IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`__________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________________
`
`EBAY INC. AND
`PAYPAL, INC.,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`XPRT VENTURES, LLC
`Patent Owner.
`__________________
`
`CBM2017-Unassigned
`U.S. Patent No. 7,610,244
`__________________
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR COVERED BUSINESS METHOD REVIEW OF
`U.S. PATENT NO. 7,610,244
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 321 AND 37 C.F.R. § 42.304
`
`
`
`Mail Stop “PATENT BOARD”
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`

`
`Petition for Covered Business Method Review of U.S. Pat. No. 7,610,244
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`C. 
`
`D. 
`
`
`I. 
`PRELIMINARY STATEMENT ..................................................................... 1 
`II.  MANDATORY NOTICES - 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b) ........................................... 2 
`III. 
`PAYMENT OF FEES - 37 C.F.R. § 42.103 ................................................... 5 
`IV.  GROUNDS FOR STANDING - 37 C.F.R. § 42.204(a) ................................. 5 
`A.  At Least One Challenged Claim Is Unpatentable ................................. 5 
`B. 
`Claims 1, 2, 15, 19, 20, 34, 40, 47, 48, 52, and 53 Are Directed
`To A Covered Business Method ........................................................... 5 
`Claims 1, 2, 15, 19, 20, 34, 40, 47, 48, 52, and 53 Are Not
`Directed To A “Technological Invention” ............................................ 7 
`Petitioners Have Been Charged With Infringement Of This
`Patent ................................................................................................... 10 
`V.  OVERVIEW OF CHALLENGE AND RELIEF REQUESTED .................. 11 
`A. 
`Identification Of Claims For Which Review Is Requested And
`Relief Requested– 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.204(b)(1) And 42.22(a)(1) ......... 11 
`Statutory Grounds Of Challenge – 37 C.F.R. § 42.204(b)(2) ............. 11 
`B. 
`VI.  THE ’244 PATENT ....................................................................................... 11 
`A. 
`Purported Invention ............................................................................. 11 
`B. 
`Prosecution Of The ’244 Patent .......................................................... 17 
`Ex Parte Reexamination Of The ’244 Patent ...................................... 20 
`C. 
`Inter Partes Reexamination Of The ’244 Patent ................................ 20 
`D. 
`VII.  CLAIM CONSTRUCTION - 37 C.F.R. § 42.204(b)(3) ............................... 21 
`VIII.  IDENTIFICATION OF HOW THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE
`UNPATENTABLE - 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.204(b)(4)-(5) AND 42.22(a)(2) ....... 21 
`A. 
`Legal Standard ..................................................................................... 22 
`1. 
`Step One: Abstract Idea ............................................................ 23 
`2. 
`Step Two: Inventive Concept.................................................... 26 
`The ’244 Patent Claims an Abstract Idea ............................................ 28 
`
`B. 
`
`i
`
`

`
`Petition for Covered Business Method Review of U.S. Pat. No. 7,610,244
`
`
`
`C. 
`
`D. 
`
`The ’244 Patent Claims Do Not Contain An “Inventive
`Concept” Sufficient To Transform The Abstract Idea Into A
`Patent-Eligible Invention ..................................................................... 33 
`1. 
`Individually, The ’244 Patent Claims Do Not Contain An
`“Inventive Concept” Sufficient To Transform The
`Abstract Idea Into A Patent-Eligible Invention ........................ 35 
`As An Ordered Combination, The ’244 Patent Claims Do
`Not Contain An “Inventive Concept” Sufficient To
`Transform The Abstract Idea Into A Patent-Eligible
`Invention ................................................................................... 73 
`The ’244 Patent Preempts all Effective Uses of the Abstract
`Idea of Using Previously-Funded Accounts to Effect Payments
`for Electronic Auctions ....................................................................... 75 
`IX.  CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 76 
`
`2. 
`
`ii
`
`
`
`

`
`Petition for Covered Business Method Review of U.S. Pat. No. 7,610,244
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases 
`Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC v. DirecTV, LLC,
`2016 WL 5335501 (Fed. Cir. Sep. 23, 2016) ................................................ 17, 30
`Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l,
`134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014) ................................................................................. passim
`American Express Co. v. MetaSearch Systems, LLC,
`CBM2014-00001, Paper No. 70 (PTAB Mar. 13, 2015) .................. 36, 43, 52, 55
`Bilski v. Kappos,
`130 S. Ct. 3218 (2010) .................................................................................... 1, 24
`buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc.,
`765 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ......................................................... 24, 27, 29, 42
`CMB Financial Services, Inc. v. Pacific Trust Bank, F.S.B.,
`11-cv-10344 PSG, Dkt. No. 164 (C.D. Cal. August 29, 2014) ............................ 60
`eBay, Inc. v. Paid, Inc.,
`CBM2014-00128, Paper No. 15 at 12-14 (Sept. 30, 2014) .................................. 10
`Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp.,
`822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ............................................................................ 33
`FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Systems, Inc.,
`No. 2015-1895, 2016 WL 5899185 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 11, 2016) ............................. 25
`Fidelity Nat’l. Info. Servs., Inc. v. CheckFree Corp.,
`CBM2013-00031, Paper No. 49 (PTAB Dec. 22, 2014) .............................. 55, 68
`Google Inc. v. Performance Price Holdings, LLC,
`CBM2016-00049, 2016 WL 5787365 (PTAB Sep. 21, 2016) .............................. 9
`In re Yamamoto,
`740 F.2d 1569 (Fed. Cir.1984) ............................................................................. 21
`Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp. (“Symantec”),
`2016 WL 5539870 (Fed. Cir. Sep. 30, 2016) ................................................ 25, 28
`LinkedIn Corp v. AVMarkets, Inc.,
`CBM2013-00025, Paper No. 13 (PTAB Nov. 12, 2013) .............................. 41, 63
`Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc.,
`132 S. Ct. 1289 (2012) ................................................................................. passim
`
`iii
`
`

`
`Petition for Covered Business Method Review of U.S. Pat. No. 7,610,244
`
`
`McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America,
`2016 WL 4896481 (Fed. Cir. Sep. 13, 2016) ....................................................... 32
`Morg. Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs. Inc.,
`811 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ..................................................................... 25, 29
`OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc.,
`788 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ............................................................... 25, 29, 40
`Planet Bingo, LLC v. VKGS LLC,
`576 Fed. Appx. 1005 (Fed. Cir. 2014) .......................................................... 37, 70
`SAP America, Inc. v. Arunachalam,
`CBM2014-00018, Paper No. 33 (PTAB Mar. 6, 2015) ............................... passim
`Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC,
`772 F.3d 709 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ...................................................................... passim
`XPRT Ventures, LLC v. eBay Inc. et al.,
`Case No. 1:10-cv-595-SLR (D. Del.) ..................................................................... 3
`
`Statutes and Regulations 
`35 U.S.C. § 101 ................................................................................................ passim
`35 U.S.C. § 102 ................................................................................................... 3, 20
`35 U.S.C. § 103 ............................................................................................. 3, 19, 20
`35 U.S.C. § 120 ........................................................................................................ 17
`35 U.S.C. § 324 ............................................................................................. 5, 11, 76
`37 C.F.R. § 1.111 ..................................................................................................... 48
`37 C.F.R. § 1.25(b) .................................................................................................... 1
`37 C.F.R. § 42.15 ....................................................................................................... 5
`37 C.F.R. § 42.203 ..................................................................................................... 5
`37 C.F.R. § 42.300(b) .............................................................................................. 21
`37 C.F.R. § 42.301 .................................................................................................5, 7
`37 C.F.R. § 42.302(b) .............................................................................................. 10
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8 ................................................................................................ 2, 3, 4
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`
`Petition for Covered Business Method Review of U.S. Pat. No. 7,610,244
`
`EXHIBIT APPENDIX
`
`
`
`v
`
`1002
`
`Ex. # Description
`1001 U.S. Patent No. 7,610,244
`Transitional Program for Covered Business Method Patents—Definitions
`of Covered Business Method Patent and Technological Invention, 77 Fed.
`Reg. 157 (August 14, 2012)
`1003 United States Patent and Trademark Office - Classification Definitions,
`Class 705
`1004 A Guide to the Legislative History of the America Invents Act; Part II of
`II, 21 Fed. Cir. Bar J. No. 4
`1005 Declaration of Clifford Neuman
`1006 Excerpts from Edward Preston Moxey, Jr., Practical Banking (1910)
`1007 Excerpts from Robert C. Zimmer and Theresa A. Einhorn, The Law of
`Electronic Funds Transfer (1978), Volume 1
`1008 Excerpts from Robert C. Zimmer and Theresa A. Einhorn, The Law of
`Electronic Funds Transfer (1978), Volume 2
`1009 Excerpts from Sidney Homer, A History of Interest Rates (2d ed. 1963)
`1010 Excerpts from Arthur Little, The Consequences of Electronic Funds
`Transfer (1975)
`“What are the pros and cons of prepaid debit cards?” (Mar. 22, 2006)
`available at http://www.creditcards.com/credit-card-news/prepaid-debit-
`card-benefits-1271.php (last viewed Mar. 31, 2015)
`Deposit Account Authorizations (July 1, 1983) available at
`http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/com/sol/og/con/files/cons066.htm (last
`viewed Mar. 31, 2015)
`“Our Rich History” available at
`http://corporate.westernunion.com/History.html (last viewed Mar. 31,
`2015)
`1014 Memorandum from Robert W. Bahr, Deputy Commissioner for Patent
`Examination Policy to the Patent Examining Corps (Nov. 2, 2016)
`1015 Excerpts from Prosecution File History of U.S. Patent No. 7,610,244
`
`1011
`
`1012
`
`1013
`
`
`
`

`
`Petition for Covered Business Method Review of U.S. Pat. No. 7,610,244
`
`I.
`
`PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
`
`The Supreme Court has made clear that “abstract ideas” may not be removed
`
`from the public domain and subjected to the monopoly granted by a patent. Alice
`
`Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2354 (2014); Mayo
`
`Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289, 1293 (2012);
`
`Bilski v. Kappos, 130 S. Ct. 3218, 3225 (2010). Here, the claims of U.S. Patent
`
`No. 7,610,244 (“the ’244 patent”) are directed to the abstract idea of using a
`
`previously-funded account or loan to effect a financial transaction in an electronic
`
`auction. See, e.g., Ex.1001, claim 1.
`
`Using previously-funded financial accounts, however, is an age old way of
`
`conducting business. Ex.1005, ¶17; Ex.1006, p.4; Ex.1008, p.5. Using regular
`
`bank accounts, individuals have been able to make payments via wire transfers for
`
`over a century. Ex.1013, p. 2 (Western Union money transfer introduced in 1871);
`
`Ex.1006, p.4; Ex.1008, p.5. Debit cards—even prepaid debit cards—have also
`
`been around for years. Ex.1005, ¶17; Ex.1011 (describing the increasing
`
`popularity of prepaid debit cards in the 1990s). As another example, the United
`
`States Patent and Trademark Office has—for decades—allowed applicants to
`
`maintain prepaid deposit accounts and authorize payments of fees from such
`
`accounts. See Ex.1012 (describing a 1982 amendment to 37 C.F.R. § 1.25(b)
`
`regarding authorizations to charge fees to deposit accounts). In short, using a
`
`1
`
`

`
`Petition for Covered Business Method Review of U.S. Pat. No. 7,610,244
`
`
`financial account is the very type of activity that the Supreme Court has
`
`determined to be abstract and not deserving of patent protection. See Alice, 134 S.
`
`Ct. at 2356 (finding that the invention addressed a “fundamental economic
`
`practice” and was thus patent ineligible (quoting Bilski, 130 S. Ct. at 3231)).
`
`The ’244 claims are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The claims take a
`
`fundamental economic concept—using a financial account to make payments—
`
`and add a general purpose computer or electronic commerce system. Ex.1005,
`
`¶16. Specifically, the “payment account” recited by the claims is linked to a
`
`“computing device” in an “electronic auction system.” Payment comprises
`
`debiting funds from the buyer’s payment account and crediting the seller, with no
`
`evidence that the debiting or crediting are performed by anything other than a
`
`generic computer(s). Ex.1005, ¶¶16-22. The claims do not purport to improve the
`
`functioning of any computer itself or improve any other technology. Ex.1005, ¶20.
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES - 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1) - Real party-in-interest. Petitioner eBay Inc. and
`
`Petitioner PayPal, Inc., which is a subsidiary of PayPal Holdings, Inc., are Real
`
`Parties-in-Interest.
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2) - Related matters. The Patent Owner has asserted the
`
`’244 patent and five other patents from the same family (U.S. Patent Nos.
`
`7,483,856; 7,512,563; 7,567,937; 7,599,881; 7,627,528) against Petitioners in
`
`2
`
`

`
`Petition for Covered Business Method Review of U.S. Pat. No. 7,610,244
`
`
`XPRT Ventures, LLC v. eBay Inc. et al., Case No. 1:10-cv-00595-SLR (D. Del.)
`
`(“the related litigation”). The litigation also was brought against eBay subsidiary
`
`companies Bill Me Later, Inc; Shopping.com, Inc.; and Stubhub, Inc. Petitioner
`
`eBay Inc. requested inter partes reexamination of the independent claims of the
`
`’244 patent and the five other patents. See 95/001,594 (’856 patent); 95/001,589
`
`(’563 patent); 95/001,588 (’937 patent); 95/001,596 (’881 patent); 95/001,597
`
`(’244 patent); 95/001,590 (’528 patent). Reexaminations were instituted for each
`
`patent. The Examiner rejected the independent claims of the six patents as
`
`anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and/or obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The
`
`Board affirmed the Examiner’s rejections in the ’563, ’937, ’881, ’244, and ’528
`
`cases. The parties are awaiting a decision from the Board on Patent Owner’s
`
`request for rehearing for the ’856 patent. The Patent Owner appealed the Board’s
`
`decisions in the reexaminations involving the ’563, ’937, ’881, ’244, and ’528
`
`patents to the Federal Circuit, which are now pending as Appeal Nos. 14-1579
`
`(’937 patent), 14-1583 (’563 patent), 14-1584 (’881 patent), 14-1640 (’244 patent),
`
`and 15-1926 (’528 patent).
`
`Petitioners are concurrently submitting Covered Business Method Requests
`
`for all six patents.
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3) - Lead and back-up counsel.
`
`3
`
`

`
`Petition for Covered Business Method Review of U.S. Pat. No. 7,610,244
`
`
`
`Adrian Percer, Lead Counsel
`Registration No. 46,986
`adrian.percer@weil.com
`
`Weil, Gotshal and Manges LLP
`201 Redwood Shores Parkway
`Redwood Shores, CA 94065
`T: 650-802-3124; F: 650-802-3100
`
`
`Naveen Modi, Back-Up Counsel
`Registration No. 46,224
`naveenmodi@paulhastings.com
`
`Paul Hastings LLP
`875 15th Street N.W.
`Washington, DC 20005
`T: 202-551-1990; F: 202-551-0490
`
`Jared Bobrow, Back-Up Counsel
`Pro hac vice to be submitted
`jared.bobrow@weil.com
`
`Weil, Gotshal and Manges LLP
`201 Redwood Shores Parkway
`Redwood Shores, CA 94065
`T: 650-802-3034; F: 650-802-3100
`
`Brian Chang, Back-Up Counsel
`Registration No. 74,301
`brian.chang@weil.com
`
`Weil, Gotshal and Manges LLP
`201 Redwood Shores Parkway
`Redwood Shores, CA 94065
`T: 650-802-3936; F: 650-802-3100
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3) - Service information. Petitioners may be served by
`
`electronic or physical delivery as follows:
`
`Adrian Percer, Lead Counsel
`USPTO Reg. No. 46,986
`
`Weil, Gotshal and Manges LLP
`201 Redwood Shores Parkway
`Redwood Shores, CA 94065
`
`Telephone: 650.802.3000
`Facsimile: 650.802.3100
`
`4
`
`

`
`Petition for Covered Business Method Review of U.S. Pat. No. 7,610,244
`
`
`
`adrian.percer@weil.com
`
`III. PAYMENT OF FEES - 37 C.F.R. § 42.103
`The undersigned authorizes the Office to charge the fees set forth in 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.15(b) as required by 37 C.F.R. § 42.203 for this Petition for Covered
`
`Business Method Review to Deposit Account 506499; any additional fees that
`
`might be due are also authorized.
`
`IV. GROUNDS FOR STANDING - 37 C.F.R. § 42.204(a)
`A. At Least One Challenged Claim Is Unpatentable
`As further detailed below, claims 1, 2, 15, 19, 20, 34, 40, 47, 48, 52, and 53
`
`of the ’244 patent (“challenged claims”) are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101. For the
`
`reasons discussed infra, it is “more likely than not that at least one of the claims
`
`challenged in the petition is unpatentable.” 35 U.S.C. § 324(a).
`
`B. Claims 1, 2, 15, 19, 20, 34, 40, 47, 48, 52, and 53 Are Directed To A
`Covered Business Method
`
`
`
`The Leahy-Smith “America Invents Act” (“AIA”) defines a CBM
`
`patent as “a patent that claims a method or corresponding apparatus for performing
`
`data processing or other operations used in the practice, administration, or
`
`management of a financial product or service[].” AIA § 18(d)(1); see also 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.301. In determining whether a patent is eligible for a CBM review, the
`
`focus is on the claims; a patent needs only one claim directed to a covered business
`
`method to be eligible for review. Ex.1002, p.4. Moreover, “patents subject to
`
`5
`
`

`
`Petition for Covered Business Method Review of U.S. Pat. No. 7,610,244
`
`
`covered business method patent review are anticipated to be typically classifiable
`
`in Class 705.” Ex.1002, p.7; see also Ex.1003 (defining Class 705 as the generic
`
`class for performing data processing operations).
`
`
`
`The ’244 patent was classified during prosecution in Class 705 and
`
`discloses “a computerized electronic auction payment system and method for
`
`effecting a real-time payment for an item won in an electronic auction.” Ex.1001,
`
`Abstract; see also id., 3:55-6:13, 15:55-18:34. Independent claims 1 and 34 each
`
`recite “[a] method for effecting payment for at least one item offered for auction
`
`sale by a seller via an electronic auction web site and won by a winning bidder.”
`
`Likewise, independent claims 15 and 47 recite “[a] method” and “[a]n electronic
`
`commerce method,” respectively, “for effecting an immediate payment for at least
`
`one item offered for auction sale by a seller and purchased by a buyer via an
`
`electronic commerce website.” Independent claim 19 recites “[a] method for
`
`effecting payment to an electronic commerce merchant.” The methods include
`
`“receiving informational data” and “creating a plurality of payment accounts.”
`
`The methods also include “providing … an option to enable an automatic payment
`
`service,” “providing a payment page,” and “receiving … authorization … to
`
`proceed with effecting payment.” Payment is effected by “deducting funds from
`
`the payment account” and “using at least a portion of the deducted funds to effect
`
`payment.” All of these steps are activities that are financial in nature. Ex.1005,
`
`6
`
`

`
`Petition for Covered Business Method Review of U.S. Pat. No. 7,610,244
`
`
`¶12. Accordingly, independent claims 1, 15, 19, 34, and 47 are each directed to
`
`methods “for performing data processing or other operations used in the practice,
`
`administration, or management of a financial product or service,” which compels a
`
`finding that the ’244 patent is eligible for CBM review.
`
`C. Claims 1, 2, 15, 19, 20, 34, 40, 47, 48, 52, and 53 Are Not Directed
`To A “Technological Invention”
`
`The AIA excludes “patents for technological inventions” from the definition
`
`of CBM patents. AIA § 18(d)(1), (2). To determine what constitutes 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; see also Ex.1002, pp.3-4.
`
`The challenged claims of the ’244 patent are directed to business processes,
`
`i.e., activities that are financial in nature, using only known technology. Ex.1005,
`
`¶16. These claims (1) fail to recite a novel and unobvious technological feature;
`
`and (2) fail to recite a technical solution that solves a technical problem.
`
`
`
`Specifically, each of the challenged claims, when read by its
`
`individual elements or as a whole, does not recite a technological feature that is
`
`novel and unobvious over the prior art. The ’244 patent purports to address the
`
`need for better payment systems in the context of electronic auction websites,
`
`where payments were conventionally made using a check, money order, or credit
`
`7
`
`

`
`Petition for Covered Business Method Review of U.S. Pat. No. 7,610,244
`
`
`card. Ex.1001, 2:31-3:51. Yet, the claims merely recite a payment system that is
`
`accessible through a webpage at the electronic auction website. The payment
`
`system will make automatic payments on behalf of a user if the user previously
`
`authorized automatic payments, or will loan funds to a user if the user previously
`
`authorized the payment system to make the loan. Ex.1005, ¶¶16-22. The recited
`
`elements include a generic “computing device” in an “electronic auction system”
`
`that is “linked” to a plurality of “payment accounts” and the specification confirms
`
`that generic web server computers, databases, and processors are used to execute a
`
`set of instructions stored within a generic memory in order to perform the claimed
`
`fund transfer steps. Ex.1001, 6:45-53; Fig. 1.
`
`The ’244 patent fails prong (1) because there is nothing novel or unobvious
`
`about using a computing device in an electronic auction system to complete a
`
`financial transaction using automatic payments. Ex.1002, p.31 (“Mere recitation
`
`of known technologies, such as computer hardware, communication or computer
`
`networks, software, memory, computer-readable storage medium, scanners,
`
`display devices or databases, or specialized machines, such as an ATM or point of
`
`sale device,” or “[r]eciting the use of known prior art technology to accomplish a
`
`process or method, even if that process or method is novel and non-obvious,” will
`
`“not typically render a patent a technological invention.”). The Federal Circuit has
`
`confirmed that this fails to render the claims a “technological invention,” stating
`
`8
`
`

`
`Petition for Covered Business Method Review of U.S. Pat. No. 7,610,244
`
`
`that “[c]laiming a computer without specific, unconventional software, computer
`
`equipment, tools or processing capabilities is insufficient.” SightSound Techs., 809
`
`F.3d at 1315 (internal quotations and citations omitted). Regarding the claimed
`
`methods themselves, “abstract business concepts and their implementation,
`
`whether in computers or otherwise,” are not included in the definition of
`
`“technological inventions.” Ex.1004, p.99. Moreover, accomplishing a business
`
`process or method is not technological, whether or not that process or method is
`
`novel. Ex.1004, p.99.
`
`The ’244 patent also fails prong (2) because each of the challenged claims,
`
`when read by its individual elements or as a whole, does not solve a technical
`
`problem using a technical solution—authorizing deductions from an account (such
`
`as a bank or deposit account) and loaning funds to effect payments are not
`
`technical solutions. As noted above in prong (1), the claims recite well-known
`
`financial practices performed using generic computer technology. As the Board
`
`has recognized, “[m]erely listing computer components, or performing actions by
`
`computers, does not make an invention technical.” Google Inc. v. Performance
`
`Price Holdings, LLC, CBM2016-00049, 2016 WL 5787365, at *5 (PTAB Sep. 21,
`
`2016). Likewise, the Board has recognized that other claims reciting transaction
`
`networks, techniques, and systems “solve[] a financial problem rather than a
`
`technical problem.” Chicago Mercantile Exchange, Inc. v. 5th Market, Inc., CBM
`
`9
`
`

`
`Petition for Covered Business Method Review of U.S. Pat. No. 7,610,244
`
`
`2013-00027, 2013 WL 8538874 at *5 (PTAB Dec. 18, 2013); see also IBG LLC v.
`
`Trading Techs. Intern., Inc., CBM2016-00031, 2016 WL 5632066, at *8 (PTAB
`
`Aug. 8, 2016) (finding patent that “purports to solve the problem of a user missing
`
`an intended price because a price level changed as the user tried to click to send an
`
`order at an intended price level in a GUI tool” by “requir[ing] the use of only
`
`known technology” does not solve a technical problem using a technical solution).
`
`Accordingly, the claims do not recite “a technological feature that is novel
`
`and unobvious over the prior art” and do not solve “a technical problem using a
`
`technical solution,” and therefore the ’244 patent does not claim a “technological
`
`invention.” See 37 C.F.R. § 42.301(b); see also eBay, Inc. v. Paid, Inc.,
`
`CBM2014-00128, Paper 15 at 12-14 (Sept. 30, 2014) (declining to find a
`
`technological invention where claimed features require nothing more than
`
`technologies that were already known in the art).
`
`Petitioners Have Been Charged With Infringement Of This Patent
`
`D.
`Petitioners have been charged with infringement of the ’244 patent in the
`
`related litigation. The other patents asserted by the Patent Owner in the related
`
`litigation are U.S. Patent Nos. 7,483,856, 7,512,563, 7,567,937, 7,599,881, and
`
`7,627,528. Petitioners are not estopped from challenging the claims on the
`
`grounds identified in this petition. 37 C.F.R. § 42.302(b).
`
`10
`
`

`
`Petition for Covered Business Method Review of U.S. Pat. No. 7,610,244
`
`
`V. OVERVIEW OF CHALLENGE AND RELIEF REQUESTED
`A.
`Identification Of Claims For Which Review Is Requested And
`Relief Requested– 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.204(b)(1) And 42.22(a)(1)
`Petitioners respectfully request CBM review of claims 1, 2, 15, 19, 20, 34,
`
`40, 47, 48, 52, and 53 of the ’244 patent, and the cancellation of these claims as
`
`unpatentable.
`
`Statutory Grounds Of Challenge – 37 C.F.R. § 42.204(b)(2)
`
`B.
`Petitioners request cancellation of the challenged claims 1, 2, 15, 19, 20, 34,
`
`40, 47, 48, 52, and 53 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Section VIII below
`
`demonstrates that it is more likely than not that Petitioners will prevail. See 35
`
`U.S.C. § 324(a).
`
`VI. THE ’244 PATENT
`A.
`Purported Invention
`The ’244 patent addresses a purported need for better methods of effecting
`
`payment by the winning bidder of an electronic auction. The specification
`
`describes prior art methods of bidders using a check, money order, or credit card to
`
`pay for an item won in an electronic auction; after payment is received, the seller
`
`ships the item to the winning bidder. Ex.1001, 2:29-64. Because the winning
`
`bidder must take the time to draft a check or obtain a money order and mail it to
`
`the seller (and may wait until other pending auctions have been completed so these
`
`tasks can be completed for multiple items at once or until the start of a new credit
`
`11
`
`

`
`Petition for Covered Business Method Review of U.S. Pat. No. 7,610,244
`
`
`card billing cycle to make a credit card payment), there could be a delay before the
`
`winning bidder even attempts to make a payment. Ex.1001, 2:65-3:27.
`
`The ’244 patent purports to solve these problems by providing a
`
`computerized electronic auction payment system wherein electronic auction
`
`payment accounts are established and maintained for prospective bidders and
`
`sellers. Ex.1001, 3:66-4:3. The claimed computerized electronic auction payment
`
`system is depicted in Figure 1 below.
`
`12
`
`

`
`Petition for Covered Business Method Review of U.S. Pat. No. 7,610,244
`
`
`
`Ex.1001, Fig. 1.
`
`
`
`In operation, prospective bidders fund their electronic auction payment
`
`accounts before winning an auction. Funds are provided “via direct deposit, using
`
`a credit card, or sending a check, money order, or other financial document to an
`
`operator of the computerized electronic auction payment system.” Ex.1001, 4:3-9.
`
`Upon winning an electronic auction, the winning bidder can authorize payment to
`
`13
`
`

`
`Petition for Covered Business Method Review of U.S. Pat. No. 7,610,244
`
`
`the seller by debiting the winning bidder’s electronic auction payment account and
`
`crediting the electronic auction payment account of the seller. Ex.1001, 4:9-17. In
`
`one embodiment, the bidder can authorize the system to automatically pay the
`
`seller upon winning the auction. Ex.1001, 9:64-10:1. After the winning bidder
`
`wins an auction item, the winning bidder can pay in real-time, e.g., by clicking an
`
`icon on the electronic auction web site or by clicking a hyperlink provided on an e-
`
`mail transmitted by the electronic auction system to the winning bidder and seller
`
`for accessing a payment segment. Ex.1001, 16:1-7.
`
`Independent claim 1 is exemplary and recites:
`A method for effecting payment for at least one item offered for
`auction sale by a seller via an electronic auction web site and won by
`a winning bidder, where the electronic auction web site is accessible
`by a plurality of users and maintained by an electronic auction system,
`the method comprising:
`receiving informational data from the plurality of users via at
`least one web page accessible via at least one web page
`of the electronic auction web site;
`creating a plurality of payment accounts configured for storing
`funds therein and corresponding to the plurality of users
`of the electronic auction web site using the informational
`data received via the at least one web page accessible via
`the at least one web page of the electronic auction web
`site, wherein funds stored within the plurality of payment
`accounts can be used by said plurality of users for
`
`14
`
`

`
`Petition for Covered Business Method Review of U.S. Pat. No. 7,610,244
`
`
`
`effecting payment for network transactions associated
`with said electronic auction web site;
`providing the plurality of users an option to enable an automatic
`payment service, wherein the automatic payment service
`automatically effects payment after occurrence of a
`termination
`event
`associated with
`the network
`transactions;
`linking said plurality of payment accounts to at least one
`computing device of the electronic auction system;
`displaying a link on the electronic auction web site for
`providing said plurality of users which includes the
`winning bidder access to their respective payment
`accounts for viewing the amount of funds stored therein;
`determining the conclusion of the auction sale by the electronic
`auction system;
`and interacting with said winning bidder by the electronic
`auction system by performing the steps of:
`sending an e-mail by the electronic auction system to the
`winning bidder;
`receiving, via one of the electronic auction web site and
`the e-mail, at least one input from the winning
`bidder indicating an initiation to effect payment to
`the seller;
`providing a payment page to the winning bidder after
`receiving the at least one input from the winning
`bidder, said payment page displaying the amount
`of funds to be deducted from a payment account of
`
`15
`
`

`
`Petition for Covered Business Method Review of U.S. Pat. No. 7,610,244
`
`
`
`the plurality of payment accounts corresponding to
`the winning bidder, said payment account having
`been created using informational data received via
`the at least one web page accessible via the at least
`one web page of the electronic auction web site;
`and
`receiving, via the payment page, authorization from the
`winning bidder to proceed with effecting payment
`to the seller;
`deducting funds from the payment account storing funds
`therein and corresponding to the winning bidder;
`and
`using at least a portion of the deducted funds to effect
`payment to at least the seller, wherein th