TrialséDusptogov
`Tel: 571-272—7822
`
`.
`
`.
`
`Paper 7
`Entered: April 2, 2015
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC. and
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.,
`
`Petitioner,
`
`V.
`
`SMARTFLASH LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case CBM2014-00193
`
`Patent 8,061,598 B2
`
`Before JENNIFER S. BISK, RAMA G. ELLURU, GREGG I. ANDERSON,
`MATTHEW R. CLEMENTS, and PETER P. CHEN, -
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`CLEMENTS, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`
`Institution of Covered Business Method Patent Review
`
`. 37 C.F.R. §42.208
`
`
`Tel: 571-272—7822
`
`.
`
`.
`
`Paper 7
`Entered: April 2, 2015
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC. and
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.,
`
`Petitioner,
`
`V.
`
`SMARTFLASH LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case CBM2014-00193
`
`Patent 8,061,598 B2
`
`Before JENNIFER S. BISK, RAMA G. ELLURU, GREGG I. ANDERSON,
`MATTHEW R. CLEMENTS, and PETER P. CHEN, -
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`CLEMENTS, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`
`Institution of Covered Business Method Patent Review
`
`. 37 C.F.R. §42.208
`
`
`
`CBM2014-00193
`
`Patent 8,061,598 B2
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`A. Backgr'ound
`Samsung Electronics America, Inc. and Samsung Electronics Co.,
`Ltd. (“Petitioner”)' filed a Petition requesting covered business method
`
`patent review of claim 7 (the “challenged claim”) ofU.S. Patent No.
`8,061,598 (-Ex. 10.01., “the ’598 patent”) pursuant to§ 18 of-the Leahy-Smith
`
`America Invents Act (“AIA”).2 Paper 2 (“Pet”). Smartflash LLC (“Patent
`Owner”) filed a Preliminary Response. Paper 5 (“Prelim Resp”).
`
`We havejurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 324, which provides that a
`
`covered business method patent review may not be instituted “unless .
`
`.
`
`. it is
`
`more likely than not that atleast 1 of the claims challenged in the petition is
`unpatentable.”
`
`After considering the Petition and Preliminary Response, we
`
`determine that the ’598 patent is a covered business method patent. and that
`
`' Petitioner has demonstrated that it is more likely than not that the challenged
`‘claim is unpatentable. Accordingly, we institutea covered business method
`patent review of claim 7 of the ’598 patent.
`
`B. Asserted Grounds
`
`~ Petitioner contends that the challenged claim is unpatentable under
`
`35 use. §§ 101 and/or 103 in view of Stefik ’23s? Stefik ’980,4'and
`
`1 Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC is listed-as a real party-in-
`interest in the Petition, but merged with and into Samsung Electronics
`America, Inc., after the filing ofthe Petition. Paper 6, 1.
`
`2 Pub. L. No. 112—29, 125 Stat. 284, 296—07 (2011)
`
`3US. Patent No. 5,530,235 (Ex. 1013) (“Stefik ’235”)
`
`4 US. Patent No. 5,629,980 (Ex. 1014) (“Stefik ’980”)
`
`2
`
`
`
`CBM2014-00193
`
`Patent 8,061,598 B2
`_ Gruse.5 Pet. 3. Petitioner also provides a declaration from Jeffrey A.
`
`Bloom, Ph.D (“the Bloom Declaration”). Ex. 1003.
`
`C. Related Matters
`
`The parties indicate that the ’598 patent is the subject of the following
`district court cases: Smartflash LLC v. Apple Inc, Case No. 6:13—cv-447
`
`(ED. Tex); Smart/lash LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Case No. 6: 13-cv-
`448 (ED. Tex.). Pet. 1; Paper 4, 2-3. Patent-OWner also indicates that the
`
`’598 patent is the subject of a third district court case: Smart/lash LLC v.
`
`Google, Inc, Case No. 6:14—cv-435‘(E.D. Tex.). Paper 4, 3. Related patents
`
`claiming priority back to a common series of applications currently are the
`subject ofCBM20l4—OOIO2, CBM2014-00106, CBM2014-00108, and
`'
`CBM2014—00112, filed by Apple Inc. See Paper 4, 2—3.
`.
`Petitioner filed a concurrent petition for covered business method
`patent review ofthe ’598 patent: C_BM2014-00198 (“the 198 Petition”).6 In-
`
`addition, Petitioner filed eight other Petitions for covered business method
`
`patent review'challenging claims of patents owned by Patent Owner and
`
`disclosing similar subject matter: CBM2014-00190; CBM2014—00192;
`CBM2014-00194; CBM2014—00196; CBM2014—00197; CBM2014-00199;
`CBM2014—00200; and CBM2014-00204.
`
`5 PCT Publication No. WO 00/08909 (Ex. 1006) (“Gruse”)
`
`6 Patent Owner argues that the multiple petitions filed against the ’598 patent
`violate the page limit requirement of 37 C.F.R. § 42.24(a)(iii), but does not
`. cite any authority to support its position. Prelim. Resp. 9—12. The page
`limit for a petition requesting covered business method patent review is 80
`pages (37 C.F.R. § 42.24(a)(iii)), and each ofthis Petition and the 198
`Petition meets that requirement.
`'
`
`
`
`CBM2014—00193
`
`Patent 8,061,598 B2
`
`D. The ’598 Patent
`
`The ’598 patent relates to “a portable data carrier for storing and
`
`paying for data and to computer systems for providing access to data to be
`stored” and the “corresponding methods and computer programs.”
`
`0
`
`Ex. 1001, 1:21~25. Owners of proprietary data, especially audio recordings,
`have an urgent need to address the prevalence of “data pirates” who make
`
`proprietary data available over the intemet without authorization. Id. at
`
`1:29—55. The ’598 patent describes providing portable data storage together
`
`with a means for Conditioning access to that data upon validated payment.
`
`1d. at 1:59—2:11. This combination allows data owners to make their data
`available over the intemet without fear of data pirates. 1d. at 2211—15.
`As described, the portable data storage device is connected to a
`
`terminal for internet access. 1d. at 1:59—67. The terminal reads payment
`
`information, validates that information, and downloads data into the portable
`
`Id. The data on the portable storage »
`storage device from a data supplier.
`device can be retrieved and output from a mobile device. .Id. at 2:,1—5. The
`
`, ’598 patent makes clear that the actual implementation of these components
`
`is not critical, and the alleged invention maybe implemented in many ways.
`
`. See, e. g., id. at 25:49—52 (“The skilled person will understand that many
`variants to the system are possible and the invention is not limited to the
`
`described embodiments”).
`
`E. Challenged Claim
`
`Petitioner challenges claim 7 ofthe ’59‘8 patent. Claim 7 depends
`
`from claim 1. Claims 1 and 7 recite the following:
`
`
`
`CBM2014-00193
`
`- Patent 8,061,598 B2
`
`1.
`
`A portable data carrier comprising:
`
`an interface for reading and writing data from and to the portable data
`carrier;
`
`content data memory, coupled to the interface, for storing one or more
`content data items on the carrier;
`
`use rule memory to store one or more use rules for said one or more
`content data items;
`
`a program store storing code implementable by a processor;
`
`and a processor coupled to the content data memory, the use rule
`memory, the interface and to the program store for implementing
`code in the program store,
`
`wherein the code comprises code for storing at least one content data
`item in the content data memory and at least one use rule in the use
`rule memory.
`
`Ex. 1001, 25:54—67._ .
`
`A portable data carrier as claimed in claim 1, further
`7.
`comprising payment data memory to store payment data and code to
`provide the payment data to a payment validation system.
`
`‘ 1d. at 26:25—28.
`
`ANALYSIS
`
`A. Claim Construction
`
`In a covered business method patent review, claim terms are given
`
`their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification in which 4
`they appear and the understanding of others skilled in the relevant art. See
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.300(b); see also In re Cuozzo Speed Techs, LLC, No. 2014-
`
`1301,2015 WL 448667, at *7 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 4, 2015) (“We conclude that
`
`Congress implicitly adopted the broadest reasonable interpretation standard
`
`in enacting the AIA.”). Applying that standard, we interpret the claim terms
`
`of the ’598 patent according to their ordinary and customary meaning in the
`
`context of the patent’s written description. See In re Translogic Tech, Inc,
`
`
`
`CBM2014-00193
`
`Patent 8,061,598 B2
`
`504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). For purposes ofthis decision, we
`
`construe the claim term “use rule.”
`
`The term “use rule” is recited in independent claim 1. Neither party
`
`proposes a construction of “use rule.” The ’598 patent describes “use rules”
`as “for controlling access to the stored content” (Ex. 1001, Abstract) and as
`“indicating permissible use of data stored on the carrier”'(id. at 9:14-16).
`
`The ’598 patent also describes “evaluating the use status data using the use
`rules to determine whether‘access to the stored data is permitted.” 1d. at
`
`6:38-40; see also. id. at 21 :48-53 (“[E]ach content data item has an
`
`associated use rule to specify under what conditions a user of the smart Flash
`
`card is allowed access to the content data item”). Accordingly, for purposes
`'of this decision, we construe “use rule” as “a rule specifying a condition
`
`under which access to content is permitted.”
`
`B. Covered Business Method Patent
`Section 18 of the AIA provides for the creation of a transitional
`
`program for reviewing covered business method patents. A “covered
`
`business method patent” is a patent that “claims aimethod 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); see 37 C.F.R. §42.301(a). A patent need have only one
`claim directed to a covered business method to be eligible for review. See
`Transitional Program for Covered Business Method Patents4Definitions of
`
`Covered Business Method Patent and Technological Invention; Final Rule,
`
`77 Fed. Reg. 48,734, 48,736 (Aug. 14, 2012) (“GEM Rules”) (Comment 8).
`
`
`
`CBM2014—00193
`
`Patent 8,061,598 BZ
`
`1. Financial Product or Service
`
`Petitioner asserts that “the purported data carrier and payment
`
`validation system of claim 7 unquestionably are used for data processing in
`
`the practice, administration and management of financial products and
`services; specifically, for processing payments for data downloads.” Pet. 8.
`
`.
`
`Basedon this record, we agree with Petitioner that the subject matter recited
`
`by claim 7 is directed to activities that are financial in nature, namely data
`
`access conditioned on payment validation. Claim 7 recites “payment data
`
`' memory to store payment data and code to provide the payment data to a
`
`. payment validation system.” We are persuaded that payment validation is a
`financial activity, and conditioning data access based on payment validation
`
`amounts to a financial service; This is consistent with the Specification of
`the ’598 patent, which confirms claim 7’s connection to financial activities
`
`by. stating that the invention “relates to a portable data carrier for storing and
`
`paying for data.” Ex. 1001, 1:21—23. The Specification also states
`
`repeatedly that the disclosed invention involves managing access to data.
`
`based on payment validation. See, e.g‘., Ex. 1001, 1:59—67; 6:60—64; 20:50—
`54.
`'
`I
`'
`
`- Patent owner disagrees that Claim 7 satisfies the financial-in-nature
`‘ requirement ofAIA § 18(d)(1), arguing that the section should be interpreted
`
`narrowly to cover only technology used specifically in the financial or
`
`banking industry. Prelim. Resp. 3—7. Patent Owner cites to various portions
`
`of the legislative history as support for its proposed interpretation.
`
`Id.
`
`Although we agree with Patent Owner that the statutory language
`
`controls whether a patent is eligible for a covered business method patent
`
`review, we do not agree that'the phrase “financial product or service” is as
`
`
`
`CBM2014-00193
`
`Patent 8,061,598 B2
`
`limited as Patent Owner proposes. The AIA does not include as a.
`prerequisite for covered business method patent review, .a “nexus” to a
`
`“financial business,” but rather 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)(l). Further, contrary to Patent Owner’s view of the legislative
`, history, the legislative history indicates that the phrase “financial product or
`service” is not limited to the products or services of the “financial services
`industry,” and is to be interpreted broadly. CBM Rules, 77 Fed. Reg. at
`48,735-36. For example, the “legislative history explains that the definition
`of covered business method patent was drafted to encompass patents
`
`‘claiming activities that are financial in nature, incidental to a financial
`
`activity or complementary to a financial activity.” [(1. (citing 157 Cong.
`
`Rec. $5432 (daily ed. Sept. 8, 201 1) (statement ofSen. Schumer)).
`In addition, Patent Owner asserts that claim 7 is not directed to an
`apparatus or method that is financial in nature because claim 7 “omits the
`
`specifics of how payment is made.” Prelim. Resp. 7. We are not persuaded
`
`by this argumentbecause § 18(d)(1) of the AIA does not include such a
`
`requirement, nor does Patent Owner point to any other authority that makes
`such a requirement. Prelim. Resp. 7. We determine that because payment is
`required by claim 7, as Patent Owner acknowledges, the financial in nature _
`
`requirement of§ 18(d)(1) is satisfied. '
`For the reaSons stated above, and based on the particular facts of this
`
`proceeding, we conclude that the ’598 patent includes at least one claim that
`
`meets the financial in nature requirement of§ 18(d)(l) ofthe AIA.
`
`
`
`CBM2014-00193
`
`Patent 8,061,598 B2
`
`2. Exclusion for Technological Inventions
`Petitioner asserts that claim 7 does not fall within §_ 18(d)(1)’s ‘
`exclusion for “technological inventions.” Pet." 10—12.
`In particular,
`. Petitioner argues that claim 7 does not recite a technological feature that is
`
`novel and unobvious, or solve a technical problem using a technical solution.
`
`Id. Patent Owner disagrees and argues that claim 7, as a whole, recites at
`
`least one technological feature that is novel and unobvious over the prior art.
`Prelim. Resp. 8-9.
`0
`We. are persuaded that claim 7 as a whole does not recite a
`
`technological feature that is novel and unobvious over the prior art. For
`
`example, claim l,’on which claim 7 depends, recites only limitations such as
`93 £6
`77 4‘
`
`“interface,
`
`content data memory,
`
`use rule memory,” “program store,”
`
`“processor,” “code for storing,” and “code to provide” data, which are not
`novel and unobvious. Claim 7 also recites a “payment validation system.”
`The Specification, however, discloses that the required payment validation
`
`system may be one that is already in use or otherwise commercially
`
`available. For example, “[t]he payment validation system may be part ofthe
`
`data supplier’s computer systems or it may be a separate e-payment system.”
`
`Ex. 1001, 8:63—65; see id. at 13:35—47.
`
`In addition, the ’_598'patent makes clear that the asserted novelty of
`the invention is not in any specific improvement of software or hardware,
`but in the method of controlling access to data.’ For example, the ”598 patent
`states that “there is an urgent need to find a way to address the problem of
`
`I
`
`data piracy” (id. at 1:52—55), while acknowledging that the “physical
`
`embodiment of the system is not critical and a skilled person will understand
`
`that the terminals, data processing systems and the like can all take a variety
`
`
`
`CBM2014-00193
`
`Patent 8,061,598 B2
`
`of forms” (id. at 12:29—32). Thus, we determine-that claim 7 is merely the
`
`recitation of a combination of known technologies, which indicates that it is
`not a patent for a technological invention. See Office Patent Trial Practice
`
`Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,764 (Aug. 14, 2012).
`
`Patent Owner also argues that claim 7 falls within § 18(d)(l)’s
`exclusion for “technological inventions” because it is directed toward
`
`solving the technological problem of “storing at least one content data item
`
`in the content data memory and at least one use rule in the use rule memory”
`
`with the technological solution of“code for storing at least one content data
`
`item in the content data memory and at least one use rule in the use rule
`memory.” Prelim. Resp. 8. We are not persuaded by this argument because,
`
`as Petitioner argues, the problem being solved by claim 7 is a business
`problemudata piracy. Pet.
`1 1—12. For example,'the Specification states
`that “[b]inding the data access and payment together allows the legitimate
`
`owners of the data to make the data available themselves over the internet
`without fear of loss of revenue, thus undermining the position of data
`
`_ pirates.” Ex. 1001, 2:11—15. Thus, based on the particular facts of this
`
`proceeding, we conclude that claim 7 does not recite a technological
`
`invention and is eligible for a covered business method patent review.
`
`3. Conclusion
`
`In view ‘ofthe foregoing, we conclude that the ’598 patent is a covered
`
`business method patent under AlA § 18(d)(l) and is eligible for review
`
`using the transitional covered business method patent program.
`
`C. 35 use. § 101
`
`' Petitioner challenges claim 7 as directed to patent-ineligible subject
`
`matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Pet. 20—32. Petitioner asserts that the
`
`10
`
`
`
`CBM2014-00193
`
`Patent 8,061,598 B2
`
`challenged claim is directed to an abstract idea without additional elements
`\that transform the claims into a patent-eligible applicationiol‘ that idea.
`Id.
`Specifically, Petitioner argues that the. challenged claim is directed to the
`
`abstract idea of “enabling limited use of paid-for/licensed content.” 'Pet. 23.
`Patent Owner argues that the challenged claim is directed to a more
`
`narrow invention than that asserted by Petitioner. Prelim. Resp. 12—13.
`
`Patent Owner specifically cites to the limitations “code for storing at least '
`
`one content data item in the content data memory and at least one use rule in
`the use rule memory” and “code to provide the payment data to a payment
`
`validation system”.as evidence that claim .7 “is not preemptory as asserted
`land is, at least for that reason, directed to statutory subject matter.” Id.
`
`Based on the analysis of the challenged claims using the two-step process set
`
`forth in Alice Corp. Pty, Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, 134 S. Ct. 2347
`
`(2014), as discussed below, we agree with Samsung that claim 7 ofthe ’598
`patent is more likely than not directed to patent-ineligible subject matter.
`-
`Under 35 U.S.C. § 101, we must first identify whether an invention
`
`fits within one of the four statutorily provided categories of patent-
`eligibility: “procesSes, machines, manufactures, and'compositions of '
`
`matter.” Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 713—714 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2014). Here, the challenged claim recites a “machine,” i.'e., a “portable data
`
`carrier,” under § 101. Section 101, however, “contains an important implicit
`
`exception [to subject matter eligibility]: Laws of nature, natural phenomena,
`and abstract ideas are not patentable.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2354 (citing
`
`Assoc. for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad. Genetics, Inc., 133 S. Ct. 2107,
`
`21 16 (2013) (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted)).
`
`11
`
`
`
`CBM2014—00193
`
`Patent 8,061,598 B2
`
`We are persuaded that the challenged claim is more likely than not
`
`drawn to a patent—ineligible abstract idea.
`
`In Alice, the Supreme Court
`
`reiterated the framework set' forth previously in Mayo Collaborative Servs.
`
`v. Prometheus Labs, 132 S. Ct. 1289, 1293 (2012), “for distinguishing
`
`patents that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas
`
`from those that claim patent-eligible applications of those concepts.” Alice,
`134 S. Ct. at 2355. The first step in the analysis is to “determine whether the
`claims at. issue are directed to one ofthose patent-ineligible concepts.” 1d.
`
`lfso, the second step in the analysis is to consider the elements of the claim
`3”
`
`“individually and ‘as an ordered combination
`3“
`
`to determine whether there
`
`transform the nature of the claim’ into a
`are additional elements that
`‘ patent—eligible application.” Id. (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 129'], 1297).
`
`g
`
`In other words, the second step isto “search for an ‘inventiVe concept’—i.e.,
`
`an element or combination of elements that is ‘sufficient to ensure that the
`patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the
`
`I
`
`[ineligible concept] itself.” 1d. (brackets in original) (quoting Mayo, 132 S.
`
`Ct. at 1294).
`
`Petitioner contends that the challenged claim is directed to “the
`
`abstract idea of enabling limited use of paid-for/licensed content.” Pet. 23.
`As discussed above, the ’598 patent discusses addressing recording industry
`concerns of data pirates offering unauthorized access to widely available
`
`compressed audio recordings. Ex. 1001, 1:20—55. The ’598 patent proposes
`
`to solve this problem by restricting access to data on a portable data carrier
`
`based upon payment validation. Ex. 1001, 1:59—2:4. The ’598 patent makes
`
`clear that the heart of the claimed Subject matter is restricting access to
`
`stored data based on supplier-defined access rules and validation of
`
`'12
`
`
`
`CBM2014—00193
`
`Patent 8,061,598 B2
`
`payment.
`
`Id. at 1:59—2:15. We are persuaded, on this record, that the
`
`claimed “portable data carrier,” is directed to an abstract idea. See Alice,
`
`134 S. Ct. at 2356 (holding that the concept of interrnediated settlement at
`
`issue in Alice was an abstract idea); Accenture Global Servs., GmbH v.
`
`Guidewire Software, Inc, 728 F.3d 1336, 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (holding the
`
`abstract idea at the heart of a system claim to be “generating tasks [based on]
`
`rules .
`
`to be completed upon the occurrence of an event”).
`Turning to the second step of the analysis, we look for additional
`
`elements that can “transform the nature ofthe claim” into a patent-eligible
`application of an abstract idea. Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1297. On thisirecord,
`we are not persuaded that claim 7 Ofthe 5’598 patent adds an inventive
`
`concept sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to
`. significantly more than a patent on the abstract idea itself. Alice, 134 S. Ct.
`
`at 2355; see Aecenture Global Servs.,'728 F.3d at 1345 (holding claims
`
`directed to the abstract idea of “generating tasks [based on] rules .
`.
`. to be
`completed upon the occurrence of an event” to be unpatentable 'even when
`
`applied in a computer environment and within the insurance industry). The
`
`specification treats as well-known all potentially technical additions to the
`73 46
`53 6‘
`
`claim, including “interface,
`99 LC
`
`content data memory,
`” (C
`
`use rule memory,”
`
`“program store,
`
`processor,
`
`code for storing,” and “COde to provide” '
`
`data. The linkage of existing hardware devices to existing payment
`
`“4
`validation processes and supplier-defined access rules appear to be well-
`
`understood, routine, conventional activit[ies]’ previously known to the
`
`'
`
`industry.” Alice, 134 s. Ct. at 2359; Mayo, 132 s. Ct. at 1294.
`
`‘ Having considered the information provided in the Petition and the
`
`Preliminary Response, we are persuaded that Petitioner has demonstrated
`
`'.13
`
`
`
`CBM2014-00193
`
`Patent 8,061,598 B2
`
`that it is more likely than not that the challenged claim is‘unpatentable under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 101;
`
`D. Obviousness over Gruse, Stefik ’235 and Stefik '980
`
`Petitioner argues that claim 7 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 103(a) as obvious over Gruse and StefiknPet. 32—57.
`
`The ’598 patent claims priority to international PCT Application No.
`
`GB00104110 (“the ’110 Appln”), filed on October 25, 2000, which claims
`priority to UK Application No. 99252272 (“the GB application”), filed on
`October 25,~ 1999. Ex. 1001, 126—16. Gruse was published February 24,
`
`2000. Ex. 1006, 1.
`
`Petitioner’s § 103 challenge is based on a combination that includes
`
`Gruse. Pet. 32—57. According to Petitioner,,Gruse is prior art to the
`Challenged Claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)7 because the date of its
`
`- publication—February 24, 2000—is before the earliest filing date to which ;
`
`the Challenged Claims are entitled—October 25, 2000 (the filing date of
`
`7110 Appln.). Pet. 4, 20. Petitioner’s position is that the Challenged Claims
`lack'written description support in the GB application.
`Id. at 15—20. See
`Tech. Licensing Corp. v. Videotek, Inc, 545 F.3d 1316, 1327 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2008); Ariad Pharms. v. Eli Lilly and C0.., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2010) (en bane).
`
`Petitioner contends the GB application does not provide written
`
`description support for'independent claim 1 and dependent claim 7. Pet. 19.— h
`
`20. Without the benefit of the GB application, Gruse is prior art to the
`
`7 The ’598 patent was filed prior to the effective date of the AIA § 102
`(March 16, 2013) and is governed by pre—AIA § 102(a). AlA § 3(n)(l).
`
`‘14
`
`
`
`CBM2014-00193
`
`Patent 8,061,598 B2
`
`challenged claims. Generally, Petitioner contends “the [GB application]’s8
`
`scant disclosure fails to support many limitations recited in the Challenged
`
`Claims”. 10’. at 19. Specifically, Petitioner argues that the GB application
`
`does not support a limitation recited in claim 1, or a limitation recited in
`
`claim 7. 1d. at 19—20.
`
`g
`
`The priority dispute between the parties focuses on whether the GB
`
`application sufficiently supports the followingtlimitations:
`
`(1) “portable data
`
`carrier comprising .
`
`.
`
`.
`
`; content data memory
`
`for storing one or more
`
`content data items on the carrier; use rule memory to store one or more use
`
`rules for said one or more content items...” (claim 1); and (2) “payment data ‘
`
`memory to store payment data and code to provide the payment data to a
`
`payment validation system” (claim 7). 1d. at 19—20. Patent Owner argues
`
`that claims 1 and 7 are supported by'the GB application because the features
`alleged to be missing are disclosed in the GB application. Prelim. Resp. 17—
`
`18.
`
`‘ With respect to the “content data memory” and “use rule memory”
`
`recited in claim 1, Patent Owner argues the limitations are supported by the
`following. disclosure in the GB‘application:
`In one embodiment the data storage means is powered by the
`retrieval device when it is connected to the device and retains a
`
`memory of the downloaded data when it is unpowered.
`
`The data storage means and/or the retrieval device can. be
`provided with access control means to prevent unauthorised
`access to the downloaded data. Alternatively,
`this access
`control means can be used to stop or provide only limited
`access of the user to the downloaded data in accordance with
`
`8 Referred to herein as “the GB' application.”
`
`15
`
`
`
`CBM2014-00193
`
`Patent 8,061,598 BZ
`
`the amount paid. Thus, for example, a complete set of data
`information relating to-a particular topic, a particular music
`track, or a particular software package might be downloaded,
`although access to part of the data set might
`thereafter be
`controlled by payments made by a user at a later stage. Thus, a
`user could pay to enable an extra level on a game or to enable
`further tracks of an album.
`
`Prelim. Resp. 17—18 (quoting Ex. 1008, 3—4). We are persuaded that this
`
`disclosure provides adequate support for the disputed limitations.
`Petitioner acknowledges that the GB application discloses that “access
`
`control information may be stored with the downloaded data or in separate
`storage area, for examplein the payment validation means” (Ex. 1008, 4),
`
`but argues that the disclosed payment validation means is “away from the
`
`data carrier” and, therefore, “this description does not support storage of
`
`c0ntent data and use rules on the same data carrier.” Pet. 19—20. We
`
`disagree.
`
`Claim 1 of the GB application, for example, indicates that the
`“payment validation means” is part of the “data storage means” that stores
`
`“downloaded data.” Ex. 1008, 9. The GB application also discloses that
`“[t]he combination of the payment validation meanswith the data storage
`
`,
`
`means allows the access to the downloaded data which is to be stored by the
`
`data storage means, to be made conditional upon checked and validated
`
`, payment being made for the data.” 1d. at 8.
`
`In addition, the GB application
`
`discloses card 30—i.e., the “portable data carrier” recited in claim 1——thatl
`
`has one set of contacts for interfacing with a payment validation means and .
`
`Id. at 12 (“On
`I another set of contacts for interfacing with downloaded data.
`the card (30) are two sets of contacts, contacts (32) for interfacing With the .
`
`payment validation means and contacts (34) for interfacing with the memory
`
`16
`
`
`
`CBM2014-00193 _
`Patent 8,061,598 32
`
`for storing downloaded data”). Based on the disclosure described above,
`
`. we are persuaded that the GB application “reasonably conveys to those
`
`skilled in the art that the inventor had possession” of claim '1 ’3 “portable data
`
`carrier comprising .
`
`.
`
`.
`
`; content data memory
`
`for storing one or more
`
`content data items on the carrier; use rule memory to store one or more use
`
`rules for said one or morecontent items...” Ariaa’ Pharms., 598 F.3d at
`
`1351.
`
`With respect to “payment data memory to store payment data and
`code to provide the payment data to a payment validation system,” recited in
`claim 7, Petitionerehas not sufficiently persuaded us that the GB application
`
`likewise does not provide adequate written description support. Specifically,
`
`the GB application disclose a card with a payment validation means
`accessible by means an interface separate from the interface for downloaded
`
`data. ‘Ex. 1008, 12. The payment validation means stores payment data,
`
`such as electronic cash, and provides that payment data to a payment
`
`validation system. 1d. at 8, 10. For example, the GB application discloses
`
`that
`
`for example,’ means to
`The payment validation means is,
`validate payment with an external authority such as a bank or
`building society. The combination of the payment validation
`means with the data storage means'allows the access to the
`downloaded data which is to be stored by the data storage
`means,
`to be made conditional upon checked and validated
`payment being made for the data
`
`‘
`
`In one embodiment of the invention however, the payment
`validation means comprises e-cash —
`that
`is
`the. payment
`validation means stores transaction value information on a cash
`value of transactions validatable by the data storage means.
`In
`simple terms, the data storage means can be a card which is
`
`17
`
`
`
`CBM2014-00193
`
`Patent 8,061,598 B2
`
`charged up to a desired cash value (if necessary limited to a
`maximum value) at a suitable terminal. This might be an
`intemet access terminal but could, more simply, be a device to
`accept the data storage card and to receive and count money
`deposited by the user to charge the card, writing update cash
`value information onto the card.
`
`Ex. 1008, 8.
`
`The terminal can directly validate payment - for example in the
`case of a smart card charged with electronic cash it can deduct a
`cash value from the card.
`1d. at 10. Based on the disclosure described above, we are persuaded that
`the GB application “reasonably conveys to those skilled in the art that the
`
`inventor had possession” of claim 7’s “payment data memory to stOre
`payment data and code to provide the payment data to a. payment validation
`system.” Ariad Pharms., 598 F.3d at 1351.
`
`Therefore, we are not persuaded that Petitioner has shown sufficiently
`that challenged claim 7 is not entitled to the benefit ofthe GB application’s
`filing date. Because we are not persuaded that claim 7 is not entitled to a
`priority date of October 25, 1999,~we are not persuaded that Gruse is prior
`
`art under 35'U.S.C. § 102(a).
`
`Accordingly, on this record, we are not persuaded that Petitioner has
`
`established that it is more likely than not that Claim 7. isunpatentable as
`obvious over Gruse, Stefik ’235, and Stefik ’980.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`For the foregoing reasons, we determine that the information
`
`' presented in the Petition establishes that it is more likely than not that
`
`Petitioner would prevail in establishing the unpatentability of Claim 7 of the
`
`’598 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 101, as discussed above;
`
`18
`
`
`
`CBM2014—00193
`
`Patent 8,061,598 132
`
`The Board has not made a final determination on the patentability of
`
`the challenged claim.
`
`ORDER
`
`, For the reasons given, it is:
`ORDERED that a covered business method patent review is instituted
`on the sole ground that claim 7 is directed to patent-ineligible Subject matter
`under 35 U.S.C. § 101;
`I
`_
`.
`FURTHER ORDERED that the trial is limited to the ground identified
`
`above. No other grounds are authorized; and
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 324(d) and
`37 C.F.R. § 42.4, notice is hereby given of the institution‘ofa trial; the trial
`
`commencing on the entry date of this Order.
`
`19
`
`
`
`‘
`
`A
`
`.
`
`CBM2014—00193
`Patent 8,061,598 82 '
`
`.
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`W. Karl Renner
`
`Thomas Rozylowicz
`FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
`
`CBM39843-0006CP]@fr.c0m
`
`PATENT OWNER-z
`
`Michael R. Casey
`J. Scott Davidson
`
`~
`
`»
`
`DAVIDSON BERQUIST JACKSON & GOWDEY LLP
`mcaseyéDdbjgcom
`isd@dbig.c0m
`
`20
`
`
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
