`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_____________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_____________________
`
`
`
`GLOBAL TEL*LINK CORPORATION,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`SECURUS TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
`Patent Owner
`____________________
`
`Case CBM2017-00043
`Patent No. 7,529,357
`_____________________
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR COVERED BUSINESS METHOD REVIEW OF CLAIMS
`2, 5, 8, 9, 11, 12, AND 14-18 OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,529,357
`
`
`
`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. Patent No. 7,529,357
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`B.
`
`b.
`
`Mandatory Notices.......................................................................................... 4
`I.
`Identification of Challenge ............................................................................. 5
`II.
`III. Grounds for Standing ...................................................................................... 6
`A. GTL meets the eligibility requirements to file the present petition. ..... 6
`1.
`GTL has standing. ...................................................................... 6
`2.
`GTL is not estopped. .................................................................. 6
`3.
`GTL has not filed a civil action challenging the validity of a
`claim of the patent. ..................................................................... 7
`The ’357 patent is a business method patent. ........................................ 7
`1.
`Overview of the ’357 patent. ..................................................... 8
`2.
`The ’357 patent claims activities that are financial in nature. . 11
`3.
`The ’357 patent does not claim a “technological invention.” .. 13
`a.
`The remaining claims are not novel or
`nonobvious. ..........................................................13
`The claims do not solve a technical
`problem with a technical solution. .......................21
`IV. Claim Construction ....................................................................................... 22
`V.
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art ................................................................ 23
`VI. GROUND 1: The remaining claims are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §
`101. ............................................................................................................... 23
`A. All of the challenged claims are directed to the abstract idea of
`centrally and remotely managing inmate information. .......................25
`1.
`Independent claims 1 and 10 .................................................... 25
`2.
`The dependent claims are directed to an abstract idea. ........... 30
`There is no inventive concept beyond the abstract idea; the claims
`rely on conventional technologies performing routine functions. ......36
`1.
`Independent Claims.................................................................. 37
`a.
`Independent Claim 1 ............................................37
`b.
`Independent Claim 10 ..........................................44
`
`B.
`
`
`
`- i -
`
`

`

`Petition for Covered Business Method
`Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,529,357
`Dependent Claims 2 and 14 ..................................................... 47
`2.
`Dependent Claims 5 and 12 ..................................................... 48
`3.
`Dependent Claims 8 and 16 ..................................................... 49
`4.
`Dependent Claims 9 and 17 ..................................................... 51
`5.
`Dependent Claim 11 ................................................................ 51
`6.
`Dependent Claim 15 ................................................................ 52
`7.
`Dependent Claim 18 ................................................................ 54
`8.
`The claims preempt longstanding human activities because they
`recite generic ways of managing inmate information. ........................56
`VII. Conclusion .................................................................................................... 58
`
`C.
`
`
`
`- ii -
`
`

`

`Petition for Covered Business Method
`Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,529,357
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l,
`134 S.Ct. 2347 (2014) .................................................................................. passim
`Apple Inc. v. SightSound Techs., LLC, CBM2013-00020, Paper 14 (P.T.A.B. Oct.
`8, 2013) ................................................................................................................11
`Bascom Glob. Internet Servs., Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC,
`827 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ...........................................................................44
`DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P.,
`773 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2014) .................................................................... 24, 36
`Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A.,
`830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ................................................................... passim
`Global Tel*Link Corporation v. Securus Technologies, Inc.,
`IPR2014-00493, Paper 32 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 11, 2015) .................................. passim
`Global Tel*Link Corporation v. Securus Technologies, Inc.,
`IPR2014-00825, Paper 36 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 2, 2015) .............................................. 1
`Hybritech v. Monoclonal Antibodies, Inc.,
`802 F.2d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 1986) ...........................................................................58
`Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One,
`792 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ...........................................................................36
`Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corporation,
`838 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ...........................................................................27
`Mayo Collab. Servs. v. Prometheus Labs.,
`132 S.Ct. 1289 (2012) ............................................................................. 23, 24, 56
`SightSound Techs., LLC v. Apple Inc.,
`809 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ...........................................................................11
`Square, Inc. v. Unwired Planet, LLC,
`CBM2014-00156, Paper 40 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 22, 2015)........................................12
`Versata Dev. Grp., Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc.,
`793 F.3d 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ...........................................................................11
`
`
`
`
`
`- iii -
`
`

`

`Petition for Covered Business Method
`Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,529,357
`
`Statutes
`35 U.S.C. § 102(b) ...................................................................................................14
`35 U.S.C. § 315(e) ..................................................................................................... 7
`AIA § 18(a)(1)(B) ...................................................................................................... 6
`AIA § 18(d)(1) .....................................................................................................7, 13
`
`Other Authorities
`
`77 Fed. Reg. 48,734 (Aug. 14, 2012).......................................................................11
`
`Regulations
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10(a) ................................................................................................... 5
`37 C.F.R. § 42.301(a) ................................................................................................. 7
`37 C.F.R. § 42.301(b) ..............................................................................................13
`37 C.F.R. § 42.302(a) ................................................................................................. 6
`37 C.F.R. § 42.304(a) ................................................................................................. 6
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3) ................................................................................................ 5
`37 C.F.R. § 42.206 ..................................................................................................... 6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- iv -
`
`

`

`Petition for Covered Business Method
`Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,529,357
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Description
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,529,357 to Rae, issued May 5, 2009
`Declaration of Dr. Leonard J. Forys in Support of Petition for Inter
`Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,529,357
`Dr. Leonard J. Forys Curriculum Vitae
`SR-4717, “Voice Over Packet in Next Generation Networks: An
`Architectural Framework,” Bellcore, January 1999
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0029564 to Hodge,
`published February 12, 2004
`U.S. Patent No. 6,831,556 to Boykin, issued December 14, 2014
`U.S. Patent No. 5,861,810 to Nguyen, issued January 19, 1999
`“Criminal Calls: A Review of the Bureau of Prisons’ Management of
`Inmate Telephone Privileges” (U.S. Department of Justice, Office of
`the Inspector General, August 1999)
`Securus Technologies, Inc. v. Global Tel*Link Corporation, No. 3-
`16-cv-01338, Complaint (N.D. Tex. May 13, 2016)
`U.S. Patent No. 4,054,756 to Comella, et al., issued October 18,
`1977
`PacketCableTM 1.0 Architecture Framework Technical Report, PKT-
`TR-ARCH-V01-001201 (Cable Television Laboratories, Inc. 1999)
`Bur Goode, Voice Over Internet Protocol (VoIP), Proceedings of the
`IEEE, Vol. 90, No. 9, 1495–1517 (Sept. 2002)
`U.S. Patent No. 7,899,167 to Rae, issued March 1, 2011
`U.S. Patent No. 7,505,406 to Spadaro, et al., issued March 17, 2009
`BubbleLINK Software Architecture, Science Dynamics Corporation,
`2003.
`BOP Historical Timeline,
`http://www.bop.gov/about/history/timeline.jsp (last accessed October
`11, 2016)
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`1001
`1002
`
`1003
`1004
`
`1005
`
`1006
`1007
`1008
`
`1009
`
`1010
`
`1011
`
`1012
`
`1013
`1014
`1015
`
`1016
`
`
`
`- v -
`
`

`

`Petition for Covered Business Method
`Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,529,357
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`1017
`
`1018
`
`1019
`
`1020
`1021
`
`1022
`
`1023
`
`1024
`
`1025
`
`1026
`
`Description
`
`SENTRY Audit Report No. 0325, U.S. Department of Justice, Office
`of the Inspector General, July 2003
`“Privacy Impact Assessment for the SENTRY Inmate Management
`System,” U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Prisons, July
`2, 2012
`“Inmate Security Designation and Custody Classification Program
`Statement,” U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Prisons,
`September 12, 2006
`U.S. Patent No. 7,197,560 to Caslin, issued March 27, 2007
`“SIP and IPLink in the Next Generation Network: An Overview,”
`Intel Corporation, 2001.
`Commander II, http://www.scidyn.com/products/commander2.html
`(archived by web.archive.org on March 6, 2002)
`SR-2275, “Bellcore Notes on the Networks,” Bellcore, December
`1997.
`Engineering and Operations in the Bell System, Second Edition,
`AT&T Bell Laboratories, 1984
`Pages from http://www.corp.att.com/history, archived by
`web.archive.org on November 4, 2013.
`U.S. Patent No. 4,191,860 to Weber, issued March 4, 1980
`
`
`
`- vi -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
` Petition for Covered Business Method
`Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,529,357
`
`Petitioner, Global Tel*Link Corporation (“GTL”), petitions for Covered
`
`Business Method (“CBM”) review of dependent claims 2, 5, 8, 9, 11, 12, and 14-
`
`18, the sole remaining claims in U.S. Patent No. 7,529,357 (“the ’357 patent”). The
`
`Board previously found independent claims 1 and 10 and dependent claims 3, 4, 6,
`
`7, 13, 19, and 20 unpatentable. Global Tel*Link Corporation v. Securus
`
`Technologies, Inc., IPR2014-00825, Paper 36, Final Written Decision (P.T.A.B.
`
`Dec. 2, 2015).
`
`The claims of the ’357 patent are directed to managing inmate information
`
`and communications for multiple facilities at a remote, centralized location. In
`
`particular, the ’357 patent describes “centralized or nodal inmate management and
`
`telephone call processing capabilities.” (Ex. 1001, ’357 patent, 2:62-65.) The
`
`inmate management and telephone call processing system “serves a plurality of
`
`controlled environment facilities” and “includes an inmate information database to
`
`provide data aggregation and sharing capabilities across several facilities, in
`
`addition to call processing functionality.” (Id., 2:66-3:7.)
`
`Remote, centralized call processing and shared information management
`
`were well-known before July 2007, the filing date of the ’357 patent which Patent
`
`Owner contends is the priority date for the challenged claims. Dr. Leonard Forys,
`
`who has nearly 50 years of experience working in the telecommunications
`
`industry, explains that the purported invention of the ’357 patent, centralizing
`
`
`
`- 1 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`information management was standard practice in telecommunications for at least
`
` Petition for Covered Business Method
`Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,529,357
`
`four decades prior to the filing date of the ’357 patent. Prison systems also
`
`followed these trends and incorporated centralization well before the ’357 patent.
`
`For example, the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) centralized storage and
`
`management of inmate data in its SENTRY database as early as 1978. Federal
`
`prison facilities accessed the centralized SENTRY database to load, update and
`
`manage inmate records.
`
`Centralization of call processing was also known and established in the
`
`prison environment prior to the filing date of the ’357 patent. For example, U.S.
`
`Patent No. 4,054,756 to Comella, issued in 1977, introduced centralized call
`
`processing facilities to service collect calls. These centralized platforms handled
`
`inmate calls from remote prison facilities. (Ex. 1002, Forys Decl., ¶54.) For
`
`example, U.S. Patent No. 7,505,406 to Spadaro applied the well-known
`
`centralization concept to inmate communications systems utilizing Voice over
`
`Internet Protocol (VoIP) networks more than six years before the filing date of the
`
`’357 patent. Further, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0029564 to
`
`Hodge applies shared information management to centralized prison call
`
`processing platforms more than one year before filing date of the ’357 patent.
`
`The ’357 patent is a covered business method (“CBM”) patent because at
`
`least challenged claims 8, 9, 16, and 17 recite systems or methods that have
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`

`

`
`
` Petition for Covered Business Method
`Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,529,357
`
`
`particular uses “in the practice, administration, or management of a financial
`
`product or service.” Specifically, these claims recite “inmate accounts for charging
`
`fees to the third parties associated with the inmates . . .” (’357 patent, 26:2-4.) The
`
`financial nature of the subject matter is confirmed by its corresponding description
`
`in the specification, which provides that “[t]he account may be a pre-paid account,
`
`a post-paid account, a debit account, a credit account, or the like.” (’357 patent,
`
`3:41-43; see also id., 18:43-46.) Accordingly, at least claims 8, 9, 16, and 17 fall
`
`squarely within the definition of a CBM patent.
`
`The ’357 patent is not a technological invention. The ’357 patent assumes
`
`the use of conventional equipment for its ordinary purpose in a well-known
`
`environment. Nothing recited in the claims is distinguishable over the prior art.
`
`Nor does the ’357 patent solve a technical problem with a technical solution.
`
`Rather, the’357 patent alleges that its invention is “centralized or nodal inmate
`
`management.” (’357 patent, 2:62-64.) But the concept of centralization is not an
`
`inventive technological solution. For example, the Federal BOP centralized
`
`management of inmates and associated data for decades prior to the filing date of
`
`the ’357 patent. And as Dr. Forys explains in his Declaration, it has always been
`
`advantageous to centralize records, including inmate records. The ’357 patent
`
`relates fundamentally to organizing human activities and information about
`
`inmates. Thus, it is not technological in nature.
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
` Petition for Covered Business Method
`Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,529,357
`
`With respect to unpatentability, the challenged claims fail to recite patent-
`
`eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Specifically, claims 2, 5, 8, 9, 11,
`
`12, and 14-18 are directed to the abstract idea of centrally, remotely managing
`
`inmate information. The claims recite conventional equipment used for its ordinary
`
`purpose and otherwise attempt to cover longstanding, prevalent ways of organizing
`
`human activities and inmate information. A high level of preemption risk exists in
`
`this case because the challenged claims at best require only that the recited
`
`functions and steps be performed using generic computer-based systems,
`
`conventional telephones, and off-the-shelf networking equipment. Indeed, a person
`
`using generic equipment to centrally, remotely manage inmate information would
`
`be preempted by these broad and abstract claims. Accordingly, the Board should
`
`find claims 2, 5, 8, 9, 11, 12, and 14-18 to be subject-matter ineligible.
`
`I. Mandatory Notices
`
`REAL PARTY-IN-INTEREST: The real party-in-interest of Petitioner is Global
`
`Tel*Link Corporation (“GTL”).
`
`RELATED MATTERS:
`
`The ’357 patent is the subject of the following civil action: Securus
`
`Technologies, Inc. v. Global Tel*Link Corporation, No. 3-16-cv-01338 (N.D.
`
`Tex.).
`
`The ’357 patent claims the benefit of U.S. Patent No. 7,899,167 (“the ’167
`
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`patent”), filed August 15, 2003. U.S. Patent No. 8,340,260 (“the ’260 patent”),
`
` Petition for Covered Business Method
`Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,529,357
`
`filed March 24, 2009, claims the benefit of the ’357 patent.
`
`The ’357 patent was the subject of inter partes review proceeding IPR2014-
`
`00825, filed May 27, 2014. The ’260 patent was the subject of inter partes review
`
`proceeding IPR2014-00824, filed May 27, 2014. The ’167 Patent was the subject
`
`of inter partes review proceeding IPR2014-00493, filed March 10, 2014.
`
`Petitioner is concurrently filing a petition for covered business method
`
`review of the ’260 patent.
`
`LEAD AND BACKUP COUNSEL: Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3) and 42.10(a),
`
`Petitioner appoints Lori A. Gordon (Reg. No. 50,633) as its lead counsel and
`
`Michael B. Ray (Reg. No. 33,997) and Ryan C. Richardson (Reg. No. 67,254) as
`
`its back-up counsel, all at the address: STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX, 1100
`
`New York Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C., 20005, phone number (202) 371-
`
`2600 and facsimile (202) 371-2540.
`
`SERVICE INFORMATION: Petitioner consents to electronic service by email at
`
`the email addresses: lgordon-PTAB@skgf.com, mray-PTAB@skgf.com and
`
`rrichardson-PTAB@skgf.com.
`
`II.
`
`Identification of Challenge
`
`GTL requests review of claims 2, 5, 8, 9, 11, 12, and 14-18 as unpatentable
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
`
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`III. Grounds for Standing
`
` Petition for Covered Business Method
`Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,529,357
`
`A. GTL meets the eligibility requirements to file the present petition.
`
`1. GTL has standing.
`
`A party may not file a petition for covered business method (“CBM”) review
`
`unless the person or the person’s real party-in-interest or privy has been sued for
`
`infringement of the challenged patent or has been charged with infringement under
`
`that patent. See AIA § 18(a)(1)(B); 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.206, 42.302(a), 42.304(a). The
`
`Patent Owner, Securus, charged GTL with infringement of the ’357 patent on May
`
`13, 2016. (See Ex. 1009, Complaint in Securus Technologies, Inc. v. Global
`
`Tel*Link Corporation, No. 3-16-cv-01338 (N.D. Tex.).)
`
`Accordingly, “a real and substantial controversy regarding infringement of a
`
`covered business method patent exists” and GTL has standing to file the instant
`
`petition for CBM review. 37 C.F.R. § 42.302(a).
`
`2. GTL is not estopped.
`
`In the present CBM petition, GTL presents a single ground of
`
`unpatentability, challenging the remaining claims of the ’357 patent as failing to
`
`recite patent eligible subject matter. GTL is not estopped from challenging claims
`
`2, 5, 8, 9, 11, 12 or 14-18 on this ground. Estoppel for proceedings before the
`
`Office is provided in Section 315(e)(1) of Title 35:
`
`(1) Proceedings before the Office—The petitioner in an inter
`
`
`
`- 6 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
` Petition for Covered Business Method
`Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,529,357
`
`partes review of a claim in a patent under this chapter that results
`in a final written decision under section 318(a) … may not
`request or maintain a proceeding before the Office with respect to
`that claim on any ground that the petitioner raised or reasonably
`could have raised during that inter partes review.
`
`35 U.S.C. § 315(e) (emphasis added). Statutory challenges based on eligibility
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 101 cannot be raised during an inter partes review proceeding.
`
`Therefore, GTL is not estopped from challenging the remaining claims under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 101.
`
`3. GTL has not filed a civil action challenging the validity of a
`claim of the patent.
`
`GTL and the undersigned certify that GTL has not filed a civil action
`
`challenging the validity of any remaining claim of the ’357 patent.
`
`B. The ’357 patent is a business method patent.
`
`Congress defined the term “covered business method patent” to mean 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, except that the term does not include patents for
`
`technological inventions.” AIA § 18(d)(1); 37 C.F.R. § 42.301(a).
`
`The claims in the ’357 patent recite the practice, administration and
`
`management of a financial product or service –– storing/establishing accounts for
`
`
`
`- 7 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`charging fees (claims 8/16) and charging fees to those accounts (claims 9/17). And
`
` Petition for Covered Business Method
`Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,529,357
`
`these claims are not directed to technological inventions. Therefore, the ’357 patent
`
`is eligible for CBM review.
`
`1. Overview of the ’357 patent.
`
`The ’357 patent describes “systems and methods that provide centralized or
`
`nodal inmate management and telephone call processing capabilities.” (’357
`
`patent, Abstract.) Figure 1 of the ’357 patent (reproduced below) illustrates the
`
`components of the centralized or nodal inmate management system (centralized
`
`call processing platform 101). As shown in Figure 1, the call processing platform
`
`101 provides calling and related services to multiple facilities 150, 160, 170 and
`
`180.
`
`
`
`- 8 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
` Petition for Covered Business Method
`Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,529,357
`
`
`
`The ’357 patent describes the use of VoIP to transport calls handled by the
`
`centralized call processing platform. (See, e.g., ’357 patent, 4:14-21.) The call
`
`processing platform 101 communicates with one or more call processing gateways
`
`140 located at or near facilities 150-180 via network 130. (See, e.g., id., 6:40-42.)
`
`A router/switch 118 at the centralized platform (referred to in the claims as a
`
`
`
`- 9 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`“networking device”) is coupled to network 130 to receive data packets from the
`
` Petition for Covered Business Method
`Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,529,357
`
`plurality of facilities. (See id., 15:32-39.)
`
`Neither the ’357 patent nor its parent, the ’167 patent, purports to invent new
`
`call processing functionality or new VoIP functionality. (See id., 7:20-23.) Indeed,
`
`the Board found all claims of the ’167 VoIP call processing patent unpatentable
`
`and the Federal Circuit affirmed the Board’s decision. Global Tel*Link
`
`Corporation v. Securus Technologies, Inc., IPR2014-00493, Paper 32 Final
`
`Written Decision at 81 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 11, 2015); Securus Technologies, Inc. v.
`
`Global Tel Link Corporation, Appeal No. 2016-1372, 2016-1373, Fed. Cir. R. 36
`
`Affirmance (December 8, 2016). Instead, the ’357 patent merely adds shared
`
`information management functionality to the unpatentable centralized call
`
`processing system. (’357 patent, 1:60-62 (“The present invention relates generally
`
`to information systems, and more particularly, to systems and methods for inmate
`
`management and call processing.”).) According to the ’357 patent, “the centralized
`
`configuration of inmate monitoring and call processing system 100 may be utilized
`
`to provide data sharing, aggregation, and/or analysis across a plurality of controlled
`
`environment facilities . . . to collect intelligence, to improve facility management,
`
`to minimize administrative burden, etc.”). (’357 patent, 14:35-43.) However, these
`
`motivations were not new –– the same motivation drove centralization of
`
`information management in the telecommunications industry and in prison systems
`
`
`
`- 10 -
`
`

`

`
`
` Petition for Covered Business Method
`Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,529,357
`
`
`for decades prior to the filing date of the ’357 patent. (Forys Decl., ¶¶38-57.)
`
`2. The ’357 patent claims activities that are financial in nature.
`
`A patent need only have one challenged claim directed to a covered business
`
`method to be eligible for CBM review. 77 Fed. Reg. 48,734, 48,736 (Aug. 14,
`
`2012); see also Versata Dev. Grp., Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1327
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2015) (affirming Board decision based on single claim standard).
`
`Furthermore, a challenged claim’s recitation of financial terminology, or a method
`
`step requiring the movement or transfer of money, generally signals a financial
`
`product or service. See Apple Inc. v. SightSound Techs., LLC, CBM2013-00020,
`
`Paper 14 at 11-15, Institution Decision (P.T.A.B. Oct. 8, 2013) (finding
`
`“transferring money electronically” to be financial in nature); aff’d SightSound
`
`Techs., LLC v. Apple Inc., 809 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
`
`At least four of the challenged claims—claims 8, 9, 16 and 17––are directed
`
`to financial services. For example, claims 8 and 16 both explicitly recite an
`
`apparatus used in the practice of a financial service using financial terminology:
`
`storing or establishing “inmate accounts for charging fees to” third parties
`
`associated with the inmates or the inmate account. Claim 9, which depends from
`
`claim 8, recites a financial service using financial terminology: “charg[ing] for
`
`expenses incurred by said inmates for an activity other than placing the calls.”
`
`(See also, claim 17 (similar).) Thus, on their face, claims 8, 9, 16 and 17 cover
`
`
`
`- 11 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`financial activities related to charging monetary fees for a good or a service. The
`
` Petition for Covered Business Method
`Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,529,357
`
`rest of the claim language specifies how the charged fee/expenses are used (e.g.,
`
`connecting phone calls or other activities). Thus, these claims fall within the
`
`statutory definition of a CBM patent. See, e.g., Square, Inc. v. Unwired Planet,
`
`LLC, CBM2014-00156, Paper 40 at 9-10, Final Written Decision (P.T.A.B. Dec.
`
`22, 2015) (finding claims for “controlling transactions” and “charging the
`
`correlated transaction amount to a source funds identified by the user to allow
`
`completion of the desired transaction” to meet the financial services requirement).
`
`The specification confirms that the subject matter of the challenged claims is
`
`a financial product or service. An inmate account “may be a pre-paid account, a
`
`post-paid account, and debit account, a credit account, or the like.” (’357 patent,
`
`3:38-43; see also id., 18:43-46.) When the inmate account is a debit account, for
`
`example, “the inmate, or family and friends thereof, may deposit funds” and such
`
`“funds of an inmate debit account may later be utilized for such services as placing
`
`telephone calls from within the controlled environment facility.” (’357 patent,
`
`19:18-24.) In addition, the “debit card amounts may be debited real time by billing
`
`system 112 and the debit card threshold monitored by validation system 113 to
`
`shut off a call immediately upon crossing the debit card threshold.” (Id., 13:20-24;
`
`see also id., 14:34-39.) The ’357 patent’s emphasis on facilitating the transfer of
`
`funds into inmate accounts from third parties, and the purchasing of goods or
`
`
`
`- 12 -
`
`

`

`
`
` Petition for Covered Business Method
`Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,529,357
`
`
`services with these accounts demonstrates unequivocally that the claims are
`
`financial in nature and cover financial activities and apparatuses.
`
`3. The ’357 patent does not claim a “technological invention.”
`
`Even if a patent includes claims otherwise eligible for CBM review, the
`
`statute precludes review if the claims cover “technological inventions.” AIA §
`
`18(d)(1). The test for whether the patent is for a technological invention, and
`
`therefore exempt from CBM review, is a two-pronged inquiry. First, the Board
`
`must determine “whether the claimed subject matter as a whole recites a
`
`technological feature that is novel and unobvious over the prior art.” 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.301(b). Second, the Board must determine whether the claimed subject matter
`
`“solves a technical problem using a technical solution.” Id. The challenged claims
`
`of the ’357 patent, including claims 8, 9, 16 and 17, fail both inquiries.
`
`a. The remaining claims are not novel or nonobvious.
`Each of the remaining claims of the ’357 patent depend from independent
`
`claims 1 and 10. But, independent claims 1 and 10 are not novel or nonobvious.
`
`The Board previously found the independent claims obvious over the combination
`
`of U.S. Patent No. 7,505,406 to Spadaro (“Spadaro”) and U.S. Patent No.
`
`7,333,798 to Hodge (“the Hodge patent”)1. Global Tel*Link Corporation,
`
`1 The Hodge patent published on February 12, 2004 as U.S. Patent
`
`
`
`
`
`- 13 -
`
`

`

`
`
` Petition for Covered Business Method
`Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,529,357
`
`
`IPR2014-00825, Final Written Decision, at 34-55, 67.
`
`The subject matter of the remaining dependent claims is also not novel or
`
`nonobvious, merely using the prior art technology of the independent claims to
`
`accomplish well-known processes such as establishing or storing a financial
`
`account and notifying a third-party of a condition.
`
`Claims 2 and 14, reciting the types of information that may be included in
`
`an inmate record, are not novel or nonobvious. (Forys Decl., ¶¶58-62, 80-84.) The
`
`claims require that the inmate records comprise at least one of “physical
`
`description,” “social security number,” “driver’s license number,” “biometric
`
`data,” “information related to the arrest of,” and “contact information of third
`
`parties” associated with one or more inmate. The ’357 patent itself recognizes that
`
`at least one of these types of information––information related to arrest of the
`
`inmates—was collected and stored in the existing inmate management systems.
`
`(See, e.g., ’357 patent, 2:5-19, 2:49-51 (collected inmate information included
`
`
`Publication No. 2004/0029564. Because the Hodge publication qualifies as prior
`
`art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) based on Patent Owner’s representations regarding
`
`the invention date of the challenged claims, Petitioner cites to the Hodge
`
`publication in this proceeding.
`
`
`
`- 14 -
`
`

`

`
`
` Petition for Covered Business Method
`Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,529,357
`
`
`information “identifying the individual, describing the reason for arrest or
`
`detention” as well as photographs and fingerprints of the inmate).) Additionally,
`
`Hodge teaches that an inmate record includes “biometric data of … inmates.” In
`
`Hodge, “biometric data may be required to access the system.” (Ex. 1005, Hodge
`
`Publication, ¶[0056].) The biometric data “may be acquired from users…upon the
`
`creation of a telephone account for use with the system” and “may be stored along
`
`with the user’s PIN in the user’s account profile or another storage means to be
`
`used later as an authentication device.” (Id.)
`
`The inmate records of Hodge also include “contact information of third
`
`parties associated with the inmates.” Hodge discloses that the call processing
`
`system “access[es] a list of telephone numbers that the inmate may not call.” (Id.,
`
`¶[0010].) These “blocked” telephone numbers are “contact information” associated
`
`with each inmate, specifying the individuals that the inmate is prohibited from
`
`contacting to ensure that the inmate does not threaten or harass these individuals.
`
`“For example, a convicted criminal would be blocked from ever calling his
`
`previous victims.” (Id., ¶[0328].)
`
`In addition, the Federal BOP’s centralized SENTRY system stored inmate
`
`records that included a wide-variety o