IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`Issue Date: February 12, 2013
`
`Filing: July 29, 2010
`
`Group Art Unit: 705/7.14
`
`Confirmation Number:
`
`Filed Electronically Per 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.6(b)(1)
`
`
`)
`Inventor: Marc Vianello
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`Case No.: Unassigned
`
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`Patent No. 8,374,901
`
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`Application No. 12/846,635
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`For: CAREER AND
`
`EMPLOYMENT SERVICES )
`AND APPARATUS
`
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`MAIL STOP: Patent Board
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S.P.T.O.
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`PETITION FOR POST-GRANT REVIEW OF A COVERED BUSINESS
`METHOD PATENT UNDER § 18 OF THE LEAHY-SMITH AMERICA
`INVENTS ACT AND 35 U.S.C. § 321
`
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 321, the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”),
`
`
`
`
`Pub L. 112-29, § 18, and 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.300-42.304, Indeed, Inc., Monster
`
`Worldwide Inc., and theLadders.com (collectively “Petitioner”) hereby petition the
`
`United States Patent and Trademark Office Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`
`(“PTAB”) to institute a Covered Business Method patent review (“CBM”) of
`
`claims 1-33 of U.S. Patent No. 8,374,901 ( “the’901 Patent,” attached as Ex. 1001),
`
`which issued to Marc Vianello on February 12, 2013.
`
`
`
`- i -
`
`

`

`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`PRELIMINARY STATEMENT ................................................................. 1
`I.
`II. REQUIRED DISCLOSURES ..................................................................... 2
`A. Real Parties-in-Interest ...................................................................... 2
`B. Related Matters .................................................................................. 3
`C.
`Lead Counsel and Back-Up Counsel ................................................ 3
`D.
`Service Information ............................................................................ 3
`E.
`Power of Attorney .............................................................................. 4
`F.
`A Legible Copy of Every Exhibit in the Exhibit List ...................... 4
`G. The Complete Covered Business Method Petition Fee ................... 4
`H. Certificate of Service on Patent Owner ............................................ 4
`III. GROUNDS FOR STANDING - 37 C.F.R. § 42.304(a) ............................. 4
`A. At Least One Challenged Claim is Unpatentable ........................... 4
`B. All Claims of the ’901 Patent Are Directed To A Covered
`Business Method ................................................................................. 5
`i.
`Overview of Claims .................................................................. 6
`ii.
`The ’901 Patent Claims a Method or Apparatus Used
`in the Practice, Administration, or Management of a
`Financial Product or Service................................................... 8
`iii. None of the Claims of the ’901 Patent Are Directed to
`A Technological Invention .................................................... 11
`Petitioner Has Been Sued for Infringement of the ’901
`Patent and Is Not Estopped From Challenging the ’901
`Patent Claims .................................................................................... 15
`Eligibility Based on Time of Filing ................................................. 16
`D.
`IV. STATEMENT OF THE PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED FOR
`EACH CLAIM CHALLENGED .............................................................. 16
`A. Claims for Which Review is Requested ......................................... 16
`B.
`Statutory Grounds of Challenge ..................................................... 16
`C. Claim Construction .......................................................................... 17
`i.
`Prosecution History of the ’901 Patent ................................ 17
`- ii -
`
`C.
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`ii.
`
`iii.
`
`Broadest Reasonable Interpretation .................................... 18
`ii.
`Support For The Broadest Reasonable Interpretation ...... 19
`i.
`V. DETAILED EXPLANATION OF REASONS THAT THE
`CHALLENGED ’901 PATENT CLAIMS ARE
`UNPATENTABLE ..................................................................................... 24
`A. Claims 1-33 Are Unpatentable Under 35 U.S.C. § 101 ................. 24
`Independent Method Claim 1 is Directed to an
`i.
`Abstract Idea .......................................................................... 27
`Independent Method Claim 12 is Directed to an
`Abstract Idea .......................................................................... 31
`Independent Method Claim 23 is Directed to an
`Abstract Idea .......................................................................... 32
`iv. The Remaining Claims are Unpatentable as Abstract
`Ideas ......................................................................................... 33
`The Claims Do Not Satisfy Machine-or
`Transformation Test .............................................................. 34
`B. Claims 1-6, 8-16, 18-22 are Unpatentable Under 35 U.S.C. §
`102 as Anticipated by Puram .......................................................... 36
`C. Claims 1-6, 8-16, 18-23, and 25-33 are Unpatentable Under
`35 U.S.C. § 102 as Anticipated by America’s Job Bank ............... 48
`D. Claims 7, 17, and 24 are Unpatentable Under 35 U.S.C. §
`102 as Anticipated by Rolleri .......................................................... 70
`VI. CONCLUSION ........................................................................................... 79
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`- iii -
`
`

`

`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`Cases
`Accenture Global Servs., GmbH v. Guidewire Software, Inc.,
` 728 F.3d 1336, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2013)..................................................................... 25, 27, 28, 29
`
`Ass’n for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc.,
` 133 S. Ct. 2107, 2116 (2013) .................................................................................................... 24
`
`Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assurance Co.,
` 687 F.3d 1266, 1280 (Fed. Cir. 2012)........................................................................... 25, 29, 32
`
`Bilski v. Kappos,
` 130 S. Ct. 3218, 3231 (2010) .............................................................................................. 25, 34
`
`CLS Bank Int’l v. Alice Corp.,
` 717 F.3d 1269 at 1287 (Fed. Cir. 2013),
` cert. granted, 82 U.S.L.W. 3131 (U.S. Dec. 6, 2013) (No. 13-95) .......................................... 29
`
`CRS Advanced Tech., Inc. v. Frontline Tech., Inc.,
` CBM2012-00005 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 23, 2013) .............................................................................. 13
`
`CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc.,
` 654 F. 3d 1366, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2011)............................................................................... passim
`
`Dealertrack, Inc. v. Huber,
` 674 F. 3d 1315, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2012)...................................................................................... 26
`
`Dell Inc. v. Disposition Services LLC,
` CBM2013-00040 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 5, 2014) ............................................................................... 31
`
`Fort Properties, Inc. v. American Master Lease LLC ............................................................ 26, 29
` 671 F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2012)
`
`Gottschalk v. Benson,
` 409 U.S. 63, 68 (1972) .............................................................................................................. 25
`
`Groupon, Inc., v. Blue Calypso, LLC,
` CBM 2013-00044, (P.T.A.B. Jan. 17, 2014) ............................................................................ 10
`
`In re Trans Texas Holdings Corp.,
` 498 F.3d 1290, 1297 (Fed. Cir. 2007)....................................................................................... 19
`
`Interthinx, Inc. v. Corelogic Solutions, LLC,
` CBM2012-00007, (P.T.A.B. Jan. 31 2013) ........................................................................ 13, 15
`
`
`
`
`- iv -
`
`

`

`
`
`LinkedIn Corp. v. Avmarkets, Inc.,
` CBM2013-00025, (P.T.A.B. Nov. 12, 2013)............................................................................ 11
`
`Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc.,
` 132 S. Ct. 1289, 1293 (2012) .................................................................................... 1, 24, 25, 34
`
`Metavante Corp. v. Checkfree Corp.,
` CBM2013-00032, (P.T.A.B. Dec. 23, 2013) ...................................................................... 30, 33
`
`SAP Am., Inc. v. Versata Dev. Grp.,
` CBM2012-00001, (P.T.A.B. Jan. 9, 2013) ................................................................. 5, 6, 18, 24
`
`SmartGene, Inc. v. Advanced Biological Labs., SA,
` No. 2013-1186, 2014 WL 259824, at *5 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 24, 2014) .................................... 30, 31
`
`Volusion, Inc. v. Versata Software, Inc.,
` CBM2013-00017, (P.T.A.B. Oct. 24, 2013) ................................................................... 6, 10, 15
`Statutes
`35 U.S.C. § 101 ............................................................................................................... 2, 5, 16, 24
`35 U.S.C. § 102 ............................................................................................................... 2, 5, 16, 36
`35 U.S.C. § 321 ......................................................................................................................... 4, 16
`35 U.S.C. § 321(c) ........................................................................................................................ 16
`35 U.S.C. § 325 ............................................................................................................................. 16
`Regulations
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b) ....................................................................................................................... 4
`37 C.F.R. § 42.205(a)...................................................................................................................... 4
`37 C.F.R. § 42.300(b) ................................................................................................................... 18
`37 C.F.R. § 42.301 ........................................................................................................................ 12
`37 C.F.R. § 42.301(a).................................................................................................................. 5, 8
`37 C.F.R. § 42.302 ........................................................................................................................ 16
`37 C.F.R. § 42.302(a).................................................................................................................... 15
`37 C.F.R. § 42.303 ........................................................................................................................ 16
`37 C.F.R. § 42.304(a)...................................................................................................................... 4
`37 C.F.R. § 42.304(b)(1) ............................................................................................................... 16
`37 C.F.R. § 42.304(b)(2) ............................................................................................................... 16
`37 C.F.R. § 42.63 ............................................................................................................................ 4
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1) ..................................................................................................................... 2
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2) ..................................................................................................................... 3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- v -
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`
`Exhibit 1001 U.S. Patent No. 8,374,901
`Exhibit 1002 Complaint in Career Destination Development LLC v. Indeed, Inc.,
`Civil Action No. 13-cv-2486-JWL-JPO (D. Kan. Aug. 26, 2013)
`Exhibit 1003 Prosecution File History of U.S. Patent No. 8,374,901(“File
`History”), Reply to Office Action of November 10, 2011 (Dec. 22,
`2011)
`Exhibit 1004 File History, Reply to Office Action of March 1, 2012 (June 28,
`2012)
`Exhibit 1005 SAP Am., Inc. v. Versata Dev. Grp., CBM2012-00001, Decision to
`Institute, Paper No. 36 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 9, 2013)
`Exhibit 1006 Volusion, Inc. v. Versata Software, Inc., CBM2013-00017,
`Decision to Institute, Paper No. 8 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 24, 2013)
`Exhibit 1007 Transitional Program for Covered Business Method Patents-
`Definitions of Covered Business Method Patent and Technological
`Invention, 77 Fed. Reg. 48734 (Aug. 14, 2012)
`Exhibit 1008 Groupon, Inc., v. Blue Calypso, LLC, CBM 2013-00044, Decision
`to Institute, Paper No. 9 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 17, 2014)
`Exhibit 1009 LinkedIn Corp. v. Avmarkets, Inc., CBM2013-00025, Decision to
`Institute, Paper No. 13 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 12, 2013)
`Exhibit 1010 Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48756 (Aug. 14,
`2012)
`Exhibit 1011 CRS Advanced Technologies, Inc. v. Frontline Technologies, Inc.,
`CBM2012-00005, Paper No. 17 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 23, 2013)
`Interthinx, Inc. v. Corelogic Solutions, LLC, No. CBM2012-00007
`(BJM), Paper 16 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 31 2013)
`Exhibit 1013 File History, Non-Final Rejection (March 1, 2012)
`Exhibit 1014 File History, Notice of Allowance and Fee(s) Due (Sept. 7, 2012)
`Exhibit 1015 SAP America, Inc. v. Versata Development Group, Inc., CBM2012-
`00001, Final Written Decision, Paper No. 70 (P.T.A.B. June 11,
`2013)
`Exhibit 1016 Changes to Implement Inter Partes Review Proceedings, Post-Grant
`Review Proceedings, and Transitional Program for Covered
`Business Method Patents, 77 Fed. Reg. 48680 (Aug. 14, 2012)
`Exhibit 1017 Microsoft Press Computer Dictionary, 2d ed. (1994)
`
`Exhibit 1018 The American Heritage College Dictionary (3rd ed. 1997)
`
`Exhibit 1012
`
`
`
`- vi -
`
`

`

`
`
`Exhibit 1019 File History, Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an
`Amendment (July 29, 2010)
`Exhibit 1020 Metavante Corp. v. Checkfree Corp., CBM2013-00032, Decision to
`Institute, Paper No. 16 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 23, 2013)
`Exhibit 1021 Dell Inc. v. Disposition Services LLC, CBM2013-00040, Decision
`to Institute, Paper No. 7 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 5, 2014)
`Exhibit 1022 PCT Patent Pub. No. WO 01/09772 Al (“Puram”), published Feb.
`2, 2001
`Exhibit 1023 America’s Job Bank: Occupation Search (Copyright 1999),
`https://web.archive.org/web/20000817044913/http://www.ajb.org/h
`tml/emp_menu_ins.html
`Exhibit 1024 America’s Job Bank: Job Seeker Services (Copyright 1999),
`https://web.archive.org/web/20000510045629/http://www.ajb.org/h
`tml/skr_res_ins.html
`Exhibit 1025 Joseph E. Stiglitz, et al., “The Role of Government in a Digital
`Age,” (October 2000).
`Exhibit 1026 PCT Patent Pub. No. WO 01/39078 by Rolleri, published May 31,
`2001
`
`
`
`- vii -
`
`

`

`
`
`I. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
`Inventor Marc Vianello and assignee Career Destination Development, LLC
`
`(“Career Destination”) have attempted to assert their rights to the ’901 Patent
`
`against industry-leading companies for their alleged use of business and recruiting
`
`tools that have existed for decades. See generally, Ex. 1002. Vianello and Career
`
`Destination seemingly assert a monopoly over the basic concept of “matching
`
`employee candidates with job opportunities of prospective employers.” Ex. 1003
`
`at 1. Strikingly missing from the ’901 Patent (and its parent), however, is any
`
`“inventive concept” to make this basic idea eligible for patenting. Mayo
`
`Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289, 1293 (2012).
`
`Foremost, the ’901 Patent merely claims a collection of mental steps, easily carried
`
`out manually, while occasionally inserting the term “computer.” In addition, as
`
`Career Destination itself has admitted, “there were a number of broad-based,
`
`digital job boards in the marketplace” at the time that the ’901 Patent’s parent
`
`application was filed. Ex. 1002 at 8. For example, the ’901 Patent itself references
`
`admitted prior art systems such as Monster.com and HotJobs.com that “collect
`
`information about applicants and provide this information to prospective
`
`employers in various ways.” Ex. 1001, col. 4:18-60.
`
`Attempting to distinguish the claimed invention from these and other well-
`
`known recruiting systems, the ’901 Patent relied on two key concepts during
`
`
`
`- 1 -
`
`

`

`
`
`prosecution, both of which are abstract and also anticipated by the prior art. First,
`
`the ’901 Patent focuses on “providing threshold requirements of the candidate,” in
`
`addition to search criteria, to determine the relevant candidate profiles to be
`
`communicated to a search user. Ex. 1004 at 1. This limitation is neither novel nor
`
`patentable. Second, the ’901 Patent focuses on a “structured format” to store
`
`candidate attributes that amounts to nothing more than a well-known, arrangement
`
`of information that is again unpatentable. Ex. 1004 at 1. As described in more
`
`detail below, neither of these allegedly distinguishing features were new or novel
`
`at the time of ’901 Patent’s priority date.
`
`For these reasons and the reasons explained below, each of the 33 claims of
`
`the ’901 Patent is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Not surprisingly, as
`
`matching candidates and employers is such a fundamental idea, using search
`
`criteria to compare candidate attributes with employer requirements was not new
`
`or novel at the time of the ’901 Patent’s parent application. See, e.g., Exs. 1022,
`
`1023, 1024, 1026. Accordingly, Claims 1-33 of the ’901 Patent also are invalid
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 102.
`
`II. REQUIRED DISCLOSURES
`A. Real Parties-in-Interest
`Indeed, Inc., Monster Worldwide, Inc., and theLadders.com, Inc. are the real
`
`parties-in-interest for this Petition under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1).
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`

`

`
`
`B. Related Matters
`In accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2), Petitioner identifies the following
`
`pending district court and related examination proceedings as related matters:
`
`Career Destination Dev. LLC v. Monster Worldwide, Inc., Civil Action No. 13-cv-
`
`2434 KHV/KGG, Dkt. No. 1 (Aug. 26, 2013); Career Destination Dev. LLC v.
`
`Monster Worldwide, Inc., Civil Action No. 13-cv-2486-JWL/JPO, Dkt. No. 1
`
`(Sept. 17, 2013); Career Destination Dev. LLC v. theLadders.com, Inc., Civil
`
`Action No. 13-cv-2522-JWL/KGS, Dkt. No. 1 (Oct. 9, 2013).
`
`A petition for covered business method review of the ’901 Patent based on
`
`additional grounds is simultaneously being filed by Petitioner. Indeed and Monster
`
`also intend to file two petitions for covered business method review of U.S. Patent
`
`No. 7,424,438, another patent being asserted by Career Destination in the above-
`
`referenced civil actions to which the ’901 Patent claims priority.
`
`C. Lead Counsel and Back-Up Counsel
`
`Petitioner designates Brian M. Buroker (Reg. No. 39125) lead counsel and
`
`Peter Weinberg (Reg. No. 40866) back-up counsel.
`
`D. Service Information
`
`Petitioner identifies service information as: Brian Buroker (Gibson, Dunn &
`
`Crutcher LLP, 1050 Connecticut Ave, N.W., Washington D.C., 20036; (202) 955-
`
`8541; Fax: (202) 530-4200; bburoker@gibsondunn.com); and Peter Weinberg
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`

`

`
`
`(Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, 1801 California Street, Suite 4200 Denver, CO
`
`80202; (303) 298-5901; Fax: (303) 313-2827; pweinberg@gibsondunn.com).
`
`E. Power of Attorney
`
`Power of attorney is being filed in accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b).
`
`F. A Legible Copy of Every Exhibit in the Exhibit List
`
`In accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 42.63, Petitioner has included exhibit copies of
`
`every piece of evidence relied upon or referenced in this petition, prepared in
`
`accordance with the requirements of 37 C.F.R. § 42.63(c) and (d). The exhibit list
`
`includes a brief description of each exhibit in accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 42.63.
`
`G. The Complete Covered Business Method Petition Fee
`
`Petitioner hereby submits the fee of $43,150.00 (USD) in accordance with 35
`
`U.S.C. § 321(a); 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.300(a), 42.304, 42.203(a), 42.8(a)(1), 42.8(b)(4).
`
`H. Certificate of Service on Patent Owner
`
`A Certificate of Service is attached in accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 42.205(a),
`
`certifying that a copy of the Petition and supporting evidence is being served on
`
`the patent owner at the correspondence address of record for the ’901 Patent,
`
`including the date, manner of service, name, and address of every person served.
`
`III. GROUNDS FOR STANDING - 37 C.F.R. § 42.304(a)
`A. At Least One Challenged Claim is Unpatentable
`Claims 1-33 of the ’901 Patent are invalid for failure to meet the patent
`
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`

`

`
`
`eligibility requirements under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Moreover, Claims 1-33 of the ’901
`
`Patent are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 102 because they are anticipated by the prior
`
`art described herein. For the reasons set forth below, it is more likely than not that
`
`at least one of the claims of the ’901 Patent is unpatentable.
`
`B. All Claims of the ’901 Patent Are Directed To A Covered Business
`Method
`
`When considering petitions for covered business method patents, “the
`
`presence of a single [qualifying] claim is sufficient to institute a covered business
`
`method review.” Ex. 1005, SAP Am., Inc. v. Versata Dev. Grp., CBM2012-00001,
`
`Decision to Institute, Paper No. 36 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 9, 2013), at 26. Here, the ’901
`
`Patent qualifies as a “covered business method patent” because all of the claims of
`
`the ’901 Patent are directed to financial products or services. See Ex. 1001at 1,
`
`title (“Career and Employment Services System and Apparatus”). The AIA
`
`defines covered business method patents as follows:
`
`(1) IN GENERAL.—For purposes of this section, the term ‘‘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.
`
`AIA, § 18(d)(1); see also 37 C.F.R. § 42.301(a). Moreover, the term “financial
`
`product or service” is not “limited to the products or services of the financial
`
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`

`

`
`
`services industry as [this notion] ran contrary to the intent behind § 18(d)(1).” Ex.
`
`1005 at 26. Likewise, the PTAB “do[es] not interpret the statute as requiring the
`
`literal recitation of the terms financial products or services.” Ex. 1005 at 23.
`
`Instead, “[t]he 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.” Ex. 1006, Volusion, Inc. v. Versata Software, Inc., CBM2013-
`
`00017, Decision to Institute, Paper No. 8 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 24, 2013), at 5.
`
`“Financial” under Section 18 of the AIA “is an adjective that simply means
`
`relating to monetary matters.” Ex. 1005 at 23.
`
`i. Overview of Claims
`The claims of the ’901 Patent generally recite methods of matching
`
`employee candidates with job opportunities of prospective employers. See
`
`generally Ex. 1001. More specifically, the claims recite the steps of storing
`
`candidate attributes, receiving requests to search either candidate profiles or job
`
`descriptions and determining whether the candidates’ attributes meet minimum
`
`requirements, communicating search results to the prospective employer or
`
`candidate. See Ex. 1001, col. 52:14-54:55. Claim 1 is exemplary:
`
`1. A method of searching a plurality of candidate profiles having respective
`
`candidate attributes and threshold requirements by a computer system having at
`
`
`
`- 6 -
`
`

`

`
`
`least one computer comprising at least one processor and storage medium within a
`
`computer network, said method comprising:
`
`storing candidate attributes received from a candidate in a structured format
`
`on said at least one storage medium in communication with said at least one
`
`computer;
`
`receiving by said at least one computer from a prospective employer at least
`
`one threshold requirement selected from said candidate profiles;
`
`identifying at least one candidate profile by said computer system based on
`
`at least one search parameter received from said prospective employer;
`
`comparing said at least one search parameter with said candidate attributes
`
`by said computer system;
`
`determining by said computer system whether at least one of said identified
`
`candidate profiles matching said at least one search parameter meets said threshold
`
`requirement, and;
`
`communicating to said prospective employer said at least one determined
`
`candidate profile.
`
`Ex. 1001, col. 52:14-35. The same basic steps of the claimed methods are repeated
`
`(with slight variation) across all 33 claims of the ’901 Patent: (i) storing candidate
`
`attributes or job descriptions with minimum requirements; (ii) receiving a search
`
`request from an employer (or candidate); (iii) comparing search parameters with
`
`
`
`- 7 -
`
`

`

`
`
`candidate attributes (or job descriptions); (iv) determining whether the candidate or
`
`job description meets the threshold requirements; and (v) communicating search
`
`results to candidates and/or employers. Ex. 1001, col. 52:14-col. 54:55.
`
`ii. The ’901 Patent Claims a Method or Apparatus Used in the
`Practice, Administration, or Management of a Financial
`Product or Service
`
`All of the claims of the ’901 Patent are directed to a “method … for
`
`performing data processing … used in the practice, administration, or management
`
`of a financial … service.” AIA § 18(d)(1); see also 37 C.F.R. § 42.301(a). First,
`
`the ’901 Patent is classified in the 705 art group, (see Ex. 1001 at 1 (citing “U.S.
`
`Cl. 705/7.14”)), and “patents subject to covered business method patent review are
`
`anticipated to be typically classifiable in Class 705.” Ex. 1007 at 7. The
`
`specification explains that “[a]ny employer that wishes to add job descriptions to
`
`the job database . . . that requires the assistance of the career site operator in
`
`entering its jobs in the career site databases may be required to pay fees for such
`
`assistance.” Ex. 1001, col. 9:37-42. Moreover the specification explains that
`
`“when a career site is operated as a business, a fee is generated when an employer
`
`elects to purchase contact information corresponding to a talent profile.” Ex. 1001,
`
`col. 9:5-9.
`
`Second, the claimed methods are, at minimum, “incidental … or
`
`complementary to a financial activity” because they disclose methods and systems
`
`
`
`- 8 -
`
`

`

`
`
`for practicing job hunting and employer recruiting, both inherently financial
`
`activities. See Ex. 1005 at 23 (finding a patent eligible for CBM review where the
`
`“patent claims methods and products for determining a price and [] these claims,
`
`which are complementary to a financial activity and relate to monetary matters, are
`
`considered financial products and services under § 18(d)(1).”). In fact, all claims
`
`of the ’901 Patent are directed to a method of “searching . . . candidate profiles”
`
`(Ex. 1001, Claims 1-22) or a method of “searching . . . job descriptions” (Ex. 1001,
`
`Claims 23-33) to match employee candidates with job opportunities. For example,
`
`Claim 1 recites a method for searching a plurality of candidate profiles comprising
`
`“identifying at least one candidate profile . . . based on at least one search
`
`parameter received from said prospective employer,” “determining . . . whether at
`
`least one of said identified candidate profiles . . . meets said threshold
`
`requirement,” and “communicating to said prospective employer said at least one
`
`determined candidate profile.” Ex. 1001, col. 52:14-34 (emphasis added). All of
`
`the claims of the ’901 Patent require this “determining . . . threshold requirements”
`
`step. As explained in the specification, “the system compares the parameters of the
`
`talent profile and the job listing involved in the initiating party’s inquiry, including
`
`comparing the minimum required compensation of the talent with the maximum
`
`provided compensation of the job position.” Ex. 1001, col. 10:37-41. Thus, at a
`
`minimum, these claims are directed to methods and systems where job-seekers and
`
`
`
`- 9 -
`
`

`

`
`
`employers may be matched for an employment opportunity based on
`
`“compensation” (e.g., salary) requirements, which certainly relate to “monetary
`
`matters.” See, e.g., Ex. 1008, Groupon, Inc., v. Blue Calypso, LLC, CBM 2013-
`
`00044, Decision to Institute, Paper No. 9 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 17, 2014), at 15
`
`(instituting CBM review where a claim recited “incentivizing the first qualified
`
`subscriber at the source communication device according to the incentive
`
`program,” and “incentives [were] financial in nature, in light of the specification”).
`
`Furthermore, Claim 26 recites the method of searching job descriptions of Claim
`
`23 “wherein said at least one job description is ranked by said computer system
`
`indicating a relative maximum compensation associated with said at least one job
`
`description.” Ex. 1001, col. 54:32-35.
`
`Third, the claimed invention has application in the field of e-commerce and
`
`recruiting, for example, for financial services companies (e.g., firms involved in
`
`the financial services industry) and the job-seekers interested in working thereto
`
`could practice the methods of the ’901 Patent to search for employment
`
`opportunities or recruit professionals. See Ex. 1006 at 6 (“[T]he 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.”). The claimed invention is directed to any employer, including financial
`
`
`
`- 10 -
`
`

`

`
`
`services companies, and said employers can “rent ‘storefronts’ which are sections
`
`of the career site devoted to the particular employer.” Ex. 1001, col. 51:36-43.
`
`For example, the “method for searching a plurality of candidate profiles” recited in
`
`Claim1 could cover candidates searching for job openings in the financial services
`
`industry and/or employers in the financial services industry searching for
`
`candidates. In fact, the ’901 Patent specification specifically enumerates the title
`
`of “Certified Public Accountant” as an candidate characteristic that can be saved in
`
`that candidate’s user profile. Id., col. 12:58-60.
`
`Fourth, matching job-seekers to job openings is a fundamental business
`
`practice directed at marketing candidates and employers to each other—this is
`
`certainly directed to a financial activity. See, e.g., Ex. 1009, LinkedIn Corp. v.
`
`Avmarkets, Inc., CBM2013-00025, Decision to Institute, Paper No. 13 (P.T.A.B.
`
`Nov. 12, 2013), at 15-16 (“Listing items online so that the intended customers can
`
`find them more easily is, therefore, a marketing technique in the sale of products.
`
`Accordingly, the subject matter of claim 1 is incidental or complementary to a
`
`financial activity (product sales).”). In light of the foregoing, the ’901 Patent
`
`includes at least one claim directed to a method or apparatus used in the practice,
`
`administration, or management of a financial product or service.
`
`iii. None of the Claims of the ’901 Patent Are Directed to A
`Technological Invention
`
`The definition for “covered business method patent” under the AIA excludes
`
`
`
`- 11 -
`
`

`

`
`
`patents for technological inventions from eligibility for CBM review. See AIA §
`
`18(d)(2). To determine whether a patent qualifies as a technological invention, the
`
`PTAB must consider 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. 37 C.F.R. § 42.301; see also Ex.
`
`1007 at 4. Moreover, “[m]ere 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 an ATM or point of sale device” will not render a patent a
`
`technological invention. Ex. 1010 at 9-10. Here, the claimed subject matter of the
`
`’901 Patent, as a whole, neither recites a technological feature that is novel and
`
`unobvious over the prior art, nor solves a technical problem using a technical
`
`solution.
`
`a. The Claimed Subject Matter as a Whole Does Not Recite
`a Technological Feature That is Novel and Unobvio