UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_________________________
`
`
`
`
`
`PLAID TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`YODLEE, INC.
`Patent Owner
`_________________________
`Case No. CBM2016-00045
`U.S. Patent No. 6,317,783
`_________________________
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR COVERED BUSINESS METHOD REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,317,783
`
`Mail Stop Patent Board
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................................................................................. iv
`
`EXHIBIT LIST ..................................................................................................... vii
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................... 1
`
`II. OVERVIEW OF THE ’783 PATENT ......................................................... 1
`
`A. Summary of the Specification ................................................................... 1
`
`B. Summary of the Relevant Prosecution History ......................................... 6
`
`C. State of the Art .......................................................................................... 8
`
`III. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ........................................................................ 11
`
`A. Proposed Claim Constructions ................................................................ 12
`
`1.
`2.
`3.
`4.
`5.
`6.
`7.
`
`“Non-Public Personal Information” (Claims 1, 18, 20) .................. 12
`“Intermediary Web Site” (Claims 14–17, 33–36) ........................... 17
`“End User” (Claims 1, 4, 6, 13, 18–20, 23, 25–26, 32) .................. 19
`“Protocol” (Claims 1, 18, 20) .......................................................... 19
`“Store” (Claims 1, 3, 6, 18, 20, 22, 24, 25) ..................................... 19
`“Formatted Web Elements” (Claims 10–11, 29–30) ...................... 22
`“Executing a Transaction” (Claims 4, 23); “Transaction
`Execution” (Claim 24) ..................................................................... 22
`“Provider Data” (Claims 1, 4, 18, 20, 23) ....................................... 24
`8.
`“Monitoring for Changes” (Claims 2, 21) ....................................... 24
`9.
`10. “Processor” Retrieving “Personal Information” (Claims 1,
`18, 20) .............................................................................................. 25
`
`IV. GROUNDS FOR STANDING .................................................................... 26
`
`A. The ’783 Patent Is a Covered Business Method Patent .......................... 26
`
`1. The ’783 Patent Claims a Method or Apparatus Used in the
`Practice, Administration, or Management of a Financial
`Product or Service ........................................................................... 26
`
`i
`
`

`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
`
`Page
`
`2. None of the Claims of the ’783 Patent Are Directed to a
`Technological Invention .................................................................. 34
`
`B. Petitioner Has Been Sued for Infringement of the ’783 Patent,
`and Is Not Estopped From Challenging the ’783 Patent Claims ............ 42
`
`V.
`
`THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE UNPATENTABLE UNDER 35
`U.S.C. § 101 .................................................................................................. 43
`
`A. Claims 1–36 of the ’783 Patent Are Directed to an Abstract
`Idea 43
`
`B. Claims 1–36 of the ’783 Patent Do Not Have an Inventive
`Concept .................................................................................................... 47
`
`1. Claim 1 Does Not Have an Inventive Concept ............................... 48
`2. Claim 2 Does Not Add an Inventive Concept to Claim 1 ............... 53
`3. Claim 3 Does Not Add an Inventive Concept to Claim 1 ............... 53
`4. Claim 4 Does Not Add an Inventive Concept to Claim 1 ............... 54
`5. Claim 5 Does Not Add an Inventive Concept to Claim 4 ............... 55
`6. Claim 6 Does Not Add an Inventive Concept to Claim 1 ............... 56
`7. Claim 7 Does Not Add an Inventive Concept to Claim 6 ............... 56
`8. Claim 8 Does Not Add an Inventive Concept to Claim 7 ............... 57
`9. Claim 9 Does Not Add an Inventive Concept to Claim 6 ............... 58
`10. Claim 10 Does Not Add an Inventive Concept to Claim 9 ............. 58
`11. Claim 11 Does Not Add an Inventive Concept to Claim 9 ............. 59
`12. Claim 12 Does Not Add an Inventive Concept to Claim 9 ............. 60
`13. Claim 13 Does Not Add an Inventive Concept to Claim 1 ............. 60
`14. Claim 14 Does Not Add an Inventive Concept to Claim 1 ............. 61
`15. Claim 15 Does Not Add an Inventive Concept to Claim 14 ........... 62
`16. Claim 16 Does Not Add an Inventive Concept to Claim 14 ........... 63
`17. Claim 17 Does Not Add an Inventive Concept to Claim 16 ........... 64
`18. Claim 18 Does Not Have an Inventive Concept ............................. 64
`19. Claim 19 Does Not Add an Inventive Concept to Claim 18 ........... 65
`20. Claim 20 Does Not Have an Inventive Concept ............................. 65
`21. Claim 21 Does Not Add an Inventive Concept to Claim 20 ........... 66
`22. Claim 22 Does Not Add an Inventive Concept to Claim 20 ........... 66
`23. Claim 23 Does Not Add an Inventive Concept to Claim 20 ........... 66
`24. Claim 24 Does Not Add an Inventive Concept to Claim 23 ........... 67
`25. Claim 25 Does Not Add an Inventive Concept to Claim 20 ........... 67
`26. Claim 26 Does Not Add an Inventive Concept to Claim 25 ........... 67
`
`ii
`
`

`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
`
`Page
`
`27. Claim 27 Does Not Add an Inventive Concept to Claim 26 ........... 67
`28. Claim 28 Does Not Add an Inventive Concept to Claim 25 ........... 68
`29. Claim 29 Does Not Add an Inventive Concept to Claim 28 ........... 68
`30. Claim 30 Does Not Add an Inventive Concept to Claim 28 ........... 68
`31. Claim 31 Does Not Add an Inventive Concept to Claim 28 ........... 68
`32. Claim 32 Does Not Add an Inventive Concept to Claim 20 ........... 68
`33. Claim 33 Does Not Add an Inventive Concept to Claim 20 ........... 69
`34. Claim 34 Does Not Add an Inventive Concept to Claim 33 ........... 69
`35. Claim 35 Does Not Add an Inventive Concept to Claim 33 ........... 69
`36. Claim 36 Does Not Add an Inventive Concept to Claim 35 ........... 69
`
`C. Alternate Constructions Provided by the District Courts in
`CashEdge and Block Financial Do Not Transform the Claims
`Into Patent-Eligible Subject Matter ......................................................... 70
`
`1.
`2.
`3.
`4.
`5.
`6.
`
`“Non-Public Personal Information” ................................................ 70
`“Intermediary Website” ................................................................... 71
`“End User” ....................................................................................... 72
`“Personal Information Store” .......................................................... 73
`“Provider Store” .............................................................................. 73
`“User Store” ..................................................................................... 74
`
`VI. STATEMENT OF THE PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED FOR EACH
`CLAIM CHALLENGED ............................................................................ 75
`
`VII. MANDATORY NOTICES ......................................................................... 75
`
`A. Real Parties-in-Interest and Related Matters .......................................... 75
`
`B. Lead and Back-Up Counsel and Service Information ............................ 75
`
`C. Certificate of Service on Patent Owner and Complete Fee .................... 76
`
`VIII. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................ 76
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`Accenture Global Servs.,GmbH v. Guidewire Software, Inc.,
`728 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2013) .......................................................................... 35
`Alice Corp. Pty Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l,
`134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014) ................................... 1, 36, 37, 43, 46, 47, 48, 54, 73, 74
`AllScripts Healthcare Solutions, Inc. v. MyMedicalRecords, Inc.,
`CBM2015-00022, Paper 20 (Aug. 26, 2015) ......................................... 71, 72, 75
`In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr.,
`367 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2004) .......................................................................... 12
`Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc.,
`788 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2015) .......................................................................... 50
`buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc.,
`765 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2014) .................................................................... 35, 50
`Content Extraction, & Transmission, LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank,
`776 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2014) .................................................................... 44, 72
`CRS Adv. Techs., Inc. v. Frontline Techs., Inc.,
`CBM2012-00005, Paper No. 17 (Jan. 23, 2013) ................................................ 35
`In re Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC,
`793 F.3d 1268 (Fed. Cir. 2015) .......................................................................... 11
`Cyberfone Sys., LLC v. CNN Interactive Grp., Inc.,
`558 F. App’x 988 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ..................................................................... 45
`CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc.,
`654 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2011) .......................................................................... 48
`DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com,
`773 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2014) .................................................................... 51, 52
`Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Elecs. for Imaging,
`758 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2014) .................................................................... 44, 72
`Honeywell Int’l, Inc. v. ITT Indus., Inc.,
`452 F.3d 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2006) .............................................................. 12, 23, 31
`Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA),
`792 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ........................................... 45, 48, 52, 54, 65, 66
`
`iv
`
`

`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (continued)
`
`Page(s)
`
`Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc.,
`790 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2015) .................................................................... 48, 50
`Interthinx, Inc. v. Corelogic Solutions, LLC,
`No. CBM2012-00007, Paper No. 15 (Jan. 31, 2013) ................................... 37, 41
`Mayo Collab. Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc.,
`132 S. Ct. 1289 (2012) ........................................................................................ 44
`Planet Bingo, LLC v. VKGS LLC,
`576 F. App’x 1005 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ................................................................... 47
`SAP Am., Inc. v. Versata Dev. Group,
`CBM2012-00001, Paper No. 36 (Jan. 9, 2013) ...................................... 26, 27, 38
`SAP Am., Inc. v. Versata Dev. Group,
`CBM2012-00001, Paper No. 70 (June 11, 2013) ......................................... 73, 74
`SmartGene, Inc. v. Advanced Biological Labs.,
`SA, 555 F. App’x 950 (Fed. Cir. 2014) .............................................................. 49
`Square, Inc. v. Protegrity Corp.,
`CBM2014-00182, Paper No. 16 (Mar. 5, 2015) ........................................... 34, 38
`Square, Inc. v. Protegrity Corp.,
`CBM2014-00182, Paper No. 30 (June 5, 2015) .........................27, 30, 31, 32, 33
`Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC,
`772 F.3d 709 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ................................. 45, 47, 48, 50, 51, 52, 53, 71
`Vehicle Intelligence & Safety LLC v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC,
`No. 2015-1411, 2015 WL 9461707 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 28, 2015) .................... 45, 53
`Verizon Servs. Corp. v. Vonage Holdings Corp.,
`503 F.3d 1295 (Fed. Cir. 2007) .............................................................. 12, 22, 31
`Versata Dev. Grp., Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc.,
`793 F.3d 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2015) .............................. 27, 34, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55,
`56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64
`
`Statutes
`35 U.S.C. § 101 .............................................................................................. 1, 75, 76
`35 U.S.C. § 103 .......................................................................................................... 6
`35 U.S.C. § 321 ........................................................................................................ 43
`35 U.S.C. § 324 ........................................................................................................ 76
`Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, Pub. L. 112-29, § 18(d) ............................ 26, 34
`
`v
`
`

`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (continued)
`
`Page(s)
`
`Regulations
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10 ..................................................................................................... 75
`37 C.F.R. § 42.300 ................................................................................................... 11
`37 C.F.R. § 42.301 ............................................................................................. 26, 34
`37 C.F.R. § 42.302 ................................................................................................... 42
`37 C.F.R. § 42.303 ................................................................................................... 43
`37 C.F.R. § 42.304 ................................................................................................... 76
`45 C.F.R. § 164.500, et seq. ..................................................................................... 44
`77 Fed. Reg. 48,734 ........................................................................................... 26, 27
`77 Fed. Reg. 48,756 ................................................................................................. 38
`Other Authorities
`157 Cong. Rec. S5432 (daily ed. Sept. 8, 2011) ...................................................... 27
`
`vi
`
`

`
`
`
`
`Exhibit Number
`1001
`1002
`1003
`1004
`1005
`1006
`1007
`1008
`1009
`
`1010
`
`1011
`
`1012
`
`1013
`
`1014
`
`1015
`
`1016
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Document
`U.S. Patent No. 6,317,783 (“the ’783 Patent”)
`Declaration of Dr. Todd C. Mowry (“Mowry Decl.”)
`File History of U.S. Patent No. 6,317,783
`U.S. Patent No. 6,278,449 (“Sugiarto”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,892,905 (“Brandt”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,006,333 (“Nielsen”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,029,175 (“Chow”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,401,118 (“Thomas”)
`Yodlee, Inc. v. CashEdge, Inc., No. 3:05-01550, ECF No. 66
`(N.D. Cal. July 7, 2006) (“CashEdge Claim Construction”)
`Yodlee, Inc. v. Block Financial Corp., No. 4:03-cv-00831,
`ECF No. 79 (W.D. Mo. Dec. 2, 2004) (“Block Financial
`Claim Construction”)
`Patent Owner Preliminary Response, IPR2016-00273, Paper
`8 (Mar. 11, 2016)
`Yodlee, Inc. v. Plaid Technologies, Inc., No. 1:14-cv-01445-
`LPS, ECF No. 96 (D. Del. Jan. 15, 2016) (“Plaid Claim
`Construction)
`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 (2014)
`Wendy Seltzer, Software Patents and/or Software
`Development, 78 Brook. L. Rev. 929, 949 (2013)
`
`vii
`
`

`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Plaid Technologies Inc. (“Petitioner”) hereby petitions for institution of
`
`covered business method review of U.S. Patent No. 6,317,783 (the “’783 Patent”)
`
`(Ex. 1001). The ’783 Patent claims a mere idea, namely, retrieving and storing
`
`personal information, including financial information, from multiple sources,
`
`adding nothing more than conventional features of websites and computers 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. The Supreme Court held in Alice, “the use of a computer
`
`to obtain data, adjust account balances, and issue automated instructions; all of
`
`these computer functions are ‘well-understood, routine, conventional activit[ies]’
`
`previously known to the industry.” Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2359. The claims
`
`here are no different. Thus, Petitioner respectfully requests that a covered business
`
`method review of claims 1–36 (“the challenged claims”) of the ’783 Patent be
`
`instituted, and Petitioner also respectfully requests cancellation of the challenged
`
`claims as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
`
`II. OVERVIEW OF THE ’783 PATENT
`A.
`Summary of the Specification
`
`The ’783 Patent relates to “an apparatus and process for automated
`
`aggregation and delivery of electronic personal information or data (PI)” and
`
`“automation of transactions involving electronic PI.” ’783 Patent at 1:23–26. The
`
`1
`
`

`
`
`
`“present invention” is facilitating the “end user access of, manipulation of and
`
`transactions involving electronic PI” such as “stock portfolio, local weather, sports
`
`scores, bank account balances or other pertinent information or data” and “a
`
`variety of electronic transactions involving PI such as stock trading, retail
`
`purchases, bill payment, bank account fund transfers or other transactions.” Id. at
`
`3:5–9, 15–19.
`
`The ’783 Patent defines “personal information” as including a myriad of
`
`information, such as “monthly bills, bank account balances, investments
`
`information, health care benefits, email, voice and fax messages, and 401(k)
`
`holdings or potentially any other information pertinent to a particular end user.”
`
`Id. at 4:12–21; 4:65–67. A number of sources for this information are discussed in
`
`the specification, including various websites for “Banking & Investments,” “Phone
`
`Bill[s],” “Power Bill[s],” “Cable Bill[s],” “Health and Employee Benefits,” “Credit
`
`Cards & Mortgages,” “Communications & Messages (Email, Fax, Voice),” and
`
`other portal generic content. See id. at 2:31–34, Fig. 4; see also id. Fig. 5.
`
`Figure 2, reproduced below, provides a visual of the basic components used
`
`to implement the alleged invention. The system for delivering personal
`
`information (PI) may include “a user store including end user data, a provider store
`
`including information provider data, a personal information store including
`
`personal information and a processor that communicates with these data stores.”
`
`2
`
`

`
`
`
`Id. at 3:20–24. The processor “retrieve[s] personal information for the selected
`
`end user from the connected information providers.” Id. at 3:28–31.
`
`
`
`Id., Fig. 2. As shown in Figure 2, the end user 210 accesses a client computer 220
`
`that connects to the Internet 230 to access a PI engine 240 running on a PI host
`
`290. Id. at 4:29–34. The PI engine 240 examines stored PI 280 and refreshes it by
`
`directly reacquiring the personal information from the particular information
`
`provider’s Web site 250 running on the provider’s computer system 260. Id. at
`
`4:33–39. For example, “the end user’s checking account balance would be
`
`updated through his bank’s Web site” and “his portfolio information from his
`
`broker’s site and his electricity bill from his electricity company’s site.” Id. at
`
`4:47–51. The components of the PI engine are illustrated in Figure 3:
`
`3
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`Id., Fig. 3; see id. at 4:52 – 5:8.
`
`The PI engine includes a “PI access/transact component,” which “supports
`
`the update, acquisition and transaction functionality of the PI engine.” Id. at 9:30–
`
`32. “For each piece of PI requiring access or update,” the PI access/transact
`
`component “looks up the access procedure and information needed for the
`
`particular PI in the Provider store” as well as “verification and access data,” which
`
`is found in the user store. Id. at 9:38–41. “A simulated Web client could perform
`
`access or transaction processes automatically supplying access and verification
`
`data as necessary.” Id. at 9:59–61. The PI engine 240 further stores the
`
`aggregated personal information in its store 280, and delivers the personal
`
`information to a selected destination, for example, across the Internet 230 to the
`
`4
`
`

`
`
`
`client computer 220, which displays the information to the end user 210 using the
`
`client software 270. Id. at 4:39–46.
`
`“The present invention also contemplates indirect access of PI by the end
`
`user utilizing a Web site as an intermediary.” Id. at 9:15–21. The ’783 Patent
`
`further discloses delivery of “an access point directly to the provider’s page
`
`supplying that PI. The access point may take the form of a link, a form button or
`
`some other interactive access mechanism.” Id. at 14:24–67. A “novel transaction
`
`model” is also disclosed, using an “intermediary website” that allows the PI engine
`
`administrator to levy a fee, which “subsidizes” or “fully compensates” the “PI
`
`engine administrator for services provided.” Id. at 14:3–15, Fig. 11. That “fee”—
`
`which can be “per user,” “per transaction,” or “per access”—is “directly charged”
`
`or “debited from a minimum monthly fee.” Id. at 14:3–24.
`
`In addition, the ’783 Patent describes “automated or semi-automated account
`
`management by providing trigger events to automatically initiate a transaction.”
`
`Id. at 16:8–10; see id. at 16:11–24 (adding automation of “payments,” notification
`
`of bills due, and notification of payments), 16:31–38, Figs. 2–3. The PI
`
`access/transaction component 340 in Figure 3 uses “standard e-commerce
`
`bill-paying methods to pay the user’s bill/s to the provider if he/she chooses.” Id.
`
`at 16:25–31.
`
`5
`
`

`
`
`
`At bottom, the ’783 Patent is directed toward retrieving and storing personal
`
`information from multiple sources and executing a transaction that is financial in
`
`nature based on that information. Ex. 1002, Mowry Decl., ¶¶ 35–46.
`
`B.
`
`Summary of the Relevant Prosecution History
`
`The ’783 Patent issued from U.S. Application No. 09/428,511 (“the ’511
`
`Application”), which was filed on October 27, 1999 with claims 1–28. Ex. 1003,
`
`’783 Patent File History at 32. The ’511 Application claimed the benefit of
`
`Provisional Application Nos. 60/105,917 and 60/134,395, filed October 28, 1998
`
`and May 17, 1999, respectively. Id. at 35. In October 2000, the PTO issued an
`
`Office Action in the ’511 Application, rejecting all of pending claims 1–28. Id. at
`
`148. Specifically, claims 1–28 were rejected under nonstatutory, obviousness-type
`
`double patenting over then-pending Application No. 09/427,602 (“the ’602
`
`Application”) and under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over U.S. Patent No.
`
`5,995,965 (“Experton”), in view of U.S. Patent No. 5,862,325 (“Reed”). Id. at
`
`149–53.
`
`The Applicant filed a Reply to the Office Action, which included a Terminal
`
`Disclaimer over the ’602 Application to overcome the double patenting rejection,
`
`and added claims 29–36. Id. at 168. The Reply also included amendments to then-
`
`pending independent claims 1, 14, and 27 to overcome the obviousness rejection.
`
`For example, the Applicant amended independent claim 14 (which was
`
`6
`
`

`
`
`
`renumbered as claim 1 in the ’783 Patent) as follows:
`
`14. (Once amended) A method for delivering non-public personal
`information relating to an end user via a computer network to [at
`least one] an end user from at least one of a plurality of
`information providers securely storing the personal information,
`the method comprising the steps of:
`(a) the processor connecting with at least one information provider;
`(b) for a selected end user, the processor retrieving personal
`information for the selected end user from the connected at least
`one information provider based on end user data associated with
`the selected end user and information provider data associated with
`the connected one or more information providers, the end user data
`including information identifying the plurality of information
`providers securely storing the personal information relating to the
`end user, the provider data including a protocol for instructing the
`processor how to access the securely stored personal information
`via the network, the information accessible to the processor using
`the protocol also being accessible by the end user via the network
`independently of the system for delivering personal information;
`and
`(c) the processor storing the retrieved personal information in a
`personal information store for access by the selected end user.
`
`Id. at 164–65. The Applicant amended then-pending independent claims 1 and 27
`
`in a similar manner. Id. at 164–66. In its Remarks, the Applicant argued that, as
`
`amended, then-pending claims 1, 14, and 27 were patentable over Experton and
`
`7
`
`

`
`
`
`Reed because, “[i]n Applicant’s invention, the information providers are those that
`
`an end user could alternatively choose to access in a conventional manner, i.e.,
`
`independently of using the inventive system. . . . Neither Experton nor Reed
`
`addresses the issue of making access to multiple ones of such personal information
`
`providers more convenient by obviating a user contacting each provider
`
`individually.” Id. at 169 (italics removed). Thereafter, the Examiner allowed the
`
`’511 Application, concluding that prior art of record did not disclose or render
`
`obvious “an end user data including identifying the plurality of information
`
`providers securely storing the personal information relating to the end user, the
`
`provider data including a protocol for instructing the processor how to access
`
`the securely stored personal information.” Id. at 175 (bolding in the original). But,
`
`as described below, the concept that the Examiner found to be novel and non-
`
`obvious—automatic authentication and gathering—was not only well-known by
`
`the priority date of the ’783 Patent, but is also a patent-ineligible abstract idea.
`
`C.
`
`State of the Art
`
`With the spread of content on the World Wide Web in the early-to-mid
`
`1990s, the well-known idea of gathering data from multiple sources was being
`
`applied to the web.1 General purpose computers were being programmed to collect
`
`1 The level of ordinary skill in the art in October 1998 would have been a person
`
`with a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer science, or a related
`
`8
`
`

`
`
`
`data from the Web and aggregate the collected data. Ex. 1002, Mowry Decl.,
`
`¶¶ 26–29. “Acquiring online [personal information]” from websites was already
`
`well known in the art, as the ’783 Patent admits. See ’783 Patent at 2:3–4, Figs. 1,
`
`4. Portal sites, such as Yahoo and Excite, were used to “aggregate” personal
`
`information. Id. at 2:42–63. U.S. Patent No. 6,278,449 (“Sugiarto,” Ex. 1004)
`
`describes a system that “collect[s] information from various web pages from the
`
`worldwide web internet, configure[s] this various information in accordance with a
`
`predefined user configuration file, defined by a particular user, and transmit[s] the
`
`configured various information to a highly portable internet access device.” Ex.
`
`1004 at 2:10–17. Sugiarto teaches a system that provides a user with a customized
`
`Web page that includes data sourced from one or more Web sites of the user’s
`
`choosing, e.g., CNN, ESPN, and/or Nasdaq. Id. at 4:36–53.
`
`Those of ordinary skill in the art further recognized that much of the
`
`personal information available on the Web is protected by well-known computer
`
`scientific field, and some work experience in the computer science field, which
`
`could include programming experience, or, alternatively, a person of ordinary skill
`
`in the art would possess a combination of education and experience in certain
`
`relevant fields of computer science, such as graphical user interface design, and
`
`knowledge of software design, data structures, operating systems, archiving
`
`systems, and client-server computing. Ex. 1002, Mowry Decl., ¶¶ 17–20.
`
`9
`
`

`
`
`
`techniques like requiring the provision of credentials (username and password)—a
`
`process often called authentication. Ex. 1002, Mowry Decl., ¶¶ 30–32. Just as
`
`personal information at a bank is often protected by requiring the user to show
`
`credentials, online personal information is protected. Id. To retrieve personal
`
`information from places where authentication was required, the idea of a proxy or
`
`agent in the real world was applied so that the computer acted as a proxy or agent
`
`for the user by providing the user’s credentials on his or her behalf. For example,
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,892,905 (“Brandt,” Ex. 1005) describes “the capability to easily
`
`access many different application programs over the WWW via a standardized
`
`[graphical user interface].” Ex. 1005 at 3:57–60. In Brandt, an application (also
`
`called a “gateway”) accesses a user library to obtain authentication data needed to
`
`access software applications for the user. Id. at 12:15–17. The application then
`
`logs the user onto a requested service using normal security procedures. Id. at
`
`12:15–28.
`
`Using some sort of verification or access, such as a log in or password, and
`
`even automating that process, was extremely well known in the art. Ex. 1002,
`
`Mowry Decl., ¶¶ 30–32. For example, U.S. Patent No. 6,006,333 (“Nielsen,” Ex.
`
`1006) discloses a password helper that automatically presents stored passwords to
`
`access a plurality of remote servers by employing a master password. E.g., Ex.
`
`1006 at [57]; 1:12–16 (“Many remotely accessible computer systems require user
`
`10
`
`

`
`
`
`authentication. The user, presumably operating a client system, must be registered
`
`with the remote system and must type in his or her user ID and a password for that
`
`remote system every time it is accessed”); 1:31–52, 4:9–25, 4:54-56, Figs. 2–4.
`
`In the Web’s client-server model, end users often could not determine if
`
`server information changed. To address this problem within the existing client-
`
`server architecture, U.S. Patent No. 6,029,175 (“Chow,” Ex. 1007) describes a
`
`software agent, termed a “Revision Manager,” that monitors content at a server.
`
`Ex. 1007 at 3:60–64. The Revision Manager accepts user input indicating the
`
`user’s interest in monitoring a document. Id. at 5:32–34. In response, the
`
`Revision Manager “spontaneously monitors the server to notice if the document
`
`has been modified.” Id. at 6:2–4. Other references at the time also disclosed
`
`methods for computers that perform online monitoring activities. Ex. 1008, U.S.
`
`Patent No. 6,401,118 (“Thomas”) at [57], 2:36–51. Thus, monitoring for changes
`
`was also well known in the art. Ex. 1002, Mowry Decl., ¶ 33.
`
`III. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.300(b), a claim in a covered business method review
`
`is given the “broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification.” See
`
`also In re Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC, 793 F.3d 1268, 1275 (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
`
`11
`
`

`
`
`
`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 ’783 Patent, as
`
`appropriate.
`
`A.
`
`Proposed Claim Constructions
`1.
`
`“Non-Public Personal Information” (Claims 1, 18, 20)
`
`All of the independent claims (1, 18, and 20) require retrieving and storing
`
`“personal information” (“PI”) from various “information providers,” which,
`
`according to the specification, is key to making “e-commerce as familiar as using
`
`an ATM” and encompasses significant amounts of financial information. ’783
`
`Patent at 4:12–21. The “present invention” is described as involving “electronic PI
`
`associated with the particular end user such as stock portfolio, local weather