Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`Paper 9
`Date Entered: May 2, 2017
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`GOOGLEINC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`ALFONSO CIOFFI, MEGAN ELIZABETH ROZMAN,
`MELANIE ANN ROZMAN, AND MORGAN LEE ROZMAN,
`Patent Owners.
`
`Case CBM2017-00015
`Patent RE43,528
`
`Before JAMESON LEE, BRIAN J. MCNAMARA,and
`CHRISTOPHERM.KAISER, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`McNAMARA,Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Covered Business Method Patent Review
`37 CFR. § 42.208
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`Paper 9
`Date Entered: May 2, 2017
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`GOOGLEINC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`ALFONSO CIOFFI, MEGAN ELIZABETH ROZMAN,
`MELANIE ANN ROZMAN, AND MORGAN LEE ROZMAN,
`Patent Owners.
`
`Case CBM2017-00015
`Patent RE43,528
`
`Before JAMESON LEE, BRIAN J. MCNAMARA,and
`CHRISTOPHERM.KAISER, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`McNAMARA,Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Covered Business Method Patent Review
`37 CFR. § 42.208
`
`
`
`CBM2017-00015
`Patent RE43,528
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`Pursuant to 35 U.S. C. § 321 and section 18 of the America Invents
`
`Act (AIA), Google, Inc. (Petitioner) filed a Petition, Paper 1 (‘‘Pet.”’),
`
`requesting that the Patent Trial and Appeal Boardinitiate a covered business
`
`method patent review ofclaims1, 5, 8, 21—24, 30, 44, 64, and 67»
`
`(the “challenged claims”) of U.S. Patent RE43,528 (the ’528 Patent).
`
`Petitioner contends that pursuant to 37 CFR §§ 42.301 and 42.304(a) the
`
`°528 Patent meets the definition of a covered business method patent and
`
`does not qualify as a technological invention. Pet. 5-16. Petitioner also
`
`contendsthat the challenged claims are unpatentable overthe prior art. Jd. at
`
`29-61.
`
`Alfonso Cioffi, Megan Elizabeth Rozman, Melanie Ann Rozman, and
`
`Morgan Lee Rozman(collectively, “Patent Owner”) filed a Patent Owner
`Preliminary Responsecontesting Petitioner’s assertion that the 528 Patentis
`a CBM patent and the grounds on whichPetitioner challenges the
`
`patentability of the claims. Paper 5 (“Prelim. Resp.”’).
`
`The standard for instituting a covered business method patent review
`
`is the sameas that for a post-grant review.
`
`(§ 18(a)(1) of the AIA). For the
`
`reasons discussed below, we are not persuadedthat Petitioner has
`
`demonstrated that the °528 Patent is a CBM patent. Therefore, we do not
`
`institute a covered business method patent review.
`
`PENDING LITIGATION
`
`A person maynotfile a petition under the Transitional Program for
`
`Covered Business Method Patents unless the person or the person’s real
`
`party in interest or privy has been suedfor infringement or has been charged
`
`
`
`CBM2017-00015
`Patent RE43,528
`
`with infringement under that patent. See § 18(a)(1)(B) of the Leahy-Smith
`
`America Invents Act, Pub. L. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284, 329 (2011) (“AIA”).
`
`Petitioner represents that it has been sued for infringing the °528 Patent in
`
`Cioffi, et al. v. Google Inc., 2:13-cv-00103 (E.D. Tex.). Pet. ix.
`
`THE ’528 PATENT (EXHIBIT 1001)
`The ’528 Patent is a reissue patent of U.S. Patent No. 7,484,247. Ex.
`
`1001, 1:14-15. Asits title indicates, the °528 Patent discloses a system and
`
`method for protecting a computer from malicious software. Figure 1
`
`illustrates a computer system with first and second processors 120 and 140,
`
`respectively. As Figure 1 of the °528 Patent shows, both processors 120 and
`
`140 have a direct communication link with second memory 130, but only
`
`first processor 120 has a direct communication link with first memory 110.
`
`Second processor 140 can access memory 110, as in a multicore system,
`
`using processor 120 only with strict user permission through real time
`
`interaction or via stored configurations or commands. Jd. at 10:37-44.
`
`Figure 1 shows network interface 190, such as a router or gateway,
`
`communicating with second processor 140 and the network. Jd. at 10:13-
`18. Decryption keys can be passed betweenfirst processor 120 and network
`
`interface device 190 via communication link 191. /d. at 17:31-33. Figure 1
`
`also showsthat user interface 150 provides inputto first processor 120 and
`
`communicates with video processor 170 via link 151. Video processor 170
`
`communicates with first processor 120 via link 171 and with second
`
`processor 140 to provide information to video display 180 andis adapted to
`
`combine video data from the first and secondprocessors and transmit it to
`
`display terminal 180 for display in a windowed format. Jd. at 8:31-35.
`
`
`
`CBM2017-00015
`Patent RE43,528
`
`This architecture is designed to protect memory 110 from malware
`
`initiated intrusions and from initiating unwanted processes on first processor
`
`120 by using second processor 140to isolate first processor 120 and
`
`memory 110 from network 195. Ex. 1001, 8:35-39, 10:20-37. The flow
`
`diagram in Figure 3 illustrates a basic process in which a userselects data
`
`files to download via a browser(step 310) and second processor P2
`
`downloads and writes the data files to second memory M2 (step 320). When
`
`first processor PI is directed to move the data files from memory M2 tofirst
`
`memory M1 (step 330), processor P2 scans for malware in the downloaded
`
`data file (step 340). Depending on whetheror not malwareis detected (step
`
`350), the data file is copied to memory M1 (step 360) or quarantined on
`
`memory M2(step 370) anddeleted, cleaned or otherwise quarantined on M2
`(step 380). Variations of this process are shown in Figures 4—6 and 10.
`
`Figures 7—9 illustrate various processor configurations. For example, Patent
`
`Ownernotes that Figure 9 shows processor 960 with multiple cores,i.e. first
`
`processor core 920 and second processor core 940 and separate isolated
`
`memory areas 910 and 930 within a single memory space. Prelim. Resp. 6—
`
`7. Processor core 920 can access memory areas 910 and 930 and second
`
`processor 940 can access memory area 930 and maybeconfigured to be
`
`incapable ofinitiating access to memory area 910. Jd. Functionscarried out
`
`by processors 920 and 940 may be separate logical processes operating on
`
`the sameprocessor, but functions carried out by second processor 940 may
`
`be configured as unable to access automatically first memory area 910 or
`second memory area 910 or another logical process performing functions of
`
`first processor 920. Id. at 7~8 (citing Ex. 1001 16:10-12, 22-31).
`
`
`
`CBM2017-00015
`Patent RE43,528
`
`ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
`
`Claim 1 is illustrative and is reproduced belowas it appears in the
`
`’528 Patent, with matter enclosed in heavy brackets [ ] appearing in original
`U.S. Patent No. 7,484,247, but forming no part ofthe reissue 528 Patent
`and matter in italics indicting additions madebyreissue.
`
`1. A method of operating a computer system capable of
`exchanging data across a network ofone or more computers and
`having at
`least a first and second electronic data processor
`capable of executing instructions using a common operating
`system, comprising [the steps of]:
`executing [instructions] afirst web browser process, capable
`of accessing data of a website via the network, inafirst
`logical process within the commonoperating system using
`the first electronic data processor, whereinthefirst logical
`process is capable of accessing data contained inafirst
`memory space [and a second memory space];
`executing [instructions] a second web browser process in a
`second logical process within the common operating
`system using the second electronic data processor,
`wherein the second logical process is capable of accessing
`data contained in the second memory space [, the second
`logical process being further capable of exchanging data
`across a network of one or more computers];and
`displaying[, ina windowed format on a display terminal,] data
`from the first
`logical process and the second logical
`process, wherein a video processor is adapted to combine
`data from the first and second logical processes and
`transmit the combined data to [the] a display [terminal];
`wherein the computer system is configured such that the
`secondelectronic data processoris operating in a protected
`mode and data residing on the first memory space is
`protected from corruption by a malware process
`downloaded from the network and executing as part of the
`second[logical] web browserprocess.
`
`
`
`CBM2017-00015
`Patent RE43,528
`
`ART CITED IN PETITIONER’S CHALLENGES
`
`Petitioner cites the following referencesin its challenges to
`
`patentability:
`
`Exhibit No.
`
`Ex. 1025
`
`NoStarch Press, 2003
`
`S. Ioannidis, S.
`
`
`Bellovin, and J. Smith,|°
`““Sub-Operating
`
`
`Systems: A
`Toannidis-2002
`
`New Approachto
`
`Application Security,”
`
`September 2002
`
`S. Ioannidis andS.
`
`Bellovin, “Building a
`.
`Secure Web Browser,”
`Toannidis-2005
`June 2001
`
`
`M.Lucas, “Absolute
`OpenBSD: UNIX for
`
`Absolute Open BSD
`the Practical Paranoid,”
`
`Ex. 1026
`
`.
`
`G. Lehey,“The
`Complete FreeBSD:
`Documentation from
`the Source,” O’Reilly
`
`Community Press, Complete Free BSD
`
`Fourth Ed., May 2003
`
`
`
`CBM20 17-00015
`Patent RE43,528
`
`CHALLENGES ASSERTEDIN PETITION
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103
`
`21-24, 30, 44, 64, and
`67
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103
`
`Obvious over
`Joannidis-2002 and
`Ioannidis, individually
`or together, or in light
`of Absolute Open BSD
`and the knowledge of a
`person of ordinary skill
`in the art
`Obviousover
`Ioannidis-2002 and
`Ioannidis, individually
`or together, or in light
`of Absolute Open BSD
`and Complete Free
`BSDand the
`knowledgeof a person
`of ordinary skill in the
`art
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`Weinterpret the claims of an unexpired patent using the broadest
`
`reasonable construction on light of the specification if the patent in which
`they appear. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Cuozzo Speed Techs. LLCv. Lee,
`136 S. Ct. 213 1, 2144-46 (2016). In applying a broadest reasonable
`construction, claim terms generally are given their ordinary and customary
`
`meaning, as would be understoodby one ofordinary skill in theart in the
`
`context of the entire disclosure. See In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d
`
`1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Any special definition for a claim term must
`
`be set forth in the specification with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and
`
`precision. In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
`
`
`
`CBM2017-00015
`Patent RE43,528
`
`Petitioner and Patent Ownerproposesimilar claim constructions.
`
`Patent Owner proposesthat following constructions:
`
`“web browser process”— the parties agree that a “web browser
`
`process” meansa “process that can access data on websites (e.g., direct or
`
`indirect)” Prelim. Resp. 15, see Pet. 27.
`
`“first memory space” — memory spacedistinct from a second memory
`
`space. The parties agree on this construction.Jd..
`
`“second memory space” — memory spacedistinct from a first memory
`
`space. The parties agree on this construction. /d.
`
`“the second electronic data processoris operating in a protected
`
`mode”— the second electronic data processor is configured suchthatit is
`
`incapable of automatically accessing the first memory space.” Prelim. Resp.
`
`15; see Pet. 27-28
`
`Patent Ownerstates that these are the broadest reasonable
`
`constructions of the foregoing terms andthey are the sameas the
`
`constructions applied by the district court in the co-pendinglitigation. Jd. at
`
`14-15.
`
`Weagreethat that these constructions are consistent with the
`
`Specification of the ’528 Patent and, in that context, are the broadest
`
`reasonable interpretations of the terms. Therefore, to the extent that claim
`
`constructions are relevant to this Decision, we adopt Patent Owner’s
`
`proposed constructions.
`
`Wealso address the following claim terms and claim construction
`
`issues:
`
`“system file” — Citing the claim construction order entered by the
`
`district court in co-pendinglitigation, Petitioner proposes we construethis
`
`
`
`CBM2017-00015
`Patent RE43,528
`
`term in claims 21, 44, and 64 to be synonymouswith a “criticalfile”or
`“critical system file,” which refersto files required for the proper operation
`of the computer’s systems. Pet. 27—28 (citing Ex. 1012). Patent Owner does
`
`not proposea specific construction. Weagree that Petitioner’s proposed
`
`construction is broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the
`
`specification of the ’528 Patent and we adoptit in this proceedingto the
`
`extent that claim constructions are relevant to this Decision.
`
`Patent OwnerandPetitioner also contend that the preamble of claim
`
`64 is limiting. The preamble of claim 64 recites specific features of the
`
`_ claimed computer program product, e.g., that the stored code is capable of
`
`executing instructions using a commonoperating system havingat least one
`
`electronic data processor coupled to other elements in a specific way. Thus,
`
`weagree that the preamble of claim 64 is limiting.
`Petitioner argues that the preamble of claim 44 is also limiting
`because it provides antecedent basis for further claim recitations. Pet. 28.
`
`The preamble of method claim 44 recites structure similar to that discussed
`
`above with respect to claim 64 and we agree that the preamble of claim 44 is
`
`limiting for similar reasons.
`
`THE °528 PATENT IS NOT DIRECTED TO
`A FINANCIAL PRODUCT OR SERVICE
`
`A covered business methodpatent is “a patent that claims a method or
`
`corresponding apparatus for performing data processing or other operations
`
`used in the practice, administration, or managementofa financial product or
`
`service.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.301(a). None ofthe claims of the ?528 Patent
`
`explicitly recites a financial product or service. The Petition argues that the
`
`phrase “financial product or service”in the statute is to be interpreted
`
`9
`
`
`
`CBM2017-00015
`Patent RE43,528
`
`broadly to encompasspatents claiming activities that are financial in nature,
`
`incidental to a financial activity, or complementary to a financial activity.
`
`Pet. 3. According to the Petition, the claims of the ’528 Patent are broad
`enoughto cover a “financial productor service” at least because they “imply
`
`using a secure web browserin the specification’s Internet banking
`
`embodiment, whichis indisputably a financial activity.” Pet. 4.
`
`ThePetition was filed on November 4, 2016. Seventeen dayslater, on
`
`November 21, 2016, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decided
`
`Unwired Planet, LLC v. Google Inc., 841 F.3d 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The
`
`Patent OwnerPreliminary Response cites Unwired Planetin support ofits
`
`position that “a patent that ‘covers’ some method and corresponding
`
`apparatus does not become a CBMpatent becauseits practice could involve
`
`financial activity.” Prelim. Resp. 21-22. According to Patent Owner, the
`
`claims of the ’528 Patent are not financial in nature, but are claims of
`
`generalutility reciting, among other things, a multi-process browser
`
`architecture such that data and system files are protected from malware. Id.
`
`at 18-19.
`
`Patent Ownerfiled its Preliminary Response on February 16, 2017.
`
`Five days later, on February 21, 2017, the Federal Circuit again addressed
`
`the scope of a covered method patent in Secure Axcess, LLC v. PNC Bank
`
`National Assoc., 848 F.3d 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2017). On March 24, 2017, we
`
`invited the parties to submit briefs directed to the implications of these two
`
`decisions on the current proceeding. Paper 6. Each party submittedits brief
`
`on April 7, 2017. Paper 7 (“PO Suppl. Brief’); Paper 8 (“‘Pet. Suppl. Brief”).
`
`In their supplemental briefing Petitioner and Patent Owneragreethat,
`
`in contrast to the arguments advancedin the Petition, Unwired Planet
`
`10
`
`
`
`CBM2017-00015
`Patent RE43,528
`
`established that the statutory definition of covered business method patent
`
`excludes patents claiming activities that are only “incidental to” or
`
`“complementary to”financial activity. Pet. Suppl. Brief 1-2; PO Suppl.
`
`Brief 1. In Secure Axcess, the court stated “Necessarily, the statutory
`
`definition of a CBM patent requires that a patent have a claim that contains,
`
`howeverframed,a financial activity element.” Secure Axcess, 848 F.3d at
`
`1381.
`
`Citing Secure Access, id., Petitioner emphasizes that the phrasing of a
`
`qualifying claim does not require particular talismanic words. Pet. Suppl.
`
`Brief 2. Indeed, the court noted that when properly construed inlight of the
`
`written description, the claim need only require one of a wide range of
`
`finance-related activities. Secure Axcess, 848 F.3d at 1381. In this case,
`
`Petitioner argues that the claimsare directed to a financial activity based on
`
`unrebutted evidence that the claims cover internet banking discussed in the
`
`Specification. Pet. Suppl. Brief 3. Petitioner also argues that, at a minimum,
`
`a question of material fact exists on this issue that should be resolvedin the
`preliminary stage in Petitioner’s favor. Id.
`.
`
`The claims of the ’528 Patent recite features that protect a computer
`
`from malware. Petitioner states that claim 8 recites a method for exchanging
`
`data on a networkthat is limited to encrypting data in a first process,
`
`transferring the encrypted data in a second process and thentransferring the
`
`encrypted data along a networkinterface device. Id. at 3-4. Petitioner
`
`emphasizesthat the specification identifies only one use of the encrypted
`
`data, i.e., internet banking. Jd. at 4. According to Petitioner, claim 8 is not
`directed to data encryption in general, but to a specific method of operating a
`computerthat is used to exchangesensitive financial data with an internet
`
`1]
`
`
`
`CBM2017-00015
`Patent RE43,528
`banking host computer. Jd. Emphasizing that the statute includesin the |
`definition of a covered business method patent a methodthatis “used in” a
`
`financial activity, Patent Owner contendsthat at least claim 8 qualifies the
`
`°528 Patent as a covered business methodpatent. Id.
`
`Patent Ownerconcedesthat the claims “cover” an internet banking
`
`application, but emphasizes that what the claims coveris not the operative
`
`inquiry. PO Suppl. Brief 2, 4. Patent Owner argues that the claims must be
`
`directed to a financial activity. Jd. at2. According to Patent Owner, nothing
`
`in the challenged claimsis financial in nature, nothing in the challenged
`
`claimsis explicitly or inherently financial, and nothing in the challenged
`
`claims contemplates an exchange of money. Id. at 4.
`
`Almostthe entire text of the °529 Patent Specification describes a
`
`computerarchitecture that protects against malware intrusions. A few lines
`
`of the Specification cited by Petitioner mention that malware is capable of
`
`stealing passwords, bank account, and social security information (Ex. 1001,
`
`16:38-41, 17:40-41), that sensitive user interface data can be encrypted (id.
`
`at 17:3), and that such encryption is useful in an internet banking host
`
`computer(id. at 17:31). These incidental statements do not change the
`
`thrust of the ’528 Patent disclosure, which discusses almost exclusively
`
`various implementations of the malware protection architecture. The claims
`
`of the °528 Patent are not “directed to” a financial activity,” as the Federal
`
`Circuit has applied that term in Versata Development Group, Inc. v. SAP
`
`America, Inc., 793 F.3d 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Blue Calypso LLCv.
`
`Groupon Inc., 815 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2016); and SightSound Techs., LLC
`
`v. Apple, Inc., 809 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2015). See Secure Axcess, 848 F.3d
`
`at 1381. In Versata, the court agreed with the Board’s determination that the
`
`12
`
`
`
`CBM2017-00015
`Patent RE43,528
`
`subject patent claimed methods and products for determining a price, and are
`
`considered financial products and services underthe statute. Versata, 793
`
`F.3d at 1325-1327. In Blue Calypso the court found the claims to have an
`
`express financial componentin the form of a subsidy orfinancial
`
`inducement that encourages consumersto participate in the distribution of
`
`advertisements. Blue Calypso, 815 F.3d at 1314. In SightSound the court
`
`found claims requiring the selling of desired video or digital audio signals
`
`for a fee through telecommunicationslines to be financial in nature.
`
`SightSound, 809 F.3d at 1311, 1315-16. There is no discussion in the ’528
`
`Patent Specification of any method of sale, commerce, advertising or
`
`conducting financial transactions that is implemented by the subject malware
`
`protection architecture.
`
`Weperceive no “issue of material fact” that should be resolved in
`
`favorof the Petitioner at the institution stage. Pet. Supp. Brief 3. Although
`
`the Petition discusses the construction of several claim terms, none of the
`
`proposedinterpretations includes any reference to features that are related to
`
`internet banking or any otherfeature that is financial in nature. See Pet. 27
`(e.g., proposing that “web browserprocess” be construed as a “process that
`can access data on websites” in which“this ‘access’ to website data can be
`
`direct or indirect”).
`
`In short, none of the claims of the ’528 Patentis “directed to” a
`
`financial activity on its face, and we do notread any such financial activity
`
`into them based on the Specification’s assertion that malware protection
`
`could be useful in internet banking. Thus, we are not persuaded that the ’528
`
`Patent qualifies for covered business method patent review.
`
`13
`
`
`
`CBM2017-00015
`Patent RE43,528
`
`SUMMARY
`
`For the reasons discussed above, we are not persuaded that the ’582
`
`Patent qualifies for covered business method patent review.
`
`In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby:
`
`ORDER
`
`ORDEREDthat a covered business method patent review of the °528
`
`Patent is not instituted.
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`James Day
`Daniel Callaway
`jday@fbm.com
`dcallaway@fbm.com
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Glenn Boisbrun
`David Hofman
`gboisbrun@bh-ip.com
`dhofman@bh-ip.com
`
`14
`
`
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
