Paper No. 8
`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`Date Entered: October 24, 2013
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`VOLUSION, INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`VERSATA SOFTWARE, INC. AND
`VERSATA DEVELOPMENT GROUP, INC.
`Patent Owner
`____________
`
`Case CBM2013-00017
`Patent 6,834,282 B1
`____________
`
`Before HOWARD B. BLANKENSHIP, SALLY C. MEDLEY, and
`KEVIN F. TURNER, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`BLANKENSHIP, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Covered Business Method Patent Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.208
`
`Petitioner Exhibit 1006 p.1
`
`
`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`Date Entered: October 24, 2013
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`VOLUSION, INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`VERSATA SOFTWARE, INC. AND
`VERSATA DEVELOPMENT GROUP, INC.
`Patent Owner
`____________
`
`Case CBM2013-00017
`Patent 6,834,282 B1
`____________
`
`Before HOWARD B. BLANKENSHIP, SALLY C. MEDLEY, and
`KEVIN F. TURNER, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`BLANKENSHIP, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Covered Business Method Patent Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.208
`
`Petitioner Exhibit 1006 p.1
`
`
`
`CBM2013-00017
`Patent 6,834,282 B1
`
`
`SUMMARY
`Petitioner Volusion, Inc. filed a petition seeking a covered business
`method patent review of Patent Owner Versata’s 6,834,282 patent pursuant
`to section 18 of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA).1 The Petition
`(“Pet.”) challenges all the claims (1-23) of the '282 patent as unpatentable
`under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Patent Owner filed a preliminary response opposing
`institution of the review. Paper No. 6 (“Prelim. Resp.”). We have
`jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 324.
`The standard for instituting a covered business method patent review
`is set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 324(a), which provides as follows:
`THRESHOLD --The Director may not authorize a post-grant
`review to be instituted unless the Director determines that the
`information presented in the petition filed under section 321, if
`such information is not rebutted, would demonstrate that it is
`more likely than not that at least 1 of the claims challenged in
`the petition is unpatentable.
`
`We determine that the '282 patent is a covered business method
`patent. Petitioner has demonstrated that it is more likely than not that claims
`1-20 are directed to non-statutory subject matter and, thus, unpatentable
`under 35 U.S.C. § 101. However, Petitioner has not shown that it is more
`likely than not that claims 21-23 are unpatentable under § 101. Thus, we
`institute a covered business method patent review for claims 1-20 of the '282
`patent based upon Petitioner’s challenge that those claims are unpatentable
`under § 101.
`
`
`
`1 Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284 (2011).
`
`2
`
`Petitioner Exhibit 1006 p.2
`
`
`
`CBM2013-00017
`Patent 6,834,282 B1
`
`
`THE CHALLENGED PATENT
`The '282 patent relates to a hierarchical representation that consists of
`nodes that are related to one another in a tree-like structure starting with a
`root node. Each node has a label indicative of items in a database. Ex.
`1001, Abstract.
`Figure 3 of the '282 patent is reproduced below.
`
`
`
`Figure 3 shows a tree-like structure having labeled nodes and is said
`to provide “one possible example of a logic and constraint-based hierarchy
`that might be employed in accordance with the invention.” Ex. 1001, col. 4,
`ll. 37-39. Each node may specify one or more constraints that require all
`items falling under the node to have specific values for certain item
`attributes. Each node inherits the constraints of its ancestors. Id. at col. 5, ll.
`3-16.
`
`3
`
`Petitioner Exhibit 1006 p.3
`
`
`
`CBM2013-00017
`Patent 6,834,282 B1
`
`
`
`Illustrative Claims
`1. A hierarchy for representing a plurality of items stored in a
`database, said hierarchy comprising:
`
`a plurality of nodes each representative of a subset of the
`items; and wherein:
`
`each of the nodes is a child of one other node, except for
`a root node, which is a child of no other node and is an ancestor
`of all of the nodes;
`
`a first portion of the nodes each specify one or more
`constraints defining a scope of the subset of items represented
`by each of the first portion relative to their parent node; and
`
`a second portion of the nodes specify no constraints, each
`of the second portion establishing a logical grouping defining a
`scope of the subset of the items represented by each of the
`second portion.
`
`11. A method of representing a plurality of items in a database
`hierarchically, each of the items associated with one or more
`attributes, each of the attributes having one or more values, said
`method comprising:
`
`apportioning the plurality of items into subsets;
`
`representing each of the subsets with a node in a
`hierarchy, each of the nodes being a child of one other node,
`except for a root node, which is a child of no other of the nodes
`and is an ancestor of all of the nodes in the hierarchy;
`
`specifying one or more constraints for each of a first
`portion of the nodes, the constraints defining a scope of the
`subset of items represented by each of the first portion relative
`to their parent node; and
`
`establishing a logical grouping of the items for a second
`portion of the nodes, the logical grouping defining a scope of
`the subset of items represented by each of the second portion of
`nodes, no constraints being specified for any of the second
`portion of the nodes.
`
`
`4
`
`Petitioner Exhibit 1006 p.4
`
`
`
`CBM2013-00017
`Patent 6,834,282 B1
`
`
`COVERED BUSINESS METHOD PATENT
`Related Litigation
`In compliance with 37 C.F.R. § 42.302(a), Petitioner certifies that it
`has been sued for infringement of the '282 patent. Pet. 2-3. Patent Owner
`does not challenge the certification.
`
`
`Used in the Practice, Administration, or Management
`of Financial Products or Services
`A covered business method patent “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). The legislative history of the AIA “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.’” 77 Fed. Reg.
`48,735 (Aug. 14, 2012) (quoting 157 Cong. Rec. S5432 (daily ed. Sept. 8,
`2011)).
`Petitioner points out that the '282 patent explicitly states that “[m]any
`embodiments of the present invention have application to a wide range of
`industries” including “financial services.” Pet. 8; see also Ex. 1001, col. 10,
`ll. 37-43. Patent Owner alleges that the patent does not claim a method or
`corresponding apparatus used in the practice, administration, or management
`of financial products or services. Prelim. Resp. 20-24. Patent Owner does
`not address the explicit statement in the '282 patent concerning “financial
`services” that was pointed out in the Petition. See id.
`
`5
`
`Petitioner Exhibit 1006 p.5
`
`
`
`CBM2013-00017
`Patent 6,834,282 B1
`
`
`Claim 11 of the '282 patent recites a method of representing a plurality
`of items in a database hierarchically. As described in the '282 specification,
`the claimed invention has application in the field of e-commerce, in the form
`of e-catalogs used by potential buyers. A person of ordinary skill in the art
`would have understood that the items that can be displayed to a user may be
`associated with financial services. Ex. 1001, col. 10, ll. 37-43. Claim 11
`encompasses arranging items for display to a user associated with any
`product or service, such as financial services. In other words, the steps are
`not limited in application to any particular product or service. Therefore, we
`are persuaded that at least one claim covers data processing or other
`operations used in the practice, administration, or management of a financial
`service.
`
`Not a Technological Invention
`In view of the “technological inventions” exception of AIA
`§ 18(d)(1), the legislative history of § 18(d)(1), and the definition of
`“technological invention” under 37 C.F.R. § 42.301(b), the Office Trial
`Practice Guide provides the following guidance with respect to claim
`content that typically would not render a patent a technological invention:
`(a) Mere recitation of known technologies, such as
`computer hardware, communication or computer networks,
`software, memory, computer readable storage medium,
`scanners, display devices, or databases, or specialized
`machines, such as ATM or point of sale device.
`
`(b) Reciting the use of known prior art technology to
`accomplish a process or method, even if the process or method
`is novel and non-obvious.
`
`
`6
`
`Petitioner Exhibit 1006 p.6
`
`
`
`CBM2013-00017
`Patent 6,834,282 B1
`
`
`(c) Combining prior art structures to achieve the normal,
`expected, or predictable result of that combination.
`
`77 Fed. Reg. 157 (Aug. 14, 2012) at 48763-64.
`Petitioner submits:
`[C]laims 1-23 do not require, and the inventors did not
`claim to have conceived, any novel computer software or
`hardware. To the contrary, the specification explicitly states
`that the invention is not limited in any way by the hardware or
`the programming or processing environment used to implement
`the software-based invention:
`In particular, the invention is neither limited by the
`types of computers used as servers, nor the
`operating systems, web server, or data server
`application software running on such servers. The
`invention is limited neither by the types of user
`terminals used to connect to the servers, nor the
`type or browser software resident on the terminals.
`The invention is neither limited by the structure of
`the data as stored in the database, nor is it limited
`by the nomenclature used in identifying data types
`and attributes. The invention does not have to be
`implemented using the Internet, but rather may be
`implemented over any network, using any type of
`transmission protocol and display formats.
`(Ex. 1001, Col. 10:25-36.)
`
`Consequently, according to the patent, no specific,
`unconventional software, computer equipment,
`tools, or
`processing capabilities are required.
`
`
`Pet. 15.
`Patent Owner, in response, refers to claims 6, 16, and 21. Prelim.
`Resp. 19-20. However, as Petitioner indicates, at least claim 11 does not
`require the use of a computer and, even if it did, reference to known
`technology such as “databases” is not sufficient to demonstrate that the
`
`7
`
`Petitioner Exhibit 1006 p.7
`
`
`
`CBM2013-00017
`Patent 6,834,282 B1
`
`patent is for a technological invention. Pet. 16 (citing to Ex.1004 at 635
`(legislative history)). Claim 11, at best, recites a known technology
`(databases) such that, even if we were to presume that the method is novel
`and non-obvious, the mere recitation of a database does not render the patent
`a technological invention. Patent Owner’s arguments that allege a
`technological invention are not commensurate with the claimed subject
`matter as a whole of claim 11.
`Patent Owner acknowledges there are two requirements for a
`technological invention; namely, (1) the claimed subject matter as a whole
`must recite a technological feature that is novel and unobvious over the prior
`art; and (2) it must solve a technical problem using a technical solution.
`Prelim. Resp. 14; 37 C.F.R. § 42.301(b). Claim 11 fails on the first prong.
`Even if we needed to reach the second prong of § 42.301(b), we are not
`persuaded by Patent Owner’s arguments (e.g., Prelim Resp. 15 and 20) that
`the claimed subject matter as a whole solves a technical problem using a
`technical solution. The problem noted in the specification is not a technical
`one. For instance, the '282 patent specification highlights the problem and
`importance of representing items hierarchically and claim 11 is directed to a
`method of doing the same. However, representing items hierarchically is
`more of an organizational problem for grouping items together than a
`technical problem.
`
`Conclusion -- A Covered Business Method Patent
`A single claim is sufficient to institute a covered business method
`patent review. In view of the foregoing, we conclude that the presence of
`
`8
`
`Petitioner Exhibit 1006 p.8
`
`
`
`CBM2013-00017
`Patent 6,834,282 B1
`
`claim 11 means that the '282 patent is a covered business method patent
`under AIA § 18(d)(1).
`
`
`CLAIM INTERPRETATION
`During a review before the Board, we construe the claims in
`accordance with the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the
`specification. 37 C.F.R. § 42.300(b); 77 Fed. Reg. 157 (Aug. 14, 2012) at
`48697-98. The claim language should be read in light of the specification as
`it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Am. Acad. of
`Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The Office must
`apply the broadest reasonable meaning to the claim language, taking into
`account any definitions presented in the specification. Id. (citing In re Bass,
`314 F.3d 575, 577 (Fed. Cir. 2002)).
`
`Hierarchy and Nodes
`The claims of the '282 patent contain the words “hierarchy” and
`“nodes.” We do not find any limiting definition in the Specification for
`either term. Therefore, we presume that the words are interpreted in
`accordance with their ordinary and customary meaning in the pertinent art.
`A “hierarchy” may be defined2 as follows:
`hierarchy n. A type of organization that, like a tree,
`branches into more specific units, each of which is “owned” by
`the higher-level unit immediately above. Hierarchies are
`characteristic of several aspects of computing because they
`provide organizational frameworks that can reflect logical links,
`or relationships, between separate records, files, or pieces of
`equipment. For example, hierarchies are used in organizing
`
`2 Copies of the following definitions will be entered as Exhibit 3001.
`
`9
`
`Petitioner Exhibit 1006 p.9
`
`
`
`CBM2013-00017
`Patent 6,834,282 B1
`
`
`related files on a disk, related records in a database, and related
`(interconnected) devices on a network. In applications such as
`spreadsheets, hierarchies of a sort are used to establish the order
`of precedence in which arithmetic operations are to be
`performed by the computer. See also hierarchical file system.
`
`Microsoft® Computer Dict., Fifth Ed. 2002.
`
`
`A “node” may be defined as:
`node n. 1. A junction of some type. 2. In networking, a
`device, such as a client computer, a server, or a shared printer,
`that is connected to the network and is capable of
`communicating with other network devices. 3. In tree
`structures, a location on the tree that can have links to one or
`more nodes below it. Some authors make a distinction between
`node and element, with an element being a given data type and
`a node comprising one or more elements as well as any
`supporting data structures.
`
`
`Id.
`
`Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would interpret a hierarchy as a
`type of organization that, like a tree, branches into more specific units, each
`of which is “owned” by the higher-level unit immediately above. In that
`tree-type structure, a node is a location on the tree that can have links to one
`or more nodes below it. Our interpretation of the terms “hierarchy” and
`“nodes” is consistent with the specification of the '282 patent. See Ex. 1001,
`e.g., col. 7, l. 37 - col. 8, l. 19; Fig. 3.
`
`
`SECTION 101 CHALLENGE
`Under the AIA, any ground that could be raised under 35 U.S.C.
`§§ 282(b)(2) or (3) can be raised in a post-grant review or (with exceptions
`not relevant here) in a covered business method patent review. Patent
`
`10
`
`Petitioner Exhibit 1006 p.10
`
`
`
`CBM2013-00017
`Patent 6,834,282 B1
`
`Owner asserts that § 101 is not available to challenge patentability in a
`covered business method patent review because it is not included in
`§§ 282(b)(2) or (3). However, as the Office described in the final rules
`implementing post-grant review and covered business method patent review
`in the Federal Register, the “grounds available for post-grant review include
`35 U.S.C. 101 and 112, with the exception of compliance with the best mode
`requirement.” 77 Fed. Reg. 48,680, 48,684 (Aug. 14, 2012). This
`interpretation is consistent with both the relevant case law and the legislative
`history. See, e.g., Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 132
`S. Ct. 1289, 1305 (2012) (addressing invalidity under § 101 when it was
`raised as a defense to an infringement claim); Graham v. John Deere Co. of
`Kansas City, 383 U.S. 1, 12 (1966) (stating that the 1952 Patent Act “sets
`out the conditions of patentability in three sections,” citing 35 U.S.C.
`§§ 101, 102, and 103); Dealertrack, Inc. v. Huber, 674 F.3d 1315, 1330 n.3
`(Fed. Cir. 2012); H.R. Rep. No.112-98, at 47 (2011); 157 Cong. Rec. S1375
`(daily ed. Mar. 8, 2011). We have reviewed Patent Owner’s contentions to
`the contrary, but do not find them persuasive. Moreover, none of the cases
`cited by Patent Owner address the specific issue of whether § 101 can be
`raised in a covered business method patent review, except for the Board’s
`earlier decision in SAP America Inc. et al. v. Patent of Versata Dev. Gp.,
`Inc., which is contrary to Patent Owner’s position. See CBM-2012-00001,
`Decision on Covered Business Method Review, Paper No. 36 at 32-36.
`
`Claims 1-10
`The plain language of claim 1 asserts that the claim is directed to a
`“hierarchy.” Contrary to this plain language, Patent Owner postulates that
`
`11
`
`Petitioner Exhibit 1006 p.11
`
`
`
`CBM2013-00017
`Patent 6,834,282 B1
`
`claim 1 is not directed “only” to a hierarchy but is “explicitly directed to a
`hierarchy of nodes representative of items stored in a database.” Prelim.
`Resp. 35.
`However, a claim “must be read in accordance with the precepts of
`English grammar.” In re Hyatt, 708 F.2d 712, 714 (Fed. Cir. 1983). “A
`mere recital of a multitude of elements or steps in a claim is not
`determinative of the invention it defines.” Id. Claim 1 recites a “hierarchy”
`comprising “a plurality of nodes each representative of a subset of the
`items,” with the nodes further being modified by “wherein” clauses. Patent
`Owner alleges that claim 1 “further provides how these nodes are operable
`(i.e. the software behind the nodes)—such that each specifies either one or
`more constraints or establishes a logical grouping.” Prelim. Resp. 35.
`However, Patent Owner fails to explain where software might be recited in
`the claim, or how the “wherein” clauses of the claim might render the
`claimed nodes to be something more than representative of a logical
`grouping.
`A hierarchy comprising nodes is a type of organization that may be
`used to represent a logical arrangement as reflected by the nodes. In view of
`the language of claim 1, the understanding of the ordinary artisan, and the
`'282 patent specification, Patent Owner places emphasis on the wrong terms
`of the claim. Claim 1 recites a hierarchy of nodes representative of items
`stored in a database, which is consistent with the ordinary artisan’s
`understanding that a hierarchy of nodes may represent items, but itself
`constitutes no more than a conceptual framework.
`“Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine,
`manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement
`
`12
`
`Petitioner Exhibit 1006 p.12
`
`
`
`CBM2013-00017
`Patent 6,834,282 B1
`
`thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and
`requirements of this title.” 35 U.S.C. § 101. “[N]o patent is available for a
`discovery, however useful, novel, and nonobvious, unless it falls within one
`of the express categories of patentable subject matter of 35 U.S.C. § 101.”
`Kewanee Oil Co. v. Bicron Corp., 416 U.S. 470, 483 (1974). “The four
`categories [of § 101] together describe the exclusive reach of patentable
`subject matter. If a claim covers material not found in any of the four
`statutory categories, that claim falls outside the plainly expressed scope of
`§ 101 even if the subject matter is otherwise new and useful.” In re Nuijten,
`500 F.3d 1346, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2007). The conceptual framework of a
`hierarchy comprising nodes -- an idea -- is not a statutory process, machine,
`manufacture, or composition of matter. As the Supreme Court has made
`clear, “[a]n idea of itself is not patentable.” Rubber-Tip Pencil Co. v.
`Howard, 87 U. S. 498, 507 (1874).
`Further, the claimed “hierarchy” is similar to other inventions our
`reviewing court has held to be not patent eligible. In Warmerdam, the U.S.
`Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit determined that a data structure per
`se, representing a logical -- i.e., not limited to a physical -- arrangement of
`the contents of a memory was not statutory subject matter. See In re
`Warmerdam, 33 F.3d 1354, 1361-62 (Fed. Cir. 1994). In Ferguson, the
`Court held that claims directed to a “paradigm” -- generally defined as a
`pattern, example, or model -- were not patent eligible because the
`“paradigm” did not fit into any of the four enumerated categories of
`statutory subject matter. See In re Ferguson, 558 F.3d 1359, 1362-66 (Fed.
`Cir. 2009). Similarly, the “hierarchy” as claimed covers subject matter that
`is outside the four statutory categories that define patent eligibility.
`
`13
`
`Petitioner Exhibit 1006 p.13
`
`
`
`CBM2013-00017
`Patent 6,834,282 B1
`
`
`Each of dependent claims 2 through 10 consists of “wherein” clauses
`that, at best, recite intended uses of the hierarchy and nodes of base claim 1.
`Patent Owner’s argument that dependent claim 6 sets forth statutory subject
`matter is instructive. “See also claim 6 (‘. . . a third portion of the nodes are
`leaf nodes, each of the leaf nodes having no children; and said hierarchy
`operable to determine the aggregation of constraints and to generate the
`search rule for each leaf node in response to activation of the leaf node’
`(emphasis added)).” Prelim. Resp. 35. However, the hierarchy described by
`the '282 patent does not “operate” on or “generate” anything. Rather, logic
`operations that are disclosed (but not recited in claim 6) are applied to the
`hierarchy to generate a rule that includes all of the constraints as specified.
`See, e.g., Ex. 1001, col. 7, ll. 18-35. The claims simply do not recite any
`“software behind the nodes” (Prelim. Resp. 35). Under the broadest
`reasonable interpretation of the terms in light of the specification we do not
`include any unexpressed “software behind the nodes” as a limitation to the
`claimed subject matter.
`
`Claims 11-20
`Independent claim 11 recites, aptly, a method of representing a
`plurality of items in a database hierarchically. The recited steps of
`apportioning, representing, specifying, and establishing, in support of
`representing the plurality of items, can be performed by the human mind, or
`with the aid of pencil and paper. The '282 patent describes how the claimed
`steps may be performed by use of a graph drawn on paper (Fig. 3), with the
`nodes being associated with textual information (constraints). See Ex. 1001,
`col. 7, l. 37 - col. 8, l. 35; col. 9, ll. 34-44. A method that consists of steps
`
`14
`
`Petitioner Exhibit 1006 p.14
`
`
`
`CBM2013-00017
`Patent 6,834,282 B1
`
`that can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and
`paper, is not patent eligible. See CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions,
`Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“All of claim 3’s method steps
`can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and
`paper.”).
`Petitioner suggests that all the claims of the '282 patent are drawn to
`the abstract idea of “organizing product-related data to facilitate catalog
`browsing.” Pet. 21. Claim 11, as a whole, can be summarized as being
`drawn to the abstract idea of representing a plurality of items in a database
`hierarchically. The dependent claims (12-20) consist of “wherein” clauses
`that, for the most part, require no more than human thought and perhaps pen
`and paper, consistent with the '282 patent specification. Dependent claim 18
`recites wherein attributes and attribute values “are stored in conjunction
`with” the items in the database. To the extent that claim 18 requires storing
`of items in computer memory, the storing is not a meaningful limitation on
`the recited method of representing a plurality of items in a database
`hierarchically. Such storing is, at most, insignificant extra-solution activity
`that cannot save subject matter from patent ineligibility. See Parker v.
`Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 590 (1978) (“The notion that post-solution activity, no
`matter how conventional or obvious in itself, can transform an unpatentable
`principle into a patentable process exalts form over substance.”).
`
`Method Claims 21-23
`The first four steps of method claim 21 are identical in substance to
`the steps of method claim 11 -- a claim that we have determined to be more
`likely than not drawn to patent-ineligible subject matter. However, claim 21
`
`15
`
`Petitioner Exhibit 1006 p.15
`
`
`
`CBM2013-00017
`Patent 6,834,282 B1
`
`recites additional steps, including: “aggregating the constraints specified by
`a leaf node and its ancestors in response to selection of one of the leaf nodes;
`forming a search rule from the aggregation that includes all items that meet
`the constraints; [and] initiating a search of the database in accordance with
`the search rule.” In the context of claim 21, we read each of the
`“aggregating,” “forming,” and “initiating” steps as being limited to machine
`operation. That is, claim 21 also provides the steps of “displaying said
`hierarchy on a computer terminal, wherein each of said nodes are operative
`to be activated by selecting the node,” and “returning to the terminal a list of
`the items that meet the constraints.” Thus, claim 21, unlike claim 11, is not
`a method that can be performed entirely in the human mind or by human
`activity.
`Petitioner submits that claims 21-23 add the requirement that a
`database be searched and a hierarchy be displayed on a computer terminal,
`adding “nothing more to this abstract concept than the use of a general
`purpose computer.” Pet. 25. “Simply because a computer might facilitate
`the browsing and display of the claimed hierarchies does not mean that a
`computer is integral to the invention.” Id. at 26.
`However, base claim 21 is not directed to an abstract “browsing and
`display of the claimed hierarchies” but includes at least the machine-based
`formation of a search rule and the searching of a database using the search
`rule. Petitioner fails to address all the requirements of the claim. Petitioner
`does not provide a satisfactory showing as to how claims 21-23 may be
`perceived as, more likely than not, failing under § 101.
`
`
`16
`
`Petitioner Exhibit 1006 p.16
`
`
`
`CBM2013-00017
`Patent 6,834,282 B1
`
`
`ORDER
`In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby
`ORDERED that the petition is granted as to claims 1-20 of the '282
`patent.
`FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 324(a), a covered
`business method patent review of the '282 patent is hereby instituted
`commencing on the entry date of this Order, and pursuant to 35 U.S.C.
`§ 324(d) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.4, notice is hereby given of the institution of a
`trial.
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that the trial is limited to § 101 and no other
`grounds are authorized.
`FURTHER ORDERED that an initial conference call with the Board
`is scheduled for 2 PM Eastern Time on November 12, 2013. The parties are
`directed to the Office Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48756, 48765-66
`(Aug. 14, 2012) for guidance in preparing for the initial conference call.
`The parties should come prepared to discuss any proposed changes to the
`Scheduling Order herewith and any motions the parties anticipate filing
`during the trial.
`
`
`17
`
`Petitioner Exhibit 1006 p.17
`
`
`
`18
`
`CBM2013-00017
`Patent 6,834,282 B1
`
`For Petitioner:
`
`Keith Broyles
`keith.broyles@alston.com
`
`Jason Cooper
`jason.cooper@alston.com
`
`David Frist
`david.frist@alston.com
`
`For Patent Owner:
`
`Nancy Linck
`nlinck@rfem.com
`
`Martin Zoltick
`mzoltick@rfem.com
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner Exhibit 1006 p.18
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
