United States Patent and Trademark Office
`Before The Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`
`TIZ Inc. (d/b/a PROVI) (Petitioner)
`v.
`Jason K. Smith (d/b/a Dust Bowl) (Patent Owner)
`
`Case No. CBM2020-00029
`U.S. Patent No. 10,467,585
`Petitioner’s Demonstratives
`
`1/4/2022
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`PROVI-1048
`
`1
`
`
`Before The Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`
`TIZ Inc. (d/b/a PROVI) (Petitioner)
`v.
`Jason K. Smith (d/b/a Dust Bowl) (Patent Owner)
`
`Case No. CBM2020-00029
`U.S. Patent No. 10,467,585
`Petitioner’s Demonstratives
`
`1/4/2022
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`PROVI-1048
`
`1
`
`
`
`Presentation Overview
`
`4 1
`
`1
`17-10
`17
`
`43
`
`’585 Patent Overview
`The ’585 Patent Is Ineligible Under 35 U.S.C. § 101
`Alice Step One: The ’585 Patent Claims Are Directed To An Abstract Idea
`
`The Guidance Confirms the Claims of the ’585 Patent Is Abstract
`
`Alice Step Two: The Claims of the ’585 Patent Lack an Inventive Concept
`The ’585 Patent is Eligible for CBM Review
`
`1/4/2022
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`PROVI-1048
`
`2
`
`
`
`’585 Patent Overview
`
`1/4/2022
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`PROVI-1048
`
`3
`
`
`
`’585 Patent: Challenged Claims - All (1-19)
`
`1/4/2022
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`PROVI-1048
`
`4
`
`’585 Patent, Cover Page [PROVI-1001]
`
`
`
`’585 Patent: Routing Information Using Generic Computers
`
`1/4/2022
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`Paper 11, 19-21; ’585 Patent, Fig. 1, 3:5-25 [PROVI-1001];
`Paper 17, 4-5
`PROVI-1048
`5
`
`
`
`’585 Patent: User Manually Inputs “par value” and sets “on
`hand” Value For Each Beverage Product
`
`Paper 11, 17-18; ’585 Patent, Fig. 2, 5:40-48 [PROVI-1001]
`
`1/4/2022
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`PROVI-1048
`
`6
`
`
`
`’585 Patent: Generic Server Example
`
`Paper 11, 51; ’585 Patent, Fig. 8, 10:60-11:9 [PROVI-1001]
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`1/4/2022
`
`PROVI-1048
`
`7
`
`
`
`’585 Patent: Off-The-Shelf Content Management System (CMS)
`
`Paper 11, 51; ’585 Patent, Fig. 8, 3:30-48 [PROVI-1001]
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`1/4/2022
`
`PROVI-1048
`
`8
`
`
`
`’585 Patent: Off-The-Shelf Content Management System (CMS)
`
`Dr. Min’s Unrebutted Testimony:
`
`1/4/2022
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`PROVI-1048
`
`9
`
`Paper 21, 4, 6, 16; PROVI-1008, ¶ 28
`
`
`
`’585 Patent: Representative Claim 1
`
`1/4/2022
`
`Paper 11, 21-22; PROVI-1001, cl. 1
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`PROVI-1048
`
`10
`
`
`
`’585 Patent: Representative Claim 6
`
`1/4/2022
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`PROVI-1048
`
`11
`
`Paper 11, 23-24; PROVI-1001, cl. 6
`
`
`
`’585 Patent: Representative Claim 14
`
`1/4/2022
`
`Paper 11, 24-25; PROVI-1001, cl. 14
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`PROVI-1048
`
`12
`
`
`
`’585 Patent: Prosecution History
`
`cv
`
`1/4/2022
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`PROVI-1048
`
`13
`
`Paper 11, 15-16; PROVI-1002, 170
`
`
`
`’585 Patent: Prosecution History
`
`1/4/2022
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`PROVI-1048
`
`14
`
`Paper 11, 15-16; Paper 21, 9-16; PROVI-1002, 7-8; PROVI-1008, ¶82-88
`
`
`
`Alice Step One: The ’585 Patent Claims
`Are Directed To An Abstract Idea
`
`1/4/2022
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`PROVI-1048
`
`15
`
`
`
`The ’585 Patent Claims Are Directed To An Abstract Idea
`Facilitating Purchase of Items By Collecting, Analyzing, and Transmitting Information
`Relating to inventory, promotions, and sellers
`
`PROVI-1048
`
`1/4/2022
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`PROVI-1048
`PROVI-1048
`
`16
`
`Paper 11, 21-22;
`PROVI-1001, cl. 1
`
`
`
`Alice Step One
`Analogous Fundamental Economic Practice Decisions
`
`• Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services, 859 F. 3d 1044, 1047 (Fed. Cir. 2017)
`Finding claims involving maintaining a database of information about items in a dealer’s inventory,
`obtaining financial information about customer from a user, combining these two sources of
`information to create a financing package for each inventoried item and presenting financing
`package to user abstract.
`Paper 11, 58, 80, 85; Paper 21, 5, 7, 15
`
`• Inventor Holdings, LLC v. Bed Bath & Beyond, Inc., 876 F.3d 1372, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2017)
`Finding claims directed to local processing of payments for remotely purchased goods is an
`unpatentable fundamental economic practice.
`Paper 11, 56
`
`• Mortg. Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs. Inc., 811 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
`Finding claims involving computer-implemented method for enabling borrowers to anonymously
`shop for loan packages offered by a plurality of lenders abstract.
`
`Paper 11, 57, 59, 86
`
`1/4/2022
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`PROVI-1048
`
`17
`
`
`
`Alice Step One
`Analogous Mental Processes Decisions
`
`• SAP America, Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2018)
`Finding analyzing information by steps people go through in their minds is “within the abstract-idea
`category.”
`
`Paper 11, 86; Paper 21, 5
`
`• Voit Technologies v. Del-Ton, Inc. 2019 WL 495163, at *2 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 8, 2019)
`Finding claims directed to entering, transmitting, locating, compressing, storing, and displaying data
`abstract.
`Paper 21, 5
`
`• Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-1354 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
`Noting that “[i]nformation as such is [] intangible,” and thus abstract; “[m]erely presenting results
`of abstract processes of collecting and analyzing information, without more …, is abstract”.
`Paper 11, 46, 47, 50, 72;
`Paper 21, 3
`
`1/4/2022
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`PROVI-1048
`
`18
`
`
`
`Alice Step One
`Analogous Mental Processes Decisions
`
`• Ericsson Inc. v. TCL Commun. Tech. Holdings Ltd., 955 F.3d 1317, 1327(Fed. Cir. 2020)
`Finding analyzing information by steps people go through in their minds is “within the abstract-idea category.”
`Paper 21, 3
`
`• Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1139 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
`Finding claims abstract where directed to translating a functional description of a logic circuit into a hardware
`component had traditionally been performed mentally or by pencil and paper by one of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`• RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., 855 F.3d 1322, 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2017)
`Observing that the invention at issue did not even require a computer and could be practiced verbally
`or with a telephone.
`
`Paper 11, 47; Paper 21, 11, 15
`
`Paper 11, 50; Paper 21, 12, 13
`
`• Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2015)
`Claims recite generic computer components and elements “that merely restate their individual functions”
`and failed to provide an inventive concept.
`
`1/4/2022
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`Paper 11, 47-48, 50; Paper 21, 9, 11
`PROVI-1048
`19
`
`
`
`Alice Step One
`Analogous Mental Processes Decisions
`
`• Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.d 1307, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2018)
`“With the exception of generic computer-implemented steps, there is nothing in the claims themselves
`that foreclose them from being performed by a human, mentally or with pen and paper.”
`
`Paper 11, 46
`
`• OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1361-62 (Fed. Cir. 2015)
`Finding claims reciting obtaining statistics and analyzing those statistics to determine another piece of
`information—i.e., a price at which to sell a product—were directed to the abstract idea of ‘offer-based
`price optimization”)
`
`Paper 11, 56, 86
`
`1/4/2022
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`PROVI-1048
`
`20
`
`
`
`Alice Step One
`Analogous Functionally Recited Information Patent Decisions
`
`• University of Florida Research Foundation, Inc. v. General Electric Company, 916 F.3d 1363, 1368
`(Fed. Cir. 2019)
`Finding patent to be “a quintessential ‘do it on a computer’ patent” where “data from bedside machines was
`previously collected, analyzed, manipulated, and displayed manually and it proposes doing so with a computer”
`without “explain[ing] how the drivers do the conversion” and instead described them “purely functional terms.”
`Paper 11, 47, 76; Paper 21, 7, 8
`
`• Clarilogic, Inc. v. FormFree Holdings Corp., 681 Fed App’x 950, 954 (Fed. Cir. 2017)
`Claim reciting “collection, analysis, and generation of information reports, where the claims are not limited to how
`Paper 21, 8
`the collected information is analyzed or reformed, is the height of abstraction.”
`
`• TDE Petroleum Data Sols., Inc. v. AKM Enter., Ind., 657 Fed App’x 991, (Fed. Cir. 2016)
`Finding claims ineligible where the claim “recite[s] that what of the invention, but none of the how that is necessary
`to turn the abstract ideas into a patent-eligible application.”
`
`Paper 21, 8
`
`1/4/2022
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`PROVI-1048
`
`21
`
`
`
`Alice Step One: Claims Merely Recite Automation Of Traditional
`Mental And Manual Fundamental Economic Processes
`
`• Mom & Pop Grocery Example
`
`1/4/2022
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`PROVI-1048
`
`22
`
`Paper 21, 2, fn. 1; PROVI-1008, ¶ 96; PROVI-1002, ¶170
`
`
`
`Alice Step One: Claims Merely Recite Automation Of Traditional Mentally
`And Manually Performed Fundamental Economic Processes
`
`• Mr. Albenze testifies:
`
`1/4/2022
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`Paper 11, 6; PROVI-1030, ¶ 19
`PROVI-1048
`23
`
`
`
`Alice Step One: Claims Merely Recite Automation Of Traditional Mentally
`And Manually Performed Steps of Ordering Beverages
`
`• Mr. Albenze testifies:
`
`1/4/2022
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`Paper 17, 31; PROVI-1030, ¶ 31-32
`PROVI-1048
`24
`
`
`
`’585 Patent: Patent Owner Concedes Method Can Be
`Performed By Mentally or by Pen and Paper
`
`1/4/2022
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`Paper 20, 39
`PROVI-1048
`25
`
`
`
`’585 Patent: Patent Owner Concedes Method Can Be
`Performed By Mentally or by Pen and Paper
`
`1/4/2022
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`Paper 12, 5
`PROVI-1048
`26
`
`
`
`’585 Patent: Patent Owner Concedes Method Can Be
`Performed By Mentally or by Pen and Paper
`
`1/4/2022
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`Paper 12, 7
`PROVI-1048
`27
`
`
`
`’585 Patent: Specification Admits Purchase of Alcoholic
`Beverages Through Three-Tiered System Occurred Readily
`
`1/4/2022
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`Paper 11, 4-5; PROVI-1001, 1:22-26
`PROVI-1048
`28
`
`
`
`Alice Step One: The Claims Do Not Recite Any Improvement
`To Computers Or Other Technology
`
`1/4/2022
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`PROVI-1048
`
`29
`
`Paper 11, 9, 39; PROVI-1008, ¶130
`
`
`
`Alice Step One: The Claims Do Not Recite Any Improvement
`To Computers Or Other Technology
`
`1/4/2022
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`PROVI-1048
`
`30
`
`Paper 11, 75-76; PROVI-1008, ¶95
`
`
`
`Alice Step One: The Claims Do Not Recite Any Improvement
`To Computers Or Other Technology
`
`1/4/2022
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`PROVI-1048
`
`31
`
`Paper 11, 75-76; PROVI-1008, ¶91-92
`
`
`
`Alice Step One: The Claims Do Not Recite Any Improvement
`To Computers Or Other Technology
`
`1/4/2022
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`Paper 17, 47
`PROVI-1048
`
`32
`
`
`
`The Guidance Confirms the Claims of the
`’585 Patent Is Abstract
`
`1/4/2022
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`PROVI-1048
`
`33
`
`
`
`The 2019 Guidance
`
`1/4/2022
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`PROVI-1048
`
`34
`
`Paper 11, 36, 51-52; 84 Fed. Reg., 52
`
`
`
`The 2019 Guidance Confirms Ineligibility of the ’585 Patent Claims
`
`1/4/2022
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`PROVI-1048
`
`35
`
`Paper 11, 36, 51-52; 84 Fed. Reg., 55
`
`
`
`The 2019 Guidance Confirms Ineligibility of the ’585 Patent Claims
`
`1/4/2022
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`PROVI-1048
`
`36
`
`Paper 11, 36, 51-52, 72; 84 Fed. Reg., 55
`
`
`
`The 2019 Guidance Confirms Ineligibility of
`the ’585 Patent Claims
`
`Paper 11, 5, 6, 36, 39, 51-52; PROVI-1008, ¶¶ 128, 130
`
`1/4/2022
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`PROVI-1048
`
`37
`
`
`
`The 2019 Guidance Confirms Ineligibility of
`the ’585 Patent Claims
`
`Paper 11, 6, 36, 51-52; PROVI-1008, ¶ 134
`
`1/4/2022
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`PROVI-1048
`
`38
`
`
`
`Alice Step Two: The Claims of the
`’585 Patent Lack an Inventive Concept
`
`1/4/2022
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`PROVI-1048
`
`39
`
`
`
`Alice Step Two: The Claims’ Use Of The Abstract Idea Cannot
`Supply The Inventive Concept
`
`1/4/2022
`
`BSG Tech LLC v. Buyseasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2018);
`Paper 11, 82-84; Paper 21, 15, 18-19
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`PROVI-1048
`
`40
`
`
`
`Alice Step Two: Patent Owner Admits Claimed Computer
`Technology is Generic
`
`Paper 20, 47
`[Patent Owner’s Response]
`
`Paper 11, 21-22; PROVI-1001, cl. 1
`
`1/4/2022
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`PROVI-1048
`
`41
`
`
`
`Alice Step Two: Patent Clams No improvement to the particular
`combination or arrangement of computer technology
`
`Paper 11, 39; PROVI-1008, ¶¶ 118-119
`
`1/4/2022
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`PROVI-1048
`
`42
`
`
`
`Alice Step Two: The Patent Admits To Generic Computer
`Implementation
`
`1/4/2022
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`PROVI-1048
`
`43
`
`Paper 11, 6-8; PROVI-1001, 6:40-50
`
`
`
`Alice Step Two: The Patent Admits To Generic Computer
`Implementation
`
`1/4/2022
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`PROVI-1048
`
`44
`
`Paper 11, 11, 38; PROVI-1001 , 3:18-29
`
`
`
`Alice Step Two: The Patent Admits To Generic Computer
`Implementation
`
`1/4/2022
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`PROVI-1048
`
`45
`
`Paper 11, 80; PROVI-1001, 10:60-11:3
`
`
`
`Alice Step Two: Patent Owner’s Argument
`
`1/4/2022
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`PROVI-1048
`
`46
`
`Paper 20, 45
`[Patent Owner’s Response]
`Patent Owner Response, 47
`
`
`
`Alice Step Two: Patent Owner’s Argument
`
`Paper 12, 25
`[Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response]
`
`1/4/2022
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`PROVI-1048
`
`47
`
`
`
`Alice Step Two: The “CMS” Does Not Provide An Inventive
`Concept
`
`1/4/2022
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`PROVI-1048
`
`48
`
`Paper 21, 2, fn. 1, 16; PROVI-1008, ¶ 126; PROVI-1014, 135
`
`
`
`Alice Step Two: CMS Was Well Known And Conventional
`
`• Microsoft Computer Dictionary (5th Ed. 2002)
`
`Paper 11, 40; PROVI-1013, 135
`
`1/4/2022
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`Paper 11, 40; PROVI-1008, ¶ 62
`
`PROVI-1048
`
`49
`
`
`
`Alice Step Two: CMS Was Well Known And Conventional
`
`• Microsoft Press Release (2003)
`
`1/4/2022
`
`Paper 11, 40; Provi-1015, 1-2
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`PROVI-1048
`
`50
`
`
`
`Alice Step Two: CMS Was Well Known And Conventional
`
`• Boiko (2001)
`
`1/4/2022
`
`Paper 11, 76; PROVI-1024, 1
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`PROVI-1048
`
`51
`
`Paper 11, 76; PROVI-1008, ¶ 63
`
`
`
`Alice Step Two: CMS Arranged In Persistent Memory Was
`Well Known And Conventional
`
`• Whitewell (2004)
`
`Paper 11, 80; PROVI-1024, 7, 4-16
`
`Paper 11, 74; PROVI-1008, ¶ 65
`
`1/4/2022
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`PROVI-1048
`
`52
`
`
`
`Alice Step Two: CMS Arranged In Persistent Memory Was
`Well Known And Conventional
`• Notarius
`
`1/4/2022
`
`Paper 11, 74, 83-85; PROVI-1008, ¶ 67; PROVI-1025, ¶¶ 212-221
`PROVI-1048
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`53
`
`
`
`Alice Step Two: CMS Arranged In Persistent Memory Was
`Well Known And Conventional
`
`1/4/2022
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`PROVI-1048
`
`54
`
`Paper 11, 74; PROVI-1008, ¶ 66
`
`
`
`Dependent Claims Of The ’585 Patent Are Ineligible
`
`1/4/2022
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`Paper 11, 75-77
`PROVI-1048
`55
`
`
`
`Dependent Claims Of The ’585 Patent Are Ineligible
`
`1/4/2022
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`Paper 11, 75-77
`PROVI-1048
`56
`
`
`
`Dependent Claims Of The ’585 Patent Are Ineligible
`
`1/4/2022
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`Paper 11, 78-79
`PROVI-1048
`57
`
`
`
`The ’585 Patent Is Eligible for
`CBM Review
`
`1/4/2022
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`PROVI-1048
`
`58
`
`
`
`CBM Eligibility: Financial Product or Service
`
`§ 42.301 Definitions.
`In addition to the definitions in § 42.2, the following definitions apply to
`proceedings under this subpart D:
`(a)Covered business method patent means 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. …
`
`Paper 11, 32, 36; 37 C.F.R. § 42.301(a)
`
`1/4/2022
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`PROVI-1048
`
`59
`
`
`
`CBM Eligibility: The ’585 Patent Claims Financial Activities
`
`1/4/2022
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`PROVI-1048
`
`60
`
`Paper 11, 23-24; PROVI-1001, cl. 6
`
`
`
`CBM Eligibility: The ’585 Patent Claims Financial Activities
`
`Paper 17, 22-23
`
`1/4/2022
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`PROVI-1048
`
`61
`
`
`
`CBM Eligibility: The ’585 Patent Claims Financial Activities
`
`1/4/2022
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`PROVI-1048
`
`62
`
`Paper 17, 21
`
`
`
`CBM Eligibility: Non-Technological Invention
`
`§ 42.301 Definitions.
`In addition to the definitions in § 42.2, the following definitions apply to
`proceedings under this subpart D: …
`(b)Technological invention. In determining whether a patent is for
`a technological invention solely for purposes of the Transitional Program
`for Covered Business Methods (section 42.301(a)), 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.
`Paper 11, 36-37; 37 C.F.R. 42.301(b)
`
`1/4/2022
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`PROVI-1048
`
`63
`
`
`
`CBM Eligibility: Non-Technological Invention
`
`1/4/2022
`
`Paper 11, 36; Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48763-64
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`PROVI-1048
`
`64
`
`
`
`CBM Eligibility: The ’585 Patent Claims Are Non-Technological
`
`Paper 11, 41, 44; PROVI-1008, ¶91, 99
`
`1/4/2022
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`PROVI-1048
`
`65
`
`
`
`CBM Eligibility: The ’585 Patent Claims Are Non-Technological
`
`Paper 11, 10; PROVI-
`1008, ¶¶23-24
`
`1/4/2022
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`PROVI-1048
`
`66
`
`
`
`CBM Eligibility: The ’585 Patent Claims Are Non-Technological
`
`1/4/2022
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`Paper 11, 9; PROVI-1008, ¶ 25
`PROVI-1048
`
`67
`
`
`
`Service Was Proper
`
`1/4/2022
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`PROVI-1048
`
`68
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Attorney of Record Downloaded and
`Received CBMR Petition and Exhibits on September 15, 2020
`
`1/4/2022
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`PROVI-1048
`
`69
`
`Paper 14, 2; PROVI-1043, ¶3
`
`
`
`FedEx Delivered Copies of CBMR Petition and Exhibits on
`September 16, 2020 to Attorney of Record
`
`Paper 14, 1; PROVI-1040
`
`1/4/2022
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`PROVI-1048
`
`70
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Argument Is Unsupported And
`Uncorroborated
`
`1/4/2022
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`PROVI-1048
`
`71
`
`Paper 21, 22
`
`
`
`Service Was Timely and Proper
`
`Paper 21, 23
`
`1/4/2022
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`PROVI-1048
`
`72
`
`
`
`Service Was Timely and Proper
`
`1/4/2022
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`PROVI-1048
`
`73
`
`Paper 21, 23
`
`
`
`Sunset for CBMR: September 16, 2020
`
`1/4/2022
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`PROVI-1048
`
`74
`
`Paper 21, 23
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Inadequate Service Is Moot
`
`Paper 17, 13
`
`1/4/2022
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`
`PROVI-1048
`
`75
`
`
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
