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 CBM2016-00037
`Patent 6,199,077
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNERS’ PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`

`
`Case CBM2016-00037
`Attorney Docket No: 12233-0048CP1
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................ 1 
`I. 
`II.  STATEMENT OF RELIEF REQUESTED ................................................. 3 
`III.  CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ......................................................................... 3 
`A. 
`“Gatherer” / “Gatherer Agent” / “Gathering Software
`Agent” / “Path Agent” ...................................................................... 4 
`IV.  THE BOARD SHOULD DENY THE PETITION BECAUSE
`THE ’077 PATENT IS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR COVERED
`BUSINESS METHOD REVIEW ................................................................ 5 
`A. 
`The ’077 Patent does not claim a method or apparatus for
`performing data processing or other operations used in
`the practice, administration, or management of a financial
`product or service ............................................................................. 6 
`The ’077 Patent Claims a “Technological Invention” ................... 12 
`B. 
`V.  PETITIONER’S PRIOR ART GROUNDS ALSO FAIL ......................... 18 
`A. 
`The Zhao Reference Does Not Disclose “Information
`Specific to a Person” ...................................................................... 19 
`The Zhao Reference Does Not Disclose a Gathering Agent ......... 22 
`The VerticalOne Reference is not 102(a) Prior Art and
`Thus Cannot Provide a Reason to Modify the Zhao
`Reference. ....................................................................................... 23 
`The Claims are not Obvious in view of Lowery, Brandt,
`and Zhao ......................................................................................... 27 
`Petitioner Failed to Address Two Limitations of Claim 7 ............. 28 
`E. 
`VI.  THE BOARD SHOULD NOT INSTITUTE PETITIONER’S
`REDUNDANT PRIOR ART CHALLENGES .......................................... 28 
`A. 
`The Board’s Precedent Required Petitioner to Distinguish
`Between Otherwise Redundant Prior Art References .................... 30 
`The Petition Recites Multiple Redundant Grounds ....................... 31 
`B. 
`Petitioner Has Not Made Any Argument of Non-Redundancy ..... 31 
`C. 
`VII. CONCLUSION .......................................................................................... 32 
`
`B. 
`C. 
`
`D. 
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`

`
`Case CBM2016-00037
`Attorney Docket No: 12233-0048CP1
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Cases
`Amgen Inc. v. Hoechst Marion Roussel, Inc.,
`314 F.3d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ..................................................................... 26
`
`Berk-Tek LLC v. Belden Technologies Inc.,
`IPR2013-00057 (Paper 21, May 14, 2013) .................................................... 29
`
`Bloomberg L.P. v. Quest Licensing Corporation,
`CBM2014-00205, Paper 16 (Apr. 7, 2015) ................................................... 18
`
`Enfish Inc. v. Microsoft Corp.,
`2015-1244 (Fed. Cir. May 12, 2016) ......................................................... 5, 17
`
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) ....................................................................................... 19
`
`Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. v. Progressive Casualty Co.,
`CBM2012-00003 (Paper 7, Oct. 25, 2012) ................................. 29, 30, 31, 32
`
`Mutual Ins. Co. v. Progressive Casualty Co.,
`CBM2012-00003 (Paper 7, Oct. 25, 2012) ................................................... 30
`
`Oracle Corp. v. Patent of Clouding IP, LLC,
`IPR2013- 00075 (Paper 15, June 13, 2013) ............................................. 30, 32
`
`PNC Bank NA v. Parus Holdings, Inc.,
`CBM2015-00111, Paper 10 (Nov. 9, 2015) .................................................... 8
`
`Qualtrics, LLC v. OpinionLab, Inc.,
`CBM2015-00164, Paper 8 (Feb. 3, 2016) ......................................... 6, 8, 9, 11
`
`ServiceNow, Inc. v. BMC Software, Inc.,
`CBM2015-00107, Paper 12 (Sept. 11, 2015) .................................................. 8
`
`Sony Corp v. Yissum Research Development Co. of the Hebrew
`Univ. of Jerusalem,
`IPR2013-00219 (Paper 33, Nov. 21, 2013) ................................................... 29
`
`Taiwan Semiconductor Mfg. Co., Ltd.; TSMC N. Am. Corp. v.
`Ziptronix,
`IPR2014-00114 (Paper 14, May 1, 2014) ...................................................... 31
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`

`
`Case CBM2016-00037
`Attorney Docket No: 12233-0048CP1
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 ............................................................................................... 3, 19
`
`35 U.S.C. § 324 ................................................................................................... 32
`
`Other Authorities
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.1(b) ............................................................................................. 28
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.301 ................................................................................................ 5
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.301(a) ............................................................................................ 6
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.301(b) ................................................................................... 12, 18
`
`AIA § 18(a)(1) ...................................................................................................... 5
`
`AIA § 18(d)(1) ............................................................................................ 5, 6, 12
`
`Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48734 (Aug. 14,
`2012) ................................................................................................................ 6
`
`iii
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Case CBM2016-00037
`Attorney Docket No: 12233-0048CP1
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`
`
`Exhibit No. Description
`2001
`Printout from
`http://www.cnn.com/TECH/9706/comdex/comdex.custom/press.r
`elease.html
`Document Entitled “Summarizing the web with AutoLogin”
`dated May 12, 1999.
`Portion of the April 19, 2016 Deposition of Donald Boys
`Report and Recommendation, Yodlee, Inc. v. Plaid Technologies
`Inc., 1:14-cv-01445, D.I. 185.
`
`2002
`
`2003
`2004
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`
`
`

`
`Case CBM2016-00037
`Attorney Docket No: 12233-0048CP1
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.207(a), the Patent Owners, Yodlee, Inc. and
`
`Yodlee.com, Inc. (“Yodlee” or “Patent Owners”), hereby submit the following
`
`Preliminary Response in opposition to the Petition for Covered Business
`
`Method Review (“CBM”) of U.S. Patent No. 6,199,077 (“the ʼ077 Patent”)
`
`numbered CBM2016-00037, filed by Plaid Technologies, Inc. (“Plaid” or
`
`“Petitioner”).
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`The ’077 Patent describes and claims a technical solution to a number of
`
`problems that are specifically identified in the Patent itself. In particular, the
`
`Patent describes methods and systems for accessing a number of different
`
`websites storing information specific to a person, and then specific technologies
`
`for gathering data from those websites and summarizing it for presentation to a
`
`user.1 This invention solves multiple technical problems, including the
`
`difficulty of retrieving and summarizing data from a variety of different
`
`websites that store data in specific and potentially unique ways, the problems in
`
`parsing and utilizing specific website data, the issues in maintaining different
`
`usernames and passwords. In fact, the ’077 Patent even provides one exemplary
`
`
`1 Notably, on May 24, 2016, the Court in the co-pending district court
`
`infringement case issued a Report and Recommendation denying Plaid’s motion
`
`under Section 101. Ex. 2004 at 24.
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`

`
`Case CBM2016-00037
`Attorney Docket No: 12233-0048CP1
`
`software script describing a particular technical manner by which data may be
`
`gathered and summarized.
`
`Despite all of this evidence about the broad, technical nature of the
`
`claimed invention which is potentially applicable to a number of different fields,
`
`the Petition boldly asserts that the ’077 Patent is eligible for covered business
`
`method review and that it is limited to financial applications. Petitioner,
`
`however, fails to actually analyze the challenged claims – instead choosing to
`
`focus on only certain examples provided in the specification. Petitioner does
`
`not identify any claim language purportedly limiting the claims to these
`
`particular embodiments, nor does Petitioner propose any claim construction that
`
`limits the scope of the claims to something financially-related. Nor could it,
`
`given that the claims are broadly applicable to multiple fields and the
`
`specification itself explicitly discloses use of the invention in multiple fields and
`
`even provides explicit non-financial examples. The proper analysis of the
`
`claims as a whole makes clear that the ’077 patent does not claim “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 thus is not eligible for CBM review under AIA § 18.
`
`Furthermore, because of the disclosure of the technical problems being
`
`addressed by the ’077 Patent as well as the technical solutions provided and
`
`then claimed by the ’077 Patent, the Patent clearly recites a “technological
`
`invention” and is therefore further ineligible for CBM review under AIA § 18.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`

`
`Case CBM2016-00037
`Attorney Docket No: 12233-0048CP1
`
`Again, Petitioner’s analysis is deficient in this regard and improperly breaks the
`
`claims down without considering whether the claims as a whole recite a
`
`technological invention. In fact, as set forth below, the Petitioner’s own
`
`proposed constructions reinforce the specific technical nature of the invention.
`
`A proper analysis of the claims as a whole shows that the ’077 Patent does
`
`recite a technological invention and is not eligible for CBM review.
`
`Beyond this, as set forth below, Petitioner’s grounds for invalidity under
`
`Section 103 are fundamentally flawed. In particular, Petitioner relies on
`
`references that fail to disclose limitations from the claims and/or relies on a
`
`reference (the VerticalOne press release) that is neither prior art nor enabled. It
`
`would thus be inappropriate to institute a review on any of the purported
`
`obviousness grounds.
`
`The Board should therefore deny the Petition because the ’077 Patent is
`
`not eligible for CBM review and because the grounds fail to show that it is more
`
`likely than not that at least one of the claims challenged in the Petition is
`
`unpatentable.
`
`II.
`
`STATEMENT OF RELIEF REQUESTED
`
`Patent Owners respectfully request that this Board deny this Petition for
`
`CBM of the ’077 Patent with regard to all claims (1-12).
`
`III. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`Patent Owners have addressed below the claim terms relevant to the
`
`arguments made in this preliminary response. To the extent that this case is
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`

`
`Case CBM2016-00037
`Attorney Docket No: 12233-0048CP1
`
`instituted, Patent Owners reserve the right to address any additional claim
`
`construction issues that arise with respect to its further arguments to be made in
`
`the Patent Owners’ Response.
`
`A.
`
`“Gatherer” / “Gatherer Agent” / “Gathering Software Agent” /
`“Path Agent”
`
`As Petitioner acknowledges, the terms “gatherer,” “gatherer agent,”
`
`“gathering software agent,” and “path agent” have very recently been construed
`
`in the corresponding District Court action as “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.” See Ex. 1010 at 14;
`
`Petition at 9. While Petitioner asserts that a construction from an earlier
`
`litigation should apply, Petitioner identifies no flaw in the recent District Court
`
`construction and asserts invalidity under either construction. For at least the
`
`same reasons espoused by the District Court, Patent Owners believe that
`
`“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”
`
`is the appropriate construction. The specification explains that the gatherer uses
`
`site-specific scripts or templates to identify and extract the desired information
`
`from a website. Ex. 1010 (District Court Claim Construction Order) at 15; Ex.
`
`1001, at 9:54-64, 11:35-55. The Board should adopt this construction for the
`
`purposes of the Petition.
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`

`
`Case CBM2016-00037
`Attorney Docket No: 12233-0048CP1
`
`IV. THE BOARD SHOULD DENY THE PETITION BECAUSE THE
`’077 PATENT IS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR COVERED BUSINESS
`METHOD REVIEW
`
`Covered business method review is only available for patents that (1)
`
`claim “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 (2) are not “technological inventions.” AIA
`
`§ 18(a)(1) & (d)(1); 37 C.F.R. § 42.301. The ’077 Patent does not claim a
`
`method or apparatus for performing data processing or other operations used in
`
`the practice, administration, or management of a financial product or service.
`
`Moreover, the claimed invention is clearly a technological invention. Thus, the
`
`’077 Patent fails to satisfy either of the requirements for a CBM and is not
`
`eligible for CBM review. The Board should therefore deny the Petition.2
`
`
`2 Patent Owners believe that the claims of the ’077 Patent are valid under
`
`Section 101, but chooses to focus its Preliminary Response on the Patent’s
`
`ineligibility for CBM review. The merits of the claims under Section 101 (in
`
`addition to other flaws in the Petition) will be addressed in further detail in
`
`Patent Owner’s Response if such a response is needed in view of the institution
`
`decision. However, as described below, the claims of the ’077 Patent are
`
`directed to a specific technical invention that improves computer operation – not
`
`an abstract concept. For this reason alone, institution under Section 101 is not
`
`proper. See Enfish Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 2015-1244 at *11 (Fed. Cir. May 12,
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`

`
`Case CBM2016-00037
`Attorney Docket No: 12233-0048CP1
`
`A. The ’077 Patent does not claim a method or apparatus for
`performing data processing or other operations used in the
`practice, administration, or management of a financial product
`or service
`The AIA defines a CBM-eligible patent as one “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); 37 C.F.R. § 42.301(a). The focus in determining
`
`whether a patent is eligible for CBM review is therefore on “what the patent
`
`claims.” Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48734, 48736 (Aug.
`
`14, 2012) (response to comment 8); Qualtrics, LLC v. OpinionLab, Inc.,
`
`CBM2015-00164, Paper 8 (Feb. 3, 2016) at 4-5.
`
`Petitioner’s analysis entirely fails to show that the ’077 Patent claims a
`
`method or apparatus for performing data processing or other operations used in
`
`the practice, administration or management of a financial product or service.
`
`First, Petitioner only appears to actually allege that claim 7 is CBM-eligible.3
`
`
`
`2016) (rejecting that notion that claims directed to software are necessarily
`
`abstract).
`
`3 Petitioner does in a couple of instances include the parenthetical “(as with all
`
`challenged claims)” when discussing CBM eligibility. See, e.g., Petition at 13,
`
`14, 15. However, Petitioner never analyzes any of the other claims nor does it
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`

`
`Case CBM2016-00037
`Attorney Docket No: 12233-0048CP1
`
`Then, Petitioner’s only arguments are (1) that the “data” upon which the claim
`
`operates is financial; (2) that the “plurality of sites” from which the data is
`
`gathered are financial; and (3) that the “software gathering agent . . . to gather
`
`data from the site” gathers financial data and/or gathers data from financially-
`
`related sites. See generally Petition at 13-16. But instead of showing that any
`
`recited claim language from claim 7 is focused on the “practice, administration
`
`or management of a financial product or service,” Petitioner focuses entirely on
`
`examples in the specification that show the technology of the ’077 Patent may
`
`be used in particular applications that bear some relation to finance.
`
`Nothing in the language of claim 7 – the required inquiry in determining
`
`CBM eligibility – is limited in any way to the practice, administration or
`
`management of a financial product or service. Petitioner fails to identify a
`
`single claim term that is sufficiently tied to a financial activity to justify
`
`inclusion in the CBM program. To the contrary, previous PTAB decisions
`
`
`
`
`assert that claim 7 is somehow representative of any other claim in the ’077
`
`Patent, much less actually provide any analysis to show how or why claim 7 is
`
`representative of “all challenged claims.” Thus, the Petition should be read as
`
`only relying on claim 7 to meet the test for CBM eligibility. In any event, as
`
`Patent Owner’s analysis will show, none of the claims of the ’077 Patent satisfy
`
`the test for CBM eligibility.
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`

`
`Case CBM2016-00037
`Attorney Docket No: 12233-0048CP1
`
`actively counsel against institution in this case. See Qualtrics, CBM2015-
`
`00164, Paper 8 (Feb. 3, 2016) at 5 (denying institution as not eligible for CBM
`
`review: “Here, the claims are devoid of any terms that reasonably could be
`
`argued as having any particular relation to a financial product or service.”);
`
`ServiceNow, Inc. v. BMC Software, Inc., CBM2015-00107, Paper 12 (Sept. 11,
`
`2015) at 10 (“none of these steps involve a financial activity. We also note that
`
`no claim limitation is tied specifically to a financial product or service.”); PNC
`
`Bank NA v. Parus Holdings, Inc., CBM2015-00111, Paper 10 (Nov. 9, 2015) at
`
`15 (“Petitioner points to no recitations in the claims addressing financing,
`
`commerce, or the movement of money. We find no such recitation.”).
`
`Nor does Petitioner propose any claim constructions that are financial in
`
`nature - another factor the Board has recognized supports denying institution as
`
`not eligible for CBM review. Qualtrics, CBM2015-00164, Paper 8 at 5. For
`
`example, neither of the construction options that Petitioner proposes for
`
`“Gatherer Agent,” make any mention of financial matters. To contrary, the
`
`construction noted above (and proposed as acceptable by even Petitioner)
`
`recites “site-specific scripts” for “extract[ing” data values…based on the sites
`
`logic and structure.” Pet. at 9. Similarly, Petitioner’s proposed construction of
`
`“authenticating…” recites “utilizing user login credentials.” Pet, at 10. These
`
`are clearly not financial activities. In fact, none of Petitioner’s numerous
`
`proposed constructions limit (or even direct) the claims to something financial
`
`in nature.
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`

`
`Case CBM2016-00037
`Attorney Docket No: 12233-0048CP1
`
`To the contrary, Petitioner appears to have implicitly agreed that the
`
`claims are not financially-related by asserting invalidity based on the notably
`
`non-financial CNN news service. See Petition at 40-41. While the art cited by
`
`Petitioner is different from the claimed technology (as described below),
`
`Petitioner’s decision to rely on a general news website, which is not financially-
`
`related, as invalidating the claims shows that Petitioner itself does not believe
`
`that the claims are limited to financially-related information.4 Further, in a
`
`related IPR petition regarding this same patent, Petitioner similarly asserted that
`
`information from ESPN (sports-related, rather than financially-related) could be
`
`used to practice the invention. This also shows that Petitioner itself does not
`
`read the claims as limited to financially-related applications – if so, it would not
`
`have chosen to rely on non-financial prior art. See IPR2015-00275, Paper 1
`
`(Dec. 3, 2015) at 43, 52.
`
`To be clear, whether or not the claims may be used with certain
`
`financially-related applications – the only thing Petitioner alleges about the ’077
`
`Patent – is not sufficient to show CBM eligibility. Claims that are “hardly the
`
`exclusive domain of the financial sector” do not satisfy the test for CBM
`
`eligibility. Qualtrics, CBM2015-00164, Paper 8 (Feb. 3, 2016) at 6. The
`
`claims here are, similar to those in Qualtrics, not the exclusive domain of the
`
`
`4 It is even unclear if the CNN personalized news service was even a pay news
`
`service See Ex. 2001 (describing CNN personalized news as a free service).
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`

`
`Case CBM2016-00037
`Attorney Docket No: 12233-0048CP1
`
`financial sector but apply broadly to all types of “information specific to the
`
`person” (claim 1) and all types of “data specific to that person” (claim 7), and
`
`thus the claims here cannot not satisfy the first prong of the CBM eligibility
`
`test. See also ServiceNow, CBM2015-00107, Paper 12 at 13 (denying
`
`institution as not CBM-eligible because the patent claimed “methods of general
`
`utility”); PNC Bank, CBM2015-00111, Paper 10 at 17 (to be CBM-eligible,
`
`“claims must be directed to something more than techniques applicable to a
`
`wide variety of industries”).
`
`The specification of the ’077 Patent makes clear that the claimed
`
`invention is not confined to the particular embodiments upon which Petitioner
`
`relies. In particular, the specification describes gathering and summarizing data
`
`and information generally: “The present invention is in the field of Internet
`
`navigation . . . and pertains more particularly to methods and apparatus,
`
`including software, for gathering summary information . . . and presenting the
`
`information . . . .” Ex. 1001 at 1:16-22; see also id. at 1:31-35; 1:43; 2:65-67.
`
`Further, the specification of the ’077 Patent shows that information
`
`specific to a person is not limited in scope to the practice, administration or
`
`management of a financial product or service. Quite the contrary, the
`
`specification teaches that “information extracted in step 64 may include any
`
`information contained in any of the stored pages such as text, pictures,
`
`interactive content, or the like.” Ex. 1001 at 9:43-45. The specification even
`
`gives examples like obtaining “user-requested notification information about
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`

`
`Case CBM2016-00037
`Attorney Docket No: 12233-0048CP1
`
`upcoming events,” which are distinctly not financial. Id. at 10:21-23.
`
`Moreover, the claimed system can operate on free accounts that are specific to
`
`the person or can gather information about events specific to the person but that
`
`bear no relation to anything financial. See Qualtrics, CBM2015-00164, Paper 8
`
`(Feb. 3, 2016) at 6-7 (denying institution as not CBM-eligible because even
`
`though specification
`
`included certain financially-related examples, “the
`
`specification suggests that the survey tool is amenable to any one of a broad
`
`spectrum of websites”).
`
`Petitioner has not and cannot identify any language in the specification
`
`that limits the scope of the invention to something related to a financial product
`
`or service. Thus, the Board should deny institution. See Qualtrics, CBM2015-
`
`00164, Paper 8 (Feb. 3, 2016) at 6 (denying institution as not CBM-eligible:
`
`“Nor does Qualtrics point to any language in the specification of the ’724 patent
`
`that limits the scope of the challenged claims to a financial product or service.”)
`
`The only limitation, in either the claims or the specification, on the scope of the
`
`claimed “information” (claim 1) or “data” (claim 7) is that it be “specific to
`
`[the/that] person” as recited in claims 1 and 7, respectively.
`
`As the Board has recognized before, “[t]he fact that the specification may
`
`describe the [claimed invention] as capable of being used for [financially-
`
`related] purposes does not mean that the challenged claims are limited to such
`
`uses” and thus does not mean that the challenged claims are CBM-eligible.
`
`Qualtrics, CBM2015-00164, Paper 8 (Feb. 3, 2016) at 6. Concluding otherwise
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`

`
`Case CBM2016-00037
`Attorney Docket No: 12233-0048CP1
`
`would drastically expand the scope of CBM review in a way that is inconsistent
`
`with the statutory language. See also PNC Bank, CBM2015-00111, Paper 10 at
`
`15 (“reading Section 18 to apply to any patent that could be used in conjunction
`
`with financial products and services could lead to an unreasonable result”). The
`
`Board should therefore deny the Petition for this threshold reason alone.
`
`The ’077 Patent Claims a “Technological Invention”
`
`B.
`Beyond not claiming a financial product, the ’077 patent claims a true
`
`“technological invention” and thus is not eligible for CBM review. AIA
`
`§ 18(d)(1) (“the term ‘covered business method patent’ . . . does not include
`
`patents for technological inventions”). The regulations explain that in
`
`determining whether a patent qualifies as a technological invention, “the
`
`following will be considered on a case-by-case basis: 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). Petitioner here has failed to show that the
`
`“claimed subject matter as a whole” does not satisfy the technological invention
`
`exception, and thus has failed to prove the claims are CBM-eligible. In fact, the
`
`specification of the ’077 Patent describes the multiple technical challenges to
`
`which the claims are addressed, and how the claimed invention addresses those
`
`problems (i.e., how the claims are the “technical solution” to the identified
`
`“technical problem”).
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`

`
`Case CBM2016-00037
`Attorney Docket No: 12233-0048CP1
`
`For example, many of the technical problems identified in the ’077 Patent
`
`revolve around issues generated by having individual content stored on a variety
`
`of different websites and computers throughout the internet. Ex. 1001 at 1:25-
`
`45. As the ’077 Patent describes “it is desirable that the software agent in
`
`conjunction with the search function be enabled to navigate to any URL or
`
`group of URL's, provided as input by a user or otherwise deemed appropriate
`
`by the service provider, for the purpose of providing summary information
`
`regarding updated content for each URL, which may be presented as an
`
`HTML information-page to the user.” Id. at 2:40-46. To address this problem
`
`and others, the ’077 Patent recites gathering software agents that have “a
`
`client/service interface layer 69 adapted to enable directive input from both a
`
`client (user) and a knowledge worker or workers associated with the service.”
`
`Ex. 1001 at 10:59-61.
`
`The system provides “a unique scripting method…to enable gatherer 67
`
`to obtain the goal information requested by a user…[using] aa site-specific
`
`script or template for gatherer 67 to follow. Such a template contains
`
`descriptions and locations of the appropriate fields user.” Id. at 11:36-47. The
`
`gathering agents are further described as being able to include “a process layer
`
`71 adapted for internal information gathering and parameter configuration”
`
`(11:66-67) as well as an “appliance configuration module,” (12:13-27) a
`
`“navigation layer” (12:28-35), a “portal server interface” (12:1-2), and a
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`

`
`Case CBM2016-00037
`Attorney Docket No: 12233-0048CP1
`
`“parsing engine” (12:37-46). The specification then includes a specific
`
`sourcecode example. Id. at 12:61-13:41.
`
`Aspects of this technical solution are recited in both sets of claims,
`
`particularly in claim 1 (“the gathering agent dedicated to each site accessed
`
`extracts data from that site”) and claim 3 (“wherein the data gathered by the
`
`gathering agents is summarized and/or aggregated”), as well as in claim 7
`
`(“executing a software gathering agent at each site accessed to gather data from
`
`the site”) and claim 9 (“further comprising a step for summarizing at the Portal
`
`the data gathered by the gathering agents, the resulting summary to be provided
`
`to the person”). The parsing engine is further recited in dependent claims 6 and
`
`12.
`
`In another example, the ’077 Patent addresses the problem that “there are
`
`invariably many passwords and/or log-in codes to be used” and in particular that
`
`these codes may be required to be different, for example if “the password or
`
`code may already be taken by another user” on a particular site. Ex. 1001 at
`
`1:46-51. The ’077 Patent explains that one way to address this problem is by
`
`maintaining a list of websites with “[u]ser names and password data associated
`
`with each item in list 34.” Id. at 5:26-29; Fig. 1. As the Patent explains, the
`
`user “is spared the need of entering passwords and user names for any
`
`destinations enabled by list 34.” Id. at 5:59-61.
`
`This solution is claimed in claim 1 including at least using “a list of
`
`addresses of Internet sites associated with a specific person” which is accessed
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`

`
`Case CBM2016-00037
`Attorney Docket No: 12233-0048CP1
`
`by gatherer agents which are configured to “authenticating too [sic] each site
`
`accessed as the person” during a gathering cycle. Id. at claim 1. Claim 5
`
`further requires that the portal “stores user names and passwords . . . and uses
`
`the stored user games [sic] and passwords to authenticate to each site as the
`
`person.” Id. at claim 5. Claim 7 also recites “a plurality of Internet sites storing
`
`data specific to that person” where the method involves “authenticating to the
`
`sites as the person.” Id. at claim 7. Similarly, claim 11 recites that the portal
`
`“stores user names and passwords . . . and uses the stored user names and
`
`passwords to authenticate to each site.”
`
`Another technical problem identified by the ’077 Patent is that the user
`
`“must bookmark many WEB pages in a computer cache so that they may
`
`quickly find and access the various services.” Ex. 1001 at 1:59-62. The
`
`solution of the ’077 Patent is to use the claimed “list of addresses of Internet
`
`sites” (claim 1) or “plurality of Internet sites” (claim 7) so that the portal can
`
`“access[]” that site, “authenticat[e]” to it, and “extract[]” (claim 1) or “gather”
`
`(claim 7) the requested data without the user needing to individually find each
`
`website.
`
`The technical nature of the invention is reinforced by the proposed claim
`
`constructions which Petitioner itself submitted. For example, as discussed
`
`above, the appropriate construction for the “gatherer” and “gathering agent”
`
`terms that embody this technical solution is a “software component that uses a
`
`site-specific script and/or site-specific data to extract data values from an
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`

`
`Case CBM2016-00037
`Attorney Docket No: 12233-0048CP1
`
`Internet site based on the site’s logic and structure.” This is a specific
`
`technology, that requires specific information about a website (its logic and
`
`structure) in order to craft the site-specific script and/or data that is used to
`
`extract the information. This is not generic software merely implemented on a
`
`computer, but rather, a specific script that must be created to solve the technical
`
`problem of how to access information from a specific website given that the
`
`structure of different websites may be entirely different and may require
`
`different approaches in order to extract useful information.5 This claim
`
`construction of the “gatherer” and “gathering agent” terms makes clear that the
`
`claims recite specific “technological inventions.” The other claim constructions
`
`
`5 The inventive nature of the gathering agent w