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 CBM2016-00045
`Patent 6,317,783
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PLAID TECHNOLOGIES INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`YODLEE, INC. and YODLEE.COM, INC.
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case CBM2016-00045
`Patent 6,317,783
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`
`
`Case CBM2016-00045
`Attorney Docket No: 12233-0049CP1
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................ 1
`
`II. STATEMENT OF RELIEF REQUESTED ................................................. 2
`
`III. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ......................................................................... 3
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`“non-public personal information” (Claims 1, 18, 20) .................... 3
`
`“protocol for instructing the processor how to access the securely
`stored personal information via the network” (Claims 1, 18, 20) .... 8
`
`IV. THE BOARD SHOULD DENY THE PETITION BECAUSE THE ’783
`PATENT IS INELIGIBLE FOR COVERED BUSINESS METHOD
`REVIEW ...................................................................................................... 9
`
`A.
`
`The ’783 Patent Claims a “Technological Invention” ................... 10
`
`V. PETITIONER’S SECTION 101 GROUNDS ALSO FAIL ...................... 17
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`The ’783 Patent is Not Directed to an Abstract Idea ..................... 18
`
`The ’783 Patent Contains an Inventive Concept ............................ 22
`
`VI. CONCLUSION .......................................................................................... 26
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`
`
`Case CBM2016-00045
`Attorney Docket No: 12233-0049CP1
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Cases
`Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l,
`---U.S. ----, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2015) ............................................... 2, 17, 18, 22
`
`Bascom Global Internet Servs., Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC,
`2016 WL 3514158 at *7 (Fed. Cir. June 27, 2016) ....................................... 23
`
`Bloomberg L.P. v. Quest Licensing Corporation,
`CBM2014-00205, Paper 16 (Apr. 7, 2015) ................................................... 16
`
`DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P.,
`773 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ......................................................... 19, 20, 23
`
`In re DiStefano,
`808 F.3d 845 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ..................................................................... 6, 8
`
`Enfish Inc. v. Microsoft Corp.,
`2015-1244 (Fed. Cir. May 12, 2016) ................................................. 15, 19, 20
`
`Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp.,
`--- F.3d ----, 2016 WL 2756255 (Fed. Cir. May 12, 2016) ................. 2, 18, 19
`
`In re Lowry,
`32 F.3d 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1994) ..................................................................... 7, 8
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 101 ............................................................................................. passim
`
`35 U.S.C. § 324 ................................................................................................... 26
`
`Other Authorities
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.207(a) ............................................................................................ 1
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.301 ................................................................................................ 9
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.301(b) ................................................................................... 10, 17
`
`AIA § 18(a)(1) ...................................................................................................... 9
`
`AIA § 18(d)(1) ................................................................................................ 9, 10
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`
`
`Case CBM2016-00045
`Attorney Docket No: 12233-0049CP1
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`
`
`Description
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`2001 Report and Recommendation, Yodlee, Inc. v. Plaid Techs. Inc., No.
`1:14-cv-01445-LPS (D. Del.), Dkt. 185.
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`
`
`
`
`Case CBM2016-00045
`Attorney Docket No: 12233-0049CP1
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.207(a), Yodlee, Inc. (“Yodlee” or “Patent
`
`Owner”), hereby submits the following Preliminary Response in opposition to
`
`the Petition for Covered Business Method (“CBM”) Review of U.S. Patent No.
`
`6,317,783 (“the ʼ783 Patent”) numbered CBM2016-00045, filed by Plaid
`
`Technologies, Inc. (“Plaid” or “Petitioner”).
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`The ’783 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 non-public personal information, and the use of specific
`
`protocols for accessing and retrieving that information from those websites. In
`
`fact, this invention solves multiple technical problems, including the difficulty
`
`of retrieving personal information from different websites having different
`
`interfaces and protocols for accessing that information and the problem that
`
`websites storing personal information may change over time, including
`
`changing how that information is accessed.
`
`Despite the demonstrably technical nature of the claimed invention,
`
`which is potentially applicable to a number of different fields, the Petition
`
`incorrectly asserts that the ’783 Patent is eligible for covered business method
`
`review. An analysis of the claims as a whole makes clear that, because of the
`
`disclosure of the technical problems being addressed by the ’783 Patent as well
`
`as the disclosed and claimed technical solutions, the Patent recites a
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`Case CBM2016-00045
`Attorney Docket No: 12233-0049CP1
`
`“technological invention” and is therefore ineligible for CBM review.
`
`Petitioner’s analysis is deficient in this regard and improperly breaks down the
`
`claims into individual elements without considering whether the claims as a
`
`whole recite a technological invention. In fact, as set forth below, Petitioner’s
`
`own proposed claim constructions reinforce the specific technical nature of the
`
`invention. A proper analysis of the claims as a whole shows that the ’783
`
`Patent does recite a technological invention and is ineligible for CBM review.
`
`Beyond this, as set forth below, Petitioner’s ground for invalidity under
`
`Section 101 is fundamentally flawed. In particular, Petitioner fails to analyze
`
`the full claim language, which shows that the ’783 Patent is directed to a
`
`specific improvement in the way computers operate rather than an abstract idea
`
`and thus is eligible under Section 101. See Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., ---
`
`F.3d ----, 2016 WL 2756255 at *5 (Fed. Cir. May 12, 2016). The ’783 Patent
`
`also contains inventive concepts, and thus satisfies step two of the Alice inquiry,
`
`providing yet another reason why the ’783 Patent is patent eligible under
`
`Section 101.
`
`The Board should therefore deny the Petition because the ’783 Patent is
`
`ineligible for CBM review and because Petitioner has failed to show that it is
`
`more likely than not that at least one of the challenged claims is unpatentable.
`
`II.
`
`STATEMENT OF RELIEF REQUESTED
`
`Patent Owner respectfully requests that this Board deny the Petition for
`
`CBM review of the ’783 Patent with regard to all claims (1-36).
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`Case CBM2016-00045
`Attorney Docket No: 12233-0049CP1
`
`III. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`Patent Owner proposes constructions for the claim terms noted below.
`
`All other terms should be given their broadest reasonable interpretation
`
`(“BRI”).
`
`“non-public personal information” (Claims 1, 18, 20)
`
`A.
`The specification makes it clear that “non-public personal information”
`
`has a specific meaning. Petitioner’s proposed construction appears to hinge on
`
`the incorrect assumption that any information for which a login is required is
`
`“non-public personal information.” This argument completely misses the point
`
`of the inventive system.
`
`As the specification of the ’783 patent states, “‘Personal Information’ is
`
`all of the data that companies, information providers, have that is specific or
`
`unique to each person such as monthly bills, bank account balances,
`
`investments information, health care benefits, email, voice and fax messages,
`
`401(k) holdings or potentially any other information pertinent to a particular
`
`end user.” Ex. 1001 at 4:15-21 (emphasis added). The file history confirms
`
`that “the essence of personal information is that it is not accessible to the
`
`general public, i.e., other end users; rather, each information provider protects
`
`personal information relating to a specific end user against access by persons
`
`other than that end user or one acting under the authority of that end user.”
`
`Ex. 1003 at 168 (emphasis added).
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`Case CBM2016-00045
`Attorney Docket No: 12233-0049CP1
`
`Petitioner’s proposed construction effectively reads out “non-public.”
`
`Petitioner criticizes Patent Owner’s proposed construction as excluding certain
`
`information like sports or weather information. However, there is no reasonable
`
`argument that a sports score or publicly available weather forecast is “non-
`
`public” merely because it relates to a user’s favorite sports team or is the
`
`forecast for the town where the user lives. Petitioner’s selective citation to a
`
`portion of the patent highlights the flaw in its construction: as Petitioner
`
`correctly notes, the patent defines personal information as “all of the data
`
`specific or unique to each person.” Petition at 15, quoting Ex. 1001 at 4:15-21.
`
`But sports scores and weather forecasts are neither specific nor unique to any
`
`individual person. Each person who looks up a sports score will see the same
`
`score, just as each person who looks up a weather forecast for a particular
`
`region will see the same forecast. In contrast, “non-public personal
`
`information” is information that no other person without authorization can
`
`access another person’s information, such as bank records, stock portfolio, etc.
`
`See Ex. 1001 at 2:52-62.
`
`The ’783 Patent clearly explains the difference between personal
`
`information like a local weather forecast (which it refers to as “Generic PI”),
`
`and the non-public personal information upon which the claims operate:
`
`Generic PI refers to PI of interest to the particular end
`
`user that does not require specific identity
`
`verification to obtain. For example, an end user
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`Case CBM2016-00045
`Attorney Docket No: 12233-0049CP1
`
`might be interested in the weather forecast for his
`
`local area. This information could be integrated into
`
`a portal page without requiring identity verification
`
`of the particular end user receiving this PI. The
`
`individualized portal page provides a significant
`
`benefit to users seeking to aggregate generic PI.
`
`However, current portal pages do not generally
`
`provide PI requiring identity verification such as an
`
`end user's stock portfolio or bank balance.
`
`Ex. 1001 at 2:52-62 (emphasis added). As the intrinsic evidence makes clear,
`
`this is “the essence” of claimed system. By definition, the public cannot access
`
`“non-public personal information” – only the specific user in question.
`
`Accordingly, in line with the specification, the BRI of “non-public
`
`personal information” is “information relating to a specific end user that is not
`
`intended for access by persons other than that end user or those authorized by
`
`that end user.”
`
`The Board recently considered this term in the ’783 Patent in proceeding
`
`IPR2016-00273 and construed it as merely “information,” concluding that the
`
`remaining words (“non-public personal”) were printed matter and not entitled to
`
`any patentable weight. The “non-public personal” aspect of this limitation,
`
`however, is entitled to patentable weight and thus should be construed by the
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`Case CBM2016-00045
`Attorney Docket No: 12233-0049CP1
`
`Board because it “has a functional or structural relation” to the remaining
`
`aspects of the claim. See In re Distefano, 808 F.3d 845, 850 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
`
`Specifically, the “non-public personal information” is functionally and
`
`structurally related to the “protocol for instructing the processor how to access
`
`the securely stored personal information via the network.” As explained below,
`
`the protocol term should be construed as a “software script detailing the steps
`
`necessary for instructing the processor how to login to a specific information
`
`provider as the end user, and return requested information via the network.”
`
`The nature of the information as “non-public” and “personal” is what
`
`necessitates that the protocol contain instructions for how to login as an end
`
`user and return the requested information. In contrast, if the claimed
`
`information included public and generic information, as the Board’s
`
`construction allows, it would render the protocol limitation superfluous to the
`
`rest of the claim. See infra Section III.B (explaining that the protocol limitation
`
`requires specific instructions for how to log in as the end user to obtain the non-
`
`public personal information).
`
`As the ’783 Patent explains, non-public personal information is typically
`
`stored behind a unique login protocol. Ex. 1001 at 2:12-18; see also id. at 6:24-
`
`38. This is different from public non-personal information, which is typically
`
`available without the need for such a login protocol. Additionally, the ’783
`
`Patent explains that retrieving this non-public personal information further
`
`requires “additional data and steps required for accessing each particular piece
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`Case CBM2016-00045
`Attorney Docket No: 12233-0049CP1
`
`of PI on the PI provider's site.” Id. at 6:36-38. The Patent gives examples of
`
`using a software script to communicate with a website running forms, scripts,
`
`and/or applets. Id. at 10:5-24. Again, this is necessitated by the fact that non-
`
`public personal information is stored in particular ways that require the script to
`
`execute the necessary steps to access the non-public personal information from
`
`the website once the script has logged into the website as the user. Therefore,
`
`both the functionality and the structure (i.e., the actual lines of software code) of
`
`the claimed protocol are directly affected by the nature of the information as
`
`“non-public personal information.”
`
`The claims here are similar to those in Lowry, where the Federal Circuit
`
`held that claims were entitled to patentable weight under the printed matter
`
`doctrine because they described how the claimed information was stored, which
`
`provided a functional relationship. See In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 1583 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 1994) (holding claims entitled to patentable weight because the claimed
`
`data objects included “information regarding their physical interrelationships
`
`within a memory” and thus “define[d] functional characteristics of the
`
`memory”). The claims here also depend on the details of how non-public
`
`personal information is stored (i.e., that it stored behind a login protocol), and
`
`thus also contain a functional relationship to the remainder of the claim
`
`language (i.e., that the non-public personal nature of the information
`
`necessitates the claimed protocol in order to be able to access the information).
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`Case CBM2016-00045
`Attorney Docket No: 12233-0049CP1
`
`The “non-public personal information” limitation should therefore be given
`
`patentable weight under Lowry.
`
`Thus, the full “non-public personal information” limitation in claims 1,
`
`18, and 20 should be construed by the Board as proposed by Patent Owner
`
`because the full claim term bears a functional and structural relationship to other
`
`aspects of the claim, namely, the claimed “protocol for instructing the processor
`
`how to access the securely stored personal information via the network.”
`
`DiStefano, 808 F.3d at 850.
`
`B.
`
`“protocol for instructing the processor how to access the
`securely stored personal information via the network” (Claims
`1, 18, 20)
`
`Petitioner has proposed construing the term “protocol” as a “software
`
`script.” While Patent Owner agrees that “protocol” means “software script” in
`
`the context of this limitation, there is more to the limitation when considered as
`
`a whole. In particular, Patent Owner proposes that the phrase in which the term
`
`“protocol” is introduced means a “software script detailing the steps necessary
`
`for instructing the processor how to login to a specific information provider as
`
`the end user, and return requested information via the network.”
`
`As described in the claims and specification, the protocol instructs the
`
`processor on how to login and access the securely stored PI from an information
`
`provider. Ex. 1001 at claims 1, 18, 20. Each information provider typically has a
`
`unique login protocol involving steps where a user navigates to the website,
`
`enters credentials such as username and password, and then submits them for
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`Case CBM2016-00045
`Attorney Docket No: 12233-0049CP1
`
`verification by the website. Id. at 2:12-18; see also id. at 6:24-38. Once access is
`
`achieved, the protocol continues to access each particular piece of PI on the
`
`provider website for retrieval and storage in the PI store. Id. at 6:24-38. Because
`
`a processor does not login by visually studying a web browser or other
`
`application for input instructions, and because the processor in this invention,
`
`not a human, is logging in for access, the processor must be specially equipped
`
`with a software script to interpret and communicate with a particular
`
`information provider website running forms, scripts, and applets. Id. at 10:5-24.
`
`Accordingly, the claimed protocol should be construed as a “software script
`
`detailing the steps necessary for instructing the processor how to login to a
`
`specific information provider as the end user, and return requested information
`
`via the network.”
`
`IV. THE BOARD SHOULD DENY THE PETITION BECAUSE THE
`’783 PATENT IS INELIGIBLE FOR COVERED BUSINESS
`METHOD REVIEW
`
`Covered business method review is available only 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 ’783 Patent claims clearly recite a
`
`technological invention. Thus, the ’783 Patent fails to satisfy the requirements
`
`for a CBM, and is not eligible for CBM review. The Board should therefore
`
`deny the Petition.
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`Case CBM2016-00045
`Attorney Docket No: 12233-0049CP1
`
`A. The ’783 Patent Claims a “Technological Invention”
`The ’783 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 ’783 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”).
`
`For example, many of the technical problems identified in the ’783 Patent
`
`revolve around the difficulty, and particularly the involvement required by a
`
`user, to aggregate personal information from different websites having different
`
`interfaces and protocols for accessing information: “Under current technology,
`
`aggregating PI available over the Internet requires a significant burden in terms
`
`of time, effort and learning curve. An end user wishing to access his PI needs to
`
`individually visit a variety of information provider sites each with its own
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`Case CBM2016-00045
`Attorney Docket No: 12233-0049CP1
`
`requirements, graphical user interface and login protocol.” Ex. 1001 at 2:64-
`
`3:2. For a user, having to login to different websites poses an inconvenience
`
`and requires extensive time on the part of the user spent on each website. But
`
`for an automated system, like that of the ’783 Patent claims, the different login
`
`protocols and interfaces are more than just an inconvenience: they are a
`
`technical problem that cannot merely be solved by visiting each website the way
`
`a user could. An automated system must contain some mechanism that allows it
`
`to login as the user and retrieve the requested information, without relying on
`
`the visual cues that a user can use when navigating a website.
`
`To address this problem, the patent describes that “The present invention
`
`alleviates several of the problems with the current PI acquisition methods by
`
`automatically aggregating PI, not only generic PI as aggregated by portals 25
`
`but also PI specific to the end user requiring identity verification for access.”
`
`Id. at 4:22-26. The way the ’783 Patent accomplishes this automatic
`
`aggregation, with verifying the identity of the user for access, is using stored
`
`information about the provider: “The PI engine also utilizes a provider store
`
`310 that maintains general parameters associated with particular PI providers.
`
`The general parameters of a PI provider define the types of verification data
`
`necessary and the procedures to be followed to gain access to the particular PI
`
`provider.” Id. at 4:60-65. Specifically, the patent gives examples of using a
`
`URL or a Javascript interpreter to simulate the website and thereby obtain
`
`access to the non-public personal information. Id. at 9:59-10:24
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`Case CBM2016-00045
`Attorney Docket No: 12233-0049CP1
`
`Aspects of this technical solution are recited in each of the independent
`
`claims: claim 1 (“the processor retrieving personal information . . . based on
`
`end user data . . . and information provider data . . . the provider data including
`
`a protocol for instructing the processor how to access the securely stored
`
`personal information via the network”), claim 18 (“retrieving personal
`
`information . . . based on end user data . . . and information provider data . . . the
`
`provider data including a protocol for instructing the processor how to access
`
`the securely stored personal information via the network”), and claim 20 (“a
`
`provider store for storing information provider data . . . the provider data
`
`including a protocol for instructing the processor how to access the securely
`
`stored personal information via the network” and “retrieving personal
`
`information . . . based on end user data . . . and information provider data”).
`
`The “protocol for instructing the processor how to access the securely stored
`
`personal information via the network” as properly construed is a specific
`
`technical solution in the form of a “software script detailing the steps necessary
`
`for instructing the processor how to login to a specific information provider as
`
`the end user and return requested information via the network.” As described in
`
`the specification, determining the specifics of the software script was a technical
`
`challenge and “depends significantly upon the interaction method used on the PI
`
`provider Web site.” Ex. 1001 at 9:61-64. This challenge was solved with the
`
`claimed protocol, for example a URL or Javascript script as described in the
`
`specification. Id. at 9:59-10:24.
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`Case CBM2016-00045
`Attorney Docket No: 12233-0049CP1
`
`In another example, the ’783 Patent addresses the technical problem that
`
`websites storing personal information may change over time, including
`
`changing the way in which those websites must be accessed. Thus, the ’783
`
`Patent describes that the PI engine may “include a site monitor 370 processing
`
`component. This component would systematically monitor supported PI
`
`provider Web sites for changes.” Ex. 1001 at 15:35-38. As the ’783 Patent
`
`describes, this is advantageous because it “enhances the ability of the system to
`
`identify alterations in PI provider Web site procedures, data requirements and
`
`cookies requirements” and “increases system efficiency.” Id. at 15:38-43. The
`
`’783 Patent also describes that the system can update the provider store to
`
`comply with any newly-changed access requirements: “When an inconsistency
`
`is determined, updates to the Provider store 320 are made to bring the Provider
`
`data into conformance with current access/transaction requirements.” Id. at
`
`6:51-54.
`
`The technical solution to this problem is also claimed in various
`
`dependent claims: claim 2 (“monitoring information providers for changes”),
`
`claim 3 (“updating the provider store to conform with requirements of the
`
`information provider”), claim 21 (“monitoring information providers for
`
`changes”), and claim 22 (“updating the provider store to conform with
`
`requirements of the information provider”). Each of these is technical in nature.
`
`The technical nature of the invention is reinforced by the proposed claim
`
`constructions that Petitioner itself submitted. For example, Petitioner’s
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`
`Case CBM2016-00045
`Attorney Docket No: 12233-0049CP1
`
`construction for the “monitoring for changes” term in claims 2 and 21 confirms
`
`that it embodies the technical solution to the problem described above: “[t]he
`
`act of periodically accessing information providers to identify any changes that
`
`may have occurred to the information supplied or on how [to] access the
`
`information providers.” See Petition at 24-25. This is consistent with the ’783
`
`Patent’s description of the technical solution, namely that the PI engine can
`
`monitor and automatically update the provider store when a website changes.
`
`See Ex. 1001 at 15:35-43, 6:51-54.
`
`Additionally, Dr. Mowry’s declaration submitted with the Petition further
`
`confirms the technical nature of the invention. When opining on the person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art, Dr. Mowry stated that such a person would have a
`
`“Bachelor’s Degree in electrical engineering, computer science, or a related
`
`scientific field, and some work experience in the computer science field” or
`
`some other combination of both technical education and practical experience.
`
`Ex. 1002 at ¶ 20. Thus, Dr. Mowry acknowledges the technical nature of the
`
`invention by admitting that a person would require both technical education and
`
`practical experience in a technical field like computer science in order to make
`
`and practice the claimed inventions.
`
`Thus, the ’783 Patent recites multiple “technical problems,” provides the
`
`“technical solutions” to those problems, and then recites the solutions in the
`
`claims. As a whole, the ’783 Patent describes a solution to the problem that
`
`users often have multiple websites they wish to access, where the user wants to
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`
`Case CBM2016-00045
`Attorney Docket No: 12233-0049CP1
`
`gather non-public personal information from these different websites, and a
`
`machine must be configured to perform actions (e.g., logon with credentials and
`
`retrieve specified data) that were designed to be performed by a human. The
`
`’783 Patent claims methods and apparatuses directed toward solving this
`
`problem using a “protocol for instructing the processor how to access the
`
`securely stored personal information via the network” (claims 1, 18, and 20).
`
`The ’783 patent also claims “monitoring information providers for changes” and
`
`“updating the provider store to conform with requirements of the information
`
`provider” (claims 2, 3, 21, and 22) to solve the problem that the procedure to
`
`access a website may change over time. It is clear, when looking at the claims
`
`as a whole, that the ’783 Patent recites a “technological innovation” within the
`
`meaning of the statute and the regulations, and thus the ’783 Patent is not
`
`eligible for CBM review.
`
`None of Petitioner’s arguments to the contrary are persuasive. Petitioner
`
`improperly breaks down the asserted claims into individual pieces without
`
`assessing the claims as a whole. While it is undeniable that the Internet,
`
`websites, and software (in the abstract) were all known at the time of the
`
`invention of the ’783 Patent, Petitioner has made no detailed analysis of the
`
`actual claim language. See Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., --- F.3d ----, 2016
`
`WL 2756255 at *6 (Fed. Cir. May 12, 2016) (cautioning that “describing the
`
`claims at such a high level of abstraction and untethered from the language of
`
`the claims all but ensures that the exceptions to §101 swallow the rule”).
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`Case CBM2016-00045
`Attorney Docket No: 12233-0049CP1
`
`For example, Petitioner’s analysis of CBM eligibility fails because it
`
`entirely ignores certain claim language, such as the “protocol for instructing the
`
`processor how to access the securely stored personal information via the
`
`network.” As explained above, this is one of the technical solutions described
`
`to solve a specific technical problem identified by the ’783 Patent, and is
`
`claimed in each independent claim. Yet, nowhere in Petitioner’s analysis of
`
`CBM eligibility does Petitioner mention this claim language. See generally
`
`Petition at 26-42. The most that Petitioner ever says is that software generally
`
`was known – an undeniable truth. The claim language, however, is much more
`
`specific than that. As Patent Owner makes clear in its analysis of the claim
`
`construction above, the entire “protocol” limitation recites a specific technical
`
`solution, namely a “software script detailing the steps necessary for instructing
`
`the processor how to login to a specific information provider as the end user and
`
`return requested information via the network.” Petitioner completely fails to
`
`address the entire claim language of any claim in the ’783 Patent, and thus
`
`Petitioner’s analysis fails to satisfy its burden of proving that the ’783 patent is
`
`eligible for CBM review.
`
`In fact, the Board has previously faulted petitioners and denied institution
`
`when a petitioner has performed similarly deficient analysis. See, e.g.,
`
`Bloomberg L.P. v. Quest Licensing Corporation, CBM2014-00205, Paper 16
`
`(Apr. 7, 2015) at 9 (denying institution and concluding Petitioner’s arguments
`
`were “insufficient
`
`to discharge Petitioner’s burden of proof” on
`
`the
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`
`Case CBM2016-00045
`Attorney Docket No: 12233-0049CP1
`
`technological invention prong because “Petitioner has failed to assess the claims
`
`as a whole as required by 37 C.F.R. § 42.301(b), and has instead focused on
`
`certain individual elements”).
`
`As explained above, the ’783 Patent claims a technical solution to
`
`multiple technical problems identified in the specification. It therefore claims a
`
`“technological invention.” Petitioner has failed to satisfy its burden to show
`
`otherwise. The Board should deny the Petition.
`
`V.
`
`PETITIONER’S SECTION 101 GROUNDS ALSO FAIL
`
`The ’783 Patent is not directed to an abstract idea, and it contains an
`
`inventive concept, thus it is patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Indeed, since
`
`the filing of the Petition, the Magistrate Judge in the related litigation between
`
`Petitioner and Patent Owner has issued a Report and Recommendation denying
`
`Petitioner’s motion to dismiss with respect to the ’783 Patent, confirming that
`
`(a) Petitioner has failed to show that the ’783 Patent is directed to an abstract
`
`idea; and (b) Petitioner failed to show that the ’783 Patent lacks an inventive
`
`concept. Exhibit 2001 at 27-33.
`
`Determining patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 involves a two-step
`
`inquiry. First, the Board must determine “whether the claims at issue are
`
`directed to a patent-ineligible concept,” such as an abstract idea. Alice Corp.
`
`Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, ---U.S. ----, 134 S. Ct. 2347 at 2355 (2015). The
`
`second step is the search for an “‘inventive concept’—i.e., an element or
`
`combination of elements that is ‘sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`
`
`Case CB
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
