............................................. 22
`B. Statutory Grounds of Challenge .......................................................... 23
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`
`
`
`C. Prior Art Offered for the Present Unpatentability Challenges ........ 23
`
`VI. The Challenged Claims Are Unpatentable Under 35 U.S.C. § 101 .......... 24
`
`A. Claims 1-12 of the ’077 Patent Are Directed to an Abstract
`Idea .......................................................................................................... 24
`B. Claims 1-12 of the ’077 Do Not Have An Inventive Concept ............ 26
`
`VII. THE PRIOR ART RENDERS OBVIOUS CLAIMS 1–12 ....................... 33
`A. Claims 1–12 Are Rendered Obvious by Zhao Alone or in
`Combination with Vertical One ........................................................... 34
`1.
`Summary of Zhao ........................................................................................ 34
`2. Eligibility of Zhao As Prior Art .................................................................. 35
`3.
`Summary of VerticalOne ............................................................................ 35
`4. Eligibility of VerticalOne As Prior Art ...................................................... 36
`5. Claim 1 .......................................................................................................... 36
`6. Claim 7 .......................................................................................................... 51
`7. Claim 2 and Claim 8 .................................................................................... 52
`8. Claim 3 and Claim 9 .................................................................................... 53
`9. Claim 4 and Claim 10 .................................................................................. 54
`10. Claim 5 and Claim 11 .................................................................................. 55
`11. Claim 6 and Claim 12 .................................................................................. 56
`B. Claims 1–12 Are Rendered Obvious by Lowery in View of Brandt
`and Zhao ................................................................................................. 57
`1. Lowery .......................................................................................................... 57
`2. Brandt ........................................................................................................... 59
`3.
`Proposed Modification of Lowery in view of Brandt and Zhao .............. 60
`4. Claim 1 .......................................................................................................... 65
`5. Claim 7 .......................................................................................................... 74
`6. Claim 2 and Claim 8 .................................................................................... 74
`7. Claim 3 and Claim 9 .................................................................................... 76
`8. Claim 4 and Claim 10 .................................................................................. 76
`9. Claim 5 and Claim 11 .................................................................................. 77
`10. Claim 6 and Claim 12 .................................................................................. 78
`VIII. MANDATORY DISCLOSURES ......................................................... 79
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`
`
`
`A. Real Parties-in-Interest and Related Matters .....................................79
`
`A. Real Parties-in-Interest and Related Matters ..................................... 79
`
`B. Lead and Back-Up Counsel and Service Information ....................... 79
`
`B. Lead and Back-Up Counsel and Service Information .......................79
`C. Certificate of Service on Patent Owner and Complete Fee ............... 80
`
`C. Certificate of Service on Patent Owner and Complete Fee ...............80
`IX. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 80
`IX. CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................80
`
`
`
`
`iv
`iv
`
`

`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Cases
`Alice Corp. Pty Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l,
` 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014) .............................................................................. 1, 24, 27
`
`Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr.,
` 367 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2004) .............................................................................. 7
`
`Ariad Pharm., Inc. v. Eli Lilly Co.,
` 598 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc) .............................................................. 5
`
`Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc.,
` 788 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ............................................................................ 30
`
`buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc.,
` 765 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ........................................................................... 29
`
`Content Extraction, & Transmission, LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank,
` 776 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ............................................................................ 25
`
`CRS Adv. Techs., Inc. v. Frontline Techs., Inc.,
` CBM2012-00005, Decision to Institute (Jan. 23, 2013) ...................................... 18
`
`Cyberfone Sys., LLC v. CNN Interactive Grp., Inc.,
` 558 F. App’x 988 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ....................................................................... 26
`
`CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc.,
`
` 654 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ........................................................................... 28
`
`DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com,
` 773 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ............................................................................ 32
`
`Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Elecs. for Imaging,
` 758 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ............................................................................ 25
`
`Go Med. Indus. Pty., Ltd. v. Inmed Corp.,
` 471 F. 3d 1264 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ............................................................................. 4
`
`Hyatt v. Boone,
` 146 F.3d 1348 (Fed. Cir. 1998) .............................................................................. 5
`
`In re Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC.,
` 793 F.3d 1268 (Fed. Cir. 2015) .............................................................................. 7
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`In re Robertson,
` 169 F.3d 743 (Fed. Cir. 1999) ................................................................................ 5
`
`Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA),
` 792 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ......................................................... 26, 27, 30, 32
`
`Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc.,
` 790 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ............................................................................ 30
`
`Interthinx, Inc. v. Corelogic Solutions, LLC,
` CBM2012-00007, Decision to Institute (Jan. 31 2013) ....................................... 20
`
`Lucent Techs., Inc. v. Gateway, Inc.,
` 543 F.3d 710 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ................................................................................ 5
`Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Lab., Inc.,
` 132 S. Ct. 1289 (2012) .................................................................................. 24, 25
`
`Nissan N. Am., Inc. v. Bd. of Regents, The Univ. of Texas Sys.,
` IPR2012-00037, Decision to Institute (Mar. 19, 2013) ......................................4, 6
`
`Planet Bingo, LLC v. VKGS LLC,
`576 F. App’x 1005 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ..................................................................... 29
`
`Research Corp. Techs. v. Microsoft Corp.,
` 627 F.3d 859 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ................................................................................ 5
`
`SAP Am., Inc. v. Versata Dev. Group,
` CBM2012-00001, Decision to Institute (Jan. 9, 2013) ................................. 11, 20
`
`SmartGene, Inc. v. Advanced Biological Labs., SA,
` 555 F. App’x 950 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ....................................................................... 28
`
`Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC,
` 772 F.3d 709 (Fed. Cir. 2014) .............................................................................. 26
`
`Vehicle Intelligence & Safety LLC v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC,
` No. 2015-1411, 2015 WL 9461707 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 28, 2015) ..................... 26, 33
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 101 .......................................................................................................... 1
`
`35 U.S.C. § 324 .......................................................................................................... 1
`
`
`
`
`vi
`
`

`
`
`
`Other Authorities
`
`Austen Zuege, A New Theory for Patent Subject Matter Eligibility: A Veblenian
`Perspective, 5 Cybaris An Intell. Prop. L. Rev. 211, 279 (2014) ........................ 31
`
`Certified Financial Planning Board,
` Financial Planning Practice Standards 200-2, ..................................................... 26
`
`Roy Schoenberg, 321 BMJ 1199, Internet Based Repository of Medical Records
`that Retains Patient Confidentiality (2000) .......................................................... 26
`
`Wendy Seltzer, Software Patents and/or Software Development, 78 Brook. L. Rev.
`929 (2013) ............................................................................................................. 31
`Regulations
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.301 ................................................................................................... 17
`
`45 C.F.R. § 164.500 ................................................................................................. 26
`
`
`
`vii
`
`

`
`
`
`Exhibit
`Number
`1001
`1002
`1003
`1004
`
`1005
`1006
`1007
`
`1008
`1009
`1010
`
`1011
`
`1012
`
`1013
`
`1014
`
`1015
`
`1016
`
`1017
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`Description
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,199,077 (’077 Patent)
`File History of U.S. Patent No. 6,199,077
`Declaration of Dr. Todd Mowry
`Redline Comparison of U.S. Patent Appl. No. 09/323,598 and
`Application No. 09/208,740
`U.S. Patent No. 5,894,554 (“Lowery”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,317,783 (“Freishtat”)
`Zhao, “Technical Note, WebEntree: A Web Service Aggregator,”
`(1998) (“Zhao”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,278,449 (“Sugiarto”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,892,905 (“Brandt”)
`Yodlee, Inc. v. Plaid Technologies, Inc., No. 1:14-cv-01445-LPS-
`CJB, ECF No. 96 (D. Del. Jan. 15, 2016) (the “District Court
`Action”)
`Yodlee, Inc. v. CashEdge, Inc., No. 3:05-cv-01550-SI, ECF No.
`66 (N.D. Cal. July 7, 2006) (the “CashEdge Case”)
`IPR2016-00275, Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent
`No. 6,199,077.
`Business Wire Press Release, “VerticalOne Corporation to Offer
`Internet Users One-stop for Managing Online Personal Content
`and Account Information” (May 25, 1999)
`Roy Schoenberg, 321 BMJ 1199, Internet Based Repository of
`Medical Records that Retains Patient Confidentiality (2000),
`available at
`http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1118958)
`Certified Financial Planning Board, Financial Planning Practice
`Standards 200-2, available at http://www.cfp.net/for-cfp-
`professionals/professional-standards-enforcement/standards-of-
`professional-conduct/financial-planning-practice-
`standards/practice-standards-200
`Austen Zuege, A New Theory for Patent Subject Matter
`Eligibility: A Veblenian Perspective, 5 Cybaris An Intell. Prop. L.
`Rev. 211, 279 st(2014)
`Wendy Seltzer, Software Patents and/or Software Development,
`78 Brook. L. Rev. 929, 949 (2013)
`
`viii
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`1018
`1019
`1020
`1021
`1022
`1023
`1024
`1025
`
`Screenshot of ACM Digital Library Page for Zhao
`U.S. Patent No. 6,006,333 (“Nielsen”)
`Article on CNN’s personalized service
`U.S. Patent No. 6,029,175 (“Chow”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,401,118 (“Thomas”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,903,881 (“Schrader”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,041,362 (“Mears”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,243,816 (“Fang”)
`
`
`
`ix
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Plaid Technologies Inc. (“Petitioner”) hereby petitions for institution of
`
`covered business method review of U.S. Patent No. 6,199,077 (the “’077 Patent”)
`
`(Ex. 1001). The ’077 Patent claims a mere idea, namely, gathering financial
`
`information and other personal data from multiple sources, without providing an
`
`inventive concept that would make such an abstract idea eligible for patenting. See
`
`generally Alice Corp. Pty Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014); 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 101. Further, the prior art and other evidence offered with this Petition
`
`establishes that all elements in the challenged claims of the ’077 Patent were well
`
`known as of the earliest alleged priority date, and that the claimed methods and
`
`systems recited in the ’077 Patent are obvious. Thus, Petitioner respectfully
`
`requests (1) that a covered business method patent review of claims 1–12 (“the
`
`challenged claims”) be instituted; and (2) cancellation of claims 1–12 of the ’077
`
`Patent based on the grounds of unpatentability herein.
`
`II. OVERVIEW OF THE ’077 PATENT
`A.
`The ’077 Patent relates to an Internet Portal system which provides access to
`
`Summary of the Specification
`
`previously identified Internet destinations (including banks, other financial
`
`institutions, or stores), retrieves information from these destinations, and compiles
`
`and delivers the retrieved information for an end user. Ex. 1001, 2:59–67. The
`
`described system purports to allow users to “quickly access multiple WEB sites
`1
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`without lengthy log-in procedures” and to collect and compile data from “a
`
`summary search.” Id., 3:12–16. As seen in Fig. 1, on the left below, three Internet
`
`servers 23, 25, and 27 represent Internet servers hosted by various enterprises, such
`
`as bank servers, investment servers, or airline/travel servers, and subscribed to by a
`
`user operating Internet-capable appliance 17. Id., 4:39–42. The user connects to
`
`portal system 11 by ISP 15 and gains access to “a personalized, interactive WEB
`
`page, which in turn provides access to any one of a number of servers on Internet
`
`13, such as servers 23, 25, and 27.” Id., 4:51–58.
`
`Fig. 2, on the right below, represents one of the personalized, interactive
`
`WEB pages as may be seen on a display monitor of a user. Id., 5:4–8.
`
`
`The user provides the system with his individual authentication information
`
`for a plurality of selected destinations, shown above as “My Bank.com,” “My
`
`Stocks.com,” “My Shopping.com,” “Airline.com,” etc. Id., 5:50–65. Thereafter,
`
`the system allows the user to access each of the plurality of pre-selected webpages
`
`without having to enter login information for each page. Id.
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`
`
`
`The specification further discloses a particular aspect of the alleged
`
`invention called “Enhanced Agent for WEB Summaries.” See generally id., 9:53–
`
`17:50. According to the ’077 Patent, “a software agent, termed a gatherer by the
`
`inventors, is adapted to gather and return summary information about URL’s
`
`according to user request or enterprise discretion.” Id., 9:54–57. The software
`
`agent “may be programmed to perform certain tasks such as obtaining account
`
`information, executing simple transactions, returning user-requested notification
`
`information about upcoming events, and so on.” Id., 10:19–25. Furthermore, “[a]
`
`parsing engine 87 is provided and adapted to parse individual WEB sites according
`
`to a template created via scripting module 79.” Id., 12:35–37. Finally, “[a] data
`
`processing layer 75 is provided and adapted to store, process, and present returned
`
`data to users according to enterprise rules and client direction.” Id., 12:35–37.
`
`Summary of the Relevant Prosecution File History
`
`B.
`On June 1, 1999, the ’077 Patent was filed as Application No. 09/323,598
`
`(“the ’598 Application”) entitled “Method and Apparatus for Providing and
`
`Maintaining a User-Interactive Portal System Accessible via Internet or other
`
`Switched-Packet-Network.” The ’598 Application was filed as a continuation-in-
`
`part of Application No. 09/208,740 (“the ’740 Application”), filed on Dec. 8, 1998.
`
`As with the issued patent, the ’598 Application contained twelve claims. In
`
`the first office action, all twelve claims were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`
`
`
`being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 5,983,227 (“Nazem”) in view of U.S.
`
`Patent No. 6,029,182 (“Nehab”). Ex. 1002, ’077 Patent File History, 94–98. In
`
`response, the Applicant narrowed the claims to require “(a) that the sites accessed
`
`are sites that store information specific to a person; (b) that the sites accessed are
`
`associated with the specific person by virtue of being sites on a list at the Portal,
`
`the list associated with the person; (c) the software suite comprising a set of
`
`gathering agents with at least one gatherer specific to each cite accessed; and (d)
`
`that the Portal authenticates to individual sites as the person.” Id., 119. Shortly
`
`after the amendments were submitted, the Examiner conducted an interview with
`
`the Applicant and then allowed the claims. Id., 123.
`
`Priority Date
`
`C.
`The issued claims of the ’077 Patent cannot claim priority to the ’740
`
`Application. To claim the benefit of a parent application “the invention presently
`
`claimed must have been disclosed in the parent application in the manner provided
`
`by 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph.” Nissan N. Am., Inc. v. Bd. of Regents, The
`
`Univ. of Texas Sys., IPR2012-00037, Decision to Institute, Paper No. 24 at 9 (Mar.
`
`19, 2013); see also Go Med. Indus. Pty., Ltd. v. Inmed Corp., 471 F. 3d 1264, 1270
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2006) (“A continuation-in-part application contains subject matter from
`
`a prior application and may also contain additional matter not disclosed in the prior
`
`application . . . [but] [n]ew subject matter does not receive the benefit of the earlier
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`
`
`
`priority date.”) (citation omitted). Specifically, “the claims of the later-filed
`
`application must be supported by the written description in the parent in sufficient
`
`detail that one skilled in the art can clearly conclude that the inventor invented the
`
`claimed invention as of the filing date sought.” Research Corp. Techs. v.
`
`Microsoft Corp., 627 F.3d 859, 870 (Fed. Cir. 2010). If an explicit claim limitation
`
`“is not present in the written description whose benefit is sought it must be shown
`
`that a person of ordinary skill would have understood, at the time the patent
`
`application was filed, that the description requires that limitation.” Hyatt v. Boone,
`
`146 F.3d 1348, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 1998); see also In re Robertson, 169 F.3d 743, 745
`
`(Fed. Cir. 1999). Moreover, priority is determined on a “claim-by-claim basis.”
`
`Lucent Techs., Inc. v. Gateway, Inc., 543 F.3d 710, 718 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
`
`In this case, for the ’077 Patent to benefit from the earlier priority date, the
`
`disclosure of the ’740 Application must convey to skilled artisans that Applicant
`
`possessed a “software gathering agent,” as recited in all challenged claims of the
`
`’077 Patent, at the time of filing the earlier ’740 Application. Ariad Pharm., Inc. v.
`
`Eli Lilly Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc). But all of the
`
`information relevant to “gathering” and “software gathering agents,” i.e., all of the
`
`disclosures relevant to the claims of the ’077 Patent —is completely new to the
`
`’598 Application. See Ex. 1003, Declaration of Dr. Todd Mowry, ¶ 50 (citing Ex.
`
`1004, redline comparison between the ’598 Application and the ’740 Application).
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`
`
`
`Thus, the earliest priority date for all challenged claims is no earlier than June 1,
`
`1999. See, e.g., Nissan North Am., Inc., IPR2012-00037, Paper No. 24 at 9.
`
`D.
`
`State of the Art
`
`With the spread of content on the World Wide Web in the early-to-mid
`
`1990s, software solutions that allowed for aggregation and delivery of data on the
`
`Web had become well known to those of ordinary skill in the art by the priority
`
`date of the ’077 Patent. For example, Lowery discloses “method and apparatus for
`
`creating and managing custom Web sites” wherein servers “retrieve data from
`
`more than one data source and incorporate the data from these multiple data
`
`sources in a single Web page.” U.S. Patent No. 5,894,554 (“Lowery,” Ex. 1005),
`
`5:37–47; see also U.S. Patent No. 6,317,783 (“Freishtat,” Ex. 1006), 1:23–26.
`
`Moreover, Zhao discloses a system wherein users select a list of “web service
`
`components,” or Internet web sites such as CNN or Netscape, from which a “Web
`
`service aggregator” extracts data to be presented to the user. See Zhao, “Technical
`
`Note, WebEntree: A Web Service Aggregator,” (1998) (“Zhao,” Ex. 1007), 584,
`
`588–89; see also U.S. Patent No. 6,278,449 (“Sugiarto,” Ex. 1008).
`
`Those of ordinary skill in the art further recognized that much of the
`
`information available on the Web is only accessible after the user has been
`
`authenticated, e.g., by providing his or her credentials (username and password).
`
`To automate this process, skilled artisans developed web clients that simulated the
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`
`
`
`user providing his or her credentials. For example, Zhao provides “provides a
`
`single user registration and authentication interface for all of its user-selectable
`
`service components.” Zhao, Ex. 1007. Likewise, U.S. Patent No. 5,892,905
`
`(“Brandt,” Ex. 1009) describes “the capability to easily access many different
`
`application programs over the WWW via a standardized [graphical user
`
`interface].” Id., 3:57–60. In Brandt, a gateway accesses a user library to obtain
`
`authentication data needed to access software applications for the user. Id., 12:15–
`
`17. The gateway then logs the user onto a requested service using normal security
`
`procedures. Id., 12:28–28. As will be seen below, the prior art makes clear that
`
`there is nothing novel or nonobvious about the claims of the ’077 Patent.
`
`III. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b), a claim in post-grant review is given the
`
`“broadest reasonable construction” in light of the specification. In re Cuozzo
`
`Speed Techs., LLC., 793 F.3d 1268, 1276 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Petitioner requests that
`
`the Board give all claim terms not specifically construed herein their broadest
`
`reasonable construction. Moreover, because the standard for claim construction at
`
`the Board is different (i.e., broader) from that in a U.S. district court litigation, see
`
`Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2004),
`
`Petitioner expressly reserves the right to argue a different claim construction in
`
`district court proceedings for any term of the ’077 Patent, as appropriate.
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`
`
`
`A.
`
` Proposed Claim Constructions
`1.
`
`“Internet Portal (System)” (All claims)
`
`Patent Owner is asserting the ’077 Patent in pending litigation against
`
`Petitioner, and in that action, the District Court construed the terms “Internet
`
`Portal” and “Internet Portal System” to be “an Internet-connected server that
`
`provides data retrieved from one or more Internet sites.” See Yodlee, Inc. v. Plaid
`
`Technologies, Inc., No. 1:14-cv-01445-LPS (the “District Court Action”), ECF No.
`
`96 (D. Del. Jan. 15, 2016), Ex. 1010, 1. Also, in a different case involving the
`
`’077 Patent, a different District Court construed the terms as “a website, requiring
`
`user authentication, used to connect with Internet destination[s]1 on behalf of end
`
`users and retrieve personal information.” See Yodlee, Inc. v. CashEdge, Inc., No.
`
`3:05-cv-01550-SI, ECF No. 66 (N.D. Cal. July 7, 2006) (the “CashEdge Case”),
`
`Ex. 1011, 3. Petitioner proposes that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation,
`
`the terms should be construed at least as broadly as the construction in the District
`
`Court Action. Nevertheless, Petitioner explains below how the proposed grounds
`
`render the claims obvious under either construction.
`
`2.
`
`“List of Addresses of Internet Sites” (Claims 1-6)
`
`In the District Court Action, the Court construed “list of addresses of
`
`Internet sites” to be a “one or more addresses of Internet sites.” Ex. 1010, 2.
`
`
`1 The CashEdge Court’s Claim Construction Order incorrectly states “destination.”
`8
`
`
`
`

`
`Petitioner proposes that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, “list of
`
`addresses of Internet sites” should be construed at least that broadly.
`
`
`
`3.
`
`“Gatherer” / “Gatherer Agent” / “Gathering Software Agent”
`/ “Path Agent” (All Claims)
`
`
`In the CashEdge Case, Yodlee argued, and the District Court agreed, that the
`
`terms “gatherer” and “gathering software agents” should be construed to mean “a
`
`software component and/or related data that once processed can be employed to
`
`locate and retrieve information from Internet destinations based on user or
`
`enterprise request.” See Ex. 1011, 3–4. Also, in the District Court Action,
`
`“gatherer” (Claim 1), “gather[ing] agent” (Claims 1, 3, 6, 9, 10, 12), “gathering
`
`‘software agent” (Claim 1), and “path agents” (Claim 4) were construed to be a
`
`“software component that uses a site-specific script and/or site-specific data to
`
`extract data values from an Internet site based on the site’s logic and structure.”
`
`Ex. 1010, 2. Petitioner proposes that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation,
`
`the terms should be construed at least as broadly as the construction in the
`
`CashEdge Case. Nevertheless, Petitioner explains below how the proposed
`
`grounds render the claims obvious under either construction.
`
`“Dedicated to Each Site” (All Claims)
`
`4.
`All claims of the ’077 Patent recite the term “dedicated” as in “at least one
`
`gatherer agent dedicated to each of the Internet sites” from claim 1 and “the
`
`gathering agent dedicated to each site accessed” from claim 7. The iteration of the
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`
`
`
`term in Claim 1 was addressed in the CashEdge Case, and the Court, adopting
`
`Yodlee’s proposal, explained: “in order to effectively locate and retrieve the
`
`desired information, a software agent is dedicated to each Internet site. This means
`
`an agent containing the necessary site logic or protocols needed to locate and
`
`retrieve the desired data from a given site is employed for each site or information
`
`provider.” Ex. 1011, 5. The Court found that “‘dedicated’ does not mean that one
`
`gatherer cannot be used for two separate sites.” Id. Petitioner proposes that, at a
`
`minimum under the broadest reasonable interpretation, “dedicated” does not mean
`
`that one gatherer cannot be used for two separate sites if they use the same logic.
`
`5.
`
`“Authenticating too Each Site Accessed as the Person” /
`“Authenticating to the Sites as the Person” (All Claims)
`
`In the District Court Action, the Court construed “authenticating too each
`
`
`
`site accessed as the person” (Claim 1), and “authenticating to the sites as the
`
`person” (Claim 7) to be “accessing each site utilizing user login credentials.” Ex.
`
`1010, 2. Petitioner proposes that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation
`
`standard, the terms should be construed at least that broadly.
`
`6.
`
`“Gathering Cycle” (All Claims)
`
`
`In the District Court Action, the Court construed “gathering cycle” to be “an
`
`instance of accessing, authenticating, and extracting data from at least one listed
`
`Internet site.” Id., 2. Petitioner proposes that, under the broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation, “gathering cycle” should be construed at least that broadly.
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`
`
`
`IV. GROUNDS FOR STANDING
`A.
` The ’077 Patent Is a Covered Business Method Patent
`The ’077 Patent is eligible for covered business method review because the
`
`’077 Patent “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” and is not a patent “for technological inventions.”
`
`See Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, Pub. L. 112-29 (“AIA”), Section 18(d)(1);
`
`see also 37 C.F.R. § 42.301(a).
`
`1. The ’077 Patent Claims a Method or Apparatus Used in the
`Practice, Administration, or Management of a Financial
`Product or Service
`
`All of the claims of the ’077 Patent are, at minimum, “incidental … or
`
`complementary to a financial activity.” 77 Fed. Reg. 48,734–35. The claims of
`
`the ’077 Patent were intended specifically to cover the organization of financial
`
`activity and monetary matters—gathering data for “subscription services,”
`
`activities like “banking, stock trading, shopping, and so forth,” are the central
`
`focus of the specification. Ex. 1001, 1:35–38; see SAP Am., Inc. v. Versata Dev.
`
`Group, CBM2012-00001, Decision to Institute, Paper No. 36 at 23 (Jan. 9, 2013)
`
`(“Financial” under Section 18 of the AIA “is an adjective that simply means
`
`relating to monetary matters.”).
`
`The Federal Circuit has explained that a covered business method patent
`
`“covers a wide range of finance-related activities” and “is not limited to products
`11
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`and services of only the financial industry, or to patents owned by or directly
`
`affecting the activities of financial institutions such as banks and brokerage
`
`houses.” Versata Dev. Grp., Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1325 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2015); see 77 Fed. Reg. 48,734–35 (citing 157 Cong. Rec. S5432 (daily ed. Sept.
`
`8, 2011) (stm’t of Sen. Schumer)) (covering “activities that are financial in nature,
`
`incidental to a financial activity or complementary to a financial activity.”). The
`
`’077 Patent falls squarely within this rang