IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`___________________________
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`___________________________
`
`Monster Worldwide, Inc.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`Career Destination Development, LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`___________________________
`Case CBM: Unassigned
`_________________________
`
`PETITION FOR COVERED BUSINESS METHOD PATENT REVIEW OF
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,374,901 UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 321 and § 18 of the
`LEAHY-SMITH AMERICA INVENTS ACT
`
`Mail Stop “PATENT BOARD”
`
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`i
`
`B.
`
`B.
`
`INTRODUCTION ..........................................................................................1
`I.
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES, POWER OF ATTORNEY,
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE, EXHIBIT LIST, AND FEE ........................1
`A.
`Real Party in Interest (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1)) ....................................1
`B.
`Notice Of Related Matters (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2))............................1
`C.
`Notice of Lead and Back-up Counsel (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3))...........2
`D.
`Service Information (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4)) ......................................2
`E.
`Power of Attorney (37 C.F.R. §42.10(b)) ............................................2
`F.
`Certificate of Service on Patent Owner (37 C.F.R. § 42.205(a)).........2
`G.
`Legible Copies of All Exhibits in Exhibit List (37 C.F.R. §
`42.63)....................................................................................................2
`Complete CBM Petition Fee (37 C.F.R. §§ 42.15(b)(1)-(2)) ..............3
`H.
`III. GROUNDS FOR STANDING.......................................................................3
`A.
`Petitioner is Filing this Petition in a Timely Manner After
`Being Sued for Infringement of the `901 Patent, and No
`Estoppel Applies (37 C.F.R. §§ 42.302 and 42.303). ..........................3
`The `901 Patent Qualifies for Covered Business Method
`Review..................................................................................................4
`1.
`The `901 Patent Claims Business Methods Used in
`Practice, Administration, or Management of a Financial
`Service........................................................................................4
`The `901 Patent Does Not Claim Technological
`Inventions...................................................................................8
`STATEMENT OF THE PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED FOR
`EACH CLAIM CHALLENGED..................................................................10
`A.
`Overview of the `901 Patent...............................................................10
`1.
`The Earliest Possible Priority Date is March 19, 2002............11
`2.
`Prosecution History of the `901 Patent....................................11
`Overview of Prior Art References......................................................12
`
`2.
`
`IV.
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`V.
`
`Identification of Claims Challenged, and Grounds on Which the
`Challenge to Each Claim is Based (37 C.F.R. § 42.304(b)(1)-
`(2)) ......................................................................................................13
`Construction of Challenged Claims ...................................................14
`1.
`“Attributes” – Independent Claims 1 and 23...........................15
`2.
`“Threshold Requirements” - Claims 1, 12, and 23..................15
`3.
`“Search Parameter” - Claims 1, 12, and 23 .............................16
`4.
`“Structured Format” – Claim 1................................................16
`DETAILED EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS EACH OF THE
`CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE UNPATENTABLE .................................17
`A.
`Claims 1 and 15 Are Unpatentable Under 35 U.S.C. §112. ..............17
`1.
`Claim 1 is Indefinite Under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 2....................17
`2.
`Claim 1 Lacks Written Description Under 35 U.S.C. §
`112............................................................................................19
`Claim 15 Lacks Written Description Under 35 U.S.C. §
`112............................................................................................21
`Claim Charts Showing Invalidity Under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 &
`103 ......................................................................................................22
`1.
`Invalidity Chart Based on Cooper (“Cooper Chart”) ..............22
`2.
`Invalidity Chart Based on Additional References ...................31
`Claims That Are Unpatentable Under 35 U.S.C. § 102.....................52
`1.
`Legal Standards for Anticipation Under 35 U.S.C. § 102.......52
`2.
`Claims 1-2, 7-9, 12, 17-20, 23-25 and 28-29 Are
`Anticipated by Cooper. ............................................................52
`Claims 1-2, 8, 12, 18, 20, 23, 25 and 29 Are
`Unpatentable Under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as Anticipated by
`Litvak. ......................................................................................55
`All Claims of the `901 Patent Are Unpatentable Under 35
`U.S.C. § 103 as Being Obvious Over Various Prior Art
`References ..........................................................................................58
`
`3.
`
`3.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`ii
`
`

`

`1.
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`Legal Standards for Obviousness Under 35 U.S.C. § 103 ......58
`All Claims of the `901 Patent Are Obvious Over Cooper
`in View of Various Prior Art References.................................59
`a.
`Claims 3-4, 10-11, 15-16, 21-22, 26-27, and 30-33
`Are Obvious Over Cooper in View of Thomas.............59
`Claims 5-6, 13-14, and 26-27 Are Obvious Over
`Cooper in View of Pineda. ............................................65
`Claims 5-7, 13-14, 17, and 24 Are Obvious Over
`Cooper in View of Long................................................68
`All Claims of the `901 Patent Are Obvious Over Cooper
`in View of Coueignoux and/or Other References....................72
`a.
`Claims 1-2, 7-9, 12, 17-20, 23-25, and 28-29 Are
`Obvious Over Cooper in View of Coueignoux.............72
`Claims 3-4, 10-11, 15-16, 21-22, 26-27 and 30-33
`Are Obvious Over Cooper in View of Coueignoux
`and Further in View of Thomas.....................................73
`Claims 5-7, 13-14, 17, and 24 Are Obvious Over
`Cooper in View of Coueignoux and Long. ...................74
`Claims 5-6, 13-14, and 26-27 Are Obvious Over
`Cooper in View of Coueignoux and Pineda..................75
`All Claims of the `901 Patent Are Obvious Over Cooper
`in View of Litvak and/or Other References.............................76
`a.
`Claims 1-2, 7-9, 12, 17-20, 23-25, and 28-29 Are
`Obvious Over Cooper in View of Litvak. .....................76
`Claims 3-4, 10-11, 15-16, 21-22, 26-27 and 30-33,
`Are Obvious Over Cooper in View of Litvak and
`Thomas. .........................................................................78
`Claims 5-7, 13-14, 17 and 24 Are Obvious Over
`Cooper in View of Litvak and Long..............................79
`Claims 5-6, 13-14, and 26-27 Are Obvious Over
`Cooper in View of Litvak and Pineda. ..........................79
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`iii
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`VI. CONCLUSION.............................................................................................80
`
`iv
`
`

`

`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`CASES
`Ariad Pharms, Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co.,
`598 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ....................................................................19, 20
`
`Career Destination Dev. LLC v. Indeed, Inc.,
`Civil Action No. 13-cv-2486 ................................................................................1
`
`Career Destination Dev. LLC v. Monster Worldwide Inc.,
`Civil Action No. 13-cv-2434 ................................................................................1
`
`Career Destination Dev. LLC v. theLadders.com, Inc.,
`Civil Action No. 13-cv-2522 ................................................................................1
`
`In re Trans Texas Holdings Corp.,
`498 F.3d 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ..........................................................................15
`
`In re Yamamoto,
`740 F.2d 1569 (Fed. Cir. 1984) ..........................................................................15
`
`Interthinx, Inc. v. Corelogic Solutions, LLC,
`No. CBM2012-00007 (BJM)................................................................................9
`
`IPXL Holdings, L.L.C. v. Amazon.com, Inc.,
`430 F.3d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ..........................................................................17
`
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007)......................................................................................58, 59
`
`Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad, Inc.,
`481 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ..........................................................................52
`
`STATUTES
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102......................................................................................13, 22, 52, 55
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(a) .......................................................................................12, 13, 52
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(b) .............................................................................................12, 13
`
`v
`
`

`

`35 U.S.C. § 103.................................................................................................passim
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) ...................................................................................................58
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112............................................................................................17, 19, 21
`
`35 U.S.C. § 321(a)(1).................................................................................................3
`
`35 U.S.C. § 321(c) .....................................................................................................3
`
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b) ............................................................................................2, 80
`
`37 C.F.R. §§ 42.15(b)(1)-(2)......................................................................................3
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.15(b)(1)-(4)........................................................................................3
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.203(a).................................................................................................3
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.205(a).................................................................................................2
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.300(b) ..............................................................................................15
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.301 .........................................................................................4, 5, 8, 9
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.302 .....................................................................................................3
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.302(a).................................................................................................3
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.302(b) ................................................................................................3
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.303 .....................................................................................................3
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.304(b)(1)-(2)....................................................................................13
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.304(b)(3)..........................................................................................14
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.304(b)(4)-(5)....................................................................................17
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.63 ...................................................................................................2, 3
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.63(c)...................................................................................................3
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.63(d) ..................................................................................................3
`
`vi
`
`

`

`37 C.F.R. § 42.63(e).................................................................................................80
`37 CPR. § 42.63(e) ................................................................................................. 8O
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.6(d) ..................................................................................................80
`37 CPR. § 42.6(d) .................................................................................................. 8O
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1)................................................................................................1
`37 CPR. § 42.8(b)(1) ................................................................................................ 1
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4)................................................................................................2
`37 CPR. § 42.8(b)(4) ................................................................................................ 2
`
`vii
`Vii
`
`

`

`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`Exhibit 1001 U.S. Patent No. 8,374,901
`
`Exhibit 1002 Complaint in Career Destination Dev. LLC v. Monster Worldwide
`Inc., Civil Action No. 13-cv-2434 KHV/KGG (Aug. 26, 2013)
`
`Exhibit 1003 United States Patent and Trademark Office- Classification
`Definitions, Class 705
`
`Exhibit 1004
`
`77 Fed. Reg. 157 (Aug. 14, 2012)
`
`Exhibit 1005 Declaration of Dr. Martin G. Walker Concerning the Invalidity of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,374,901
`
`Exhibit 1006
`
`SAP Am., Inc. v. Versata Dev. Grp., Inc., CBM2012-00001, Paper
`No. 36 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 09, 2013)
`
`Exhibit 1007 CRS Advanced Tech., Inc. v. Frontline Tech., Inc., CBM2012-
`00005, Paper No. 17 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 23, 2013)
`
`Exhibit 1008 Dictionary of Occupational Titles 186.117-078, Fourth Edition,
`Revised 1991, Published by the U.S. Department of Labor.
`
`Exhibit 1009
`
`Interthinx, Inc. v. Corelogic Solutions, LLC, No. CBM2012-00007
`(BJM), Paper 16 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 31 2013)
`
`Exhibit 1010
`
`File History of U.S. Patent No. 8,374,901, Amendment filed June
`28, 2012
`
`Exhibit 1011
`
`File History of U.S. Patent No. 8,374,901, Notice of Allowance
`dated August 12, 2012, mailed September 7, 2012
`
`Exhibit 1012
`
`File History of U.S. Patent No. 8,374,901, Original Specification,
`July 29, 2010
`
`Exhibit 1013
`
`File History of U.S. Patent No. 8,374,901, Preliminary
`Amendment dated July 29, 2010
`
`viii
`
`

`

`Exhibit 1014
`
`File History of U.S. Patent No. 8,374,901, Reply to Office Action
`dated March 1, 2012
`
`Exhibit 1015
`
`File History of U.S. Patent No. 8,374,901, Amendment After
`Notice of Allowance, December 6, 2012
`
`Exhibit 1016
`
`PCT Patent Pub. No. WO 99/17242 by Cooper et al, published
`April 8, 1999,
`(“Cooper”)
`
`Exhibit 1017
`
`PCT Patent Pub. No. WO 99/01834 by Coueignoux, published Jan.
`14, 1999, (“Coueignoux”)
`
`Exhibit 1018
`
`PCT Patent Pub. No. WO 01/82185 by Pineda, et al., published
`Nov. 1, 2001, (“Pineda”)
`
`Exhibit 1019
`
`PCT Patent Pub. No. WO 00/58866 by Litvak, et al., published
`Oct. 5, 2000, (“Litvak”)
`
`Exhibit 1020
`
`PCT Patent Pub. No. WO 00/28438 by Thomas, et al., published
`May 18, 2000, ( “Thomas”)
`
`Exhibit 1021
`
`PCT Patent Pub. No. WO 01/61611 by Long, et al., published
`Aug. 23, 2001, (“Long”)
`
`Exhibit 1022
`
`The American Heritage College Dictionary (3rd ed., 1997).
`
`Exhibit 1023
`
`The Merriam-Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary (9th ed., 1984)
`
`Exhibit 1024
`
`157 Congressional Record S1360 (Mar. 8, 2011)
`
`Exhibit 1025 Complete File History of U.S. Patent No. 8,374,901
`
`Exhibit 1026 North American Industry Classification System
`
`Exhibit 1027 Complaint in Career Destination Dev. LLC v. Indeed, Inc., Civil
`Action No. 13-cv-2486 JWL/JPO (Sept. 17, 2013)
`
`Exhibit 1028 Complaint in Career Destination Dev. LLC v. theLadders.com,
`Inc., Civil Action No. 13-cv-2522 JWL/KGS, (Oct. 9, 2013)
`
`ix
`
`

`

`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Monster Worldwide, Inc., Indeed, Inc., and theLadders.com, Inc. (the “Real
`
`Parties in Interest,” or collectively the “Petitioner”) petition for covered business
`
`method patent review, seeking cancellation of claims 1-33 of U.S. Patent No.
`
`8,374,901 issued to Marc Vianello (the “`901 Patent”). Ex. 1001. According to
`
`USPTO records, the `901 Patent is assigned to Career Destination Development
`
`LLC, which is currently asserting it against each one of the Real Parties in Interest
`
`in concurrent litigations. See Exs. 1002, 1027, 1028.
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES, POWER OF ATTORNEY, CERTIFICATE
`OF SERVICE, EXHIBIT LIST, AND FEE
`
`A.
`
`Real Party in Interest (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1))
`
`Monster Worldwide Inc., Indeed, Inc., and theLadders.com, Inc. are the real
`
`parties in interest in this petition.
`
`B.
`
`Notice Of Related Matters (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2))
`
`Petitioner identifies the following related judicial proceedings: Career
`
`Destination Dev. LLC v. Monster Worldwide Inc., Civil Action No. 13-cv-2434
`
`KHV/KGG (Aug. 26, 2013); Career Destination Dev. LLC v. Indeed, Inc., Civil
`
`Action No. 13-cv-2486 JWL/JPO (Sept. 17, 2013); and Career Destination Dev.
`
`LLC v. theLadders.com, Inc., Civil Action No. 13-cv-2522 JWL/KGS, (Oct. 9,
`
`2013). Ex. 1002. On February 12, 2014, the Real Parties in Interest filed a
`
`separate but related Petition For Covered Business Method Patent Review of U.S.
`
`- 1 -
`
`

`

`Patent No. 8,374,901, which has not yet been assigned a Case Number. On
`
`February 12, 2014, the Real Parties in Interest also filed a related Petition For
`
`Covered Business Method Patent Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,424,438, which has
`
`not yet been assigned a Case Number.
`
`C.
`
`Notice of Lead and Back-up Counsel (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3))
`
`Petitioner designates Justin F. Boyce (Reg. No. 40,920) as lead counsel and
`
`Jeffrey Plies (Reg. No. 46,999) as backup counsel for this petition.
`
`D.
`
`Service Information (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4))
`
`Petitioner’s service information is: Justin F. Boyce (Dechert LLP, 2440 W.
`
`El Camino Real, Suite 700, Mountain View, CA, 94040; Phone: (650) 813-4853;
`
`Fax: (650) 813-4848; justin.boyce@dechert.com).
`
`E.
`
`Power of Attorney (37 C.F.R. §42.10(b))
`
`Petitioner has attached the necessary powers of attorney.
`
`F.
`
`Certificate of Service on Patent Owner (37 C.F.R. § 42.205(a))
`
`Petitioner has attached a Certificate of Service certifying that a copy of the
`
`Petition and all supporting evidence is being served on the patent owner at the
`
`correspondence address of record for the `901 Patent. The certificate includes the
`
`date, manner of service, name, and address of every person served.
`
`G.
`
`Legible Copies of All Exhibits in Exhibit List (37 C.F.R. § 42.63)
`
`Petitioner has included copies of every piece of evidence referenced in this
`
`- 2 -
`
`

`

`petition (Exhibits 1001-1028). These exhibits were prepared in accordance with 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.63(c) and (d). The exhibit list includes a brief description of each
`
`exhibit, per 37 C.F.R. § 42.63.
`
`H.
`
`Complete CBM Petition Fee (37 C.F.R. §§ 42.15(b)(1)-(2))
`
`Petitioner hereby submits the fee of $43,150 in accordance with 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 321(a)(1) and 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.15(b)(1)-(4) and 42.203(a).
`
`III. GROUNDS FOR STANDING
`
`A.
`
`Petitioner is Filing this Petition in a Timely Manner After Being
`Sued for Infringement of the `901 Patent, and No Estoppel
`Applies (37 C.F.R. §§ 42.302 and 42.303).
`
`The requirements of 37 C.F.R. § 42.302(a) are satisfied because Career
`
`Destination Development, LLC sued each one of the Real Parties in Interest
`
`separately for infringement of the `901 Patent in the U.S. District Court for the
`
`District of Kansas. See Exs. 1002, 1027, 1028. Each one of the Real Parties in
`
`Interest is challenging the validity of the `901 Patent in the Kansas litigations, but
`
`the district court has not heard any arguments on validity issues, and so none of the
`
`Real Parties in Interest are estopped from challenging validity of the `901 Patent on
`
`the grounds raised in this petition. Therefore, the requirements of 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.302(b) are also satisfied. The timing requirements of 37 C.F.R. § 42.303 are
`
`satisfied because the `901 Patent issued on Feb. 12, 2013, and the period for filing
`
`a petition under 35 U.S.C. § 321(c) for post-grant review of the `901 Patent has
`
`- 3 -
`
`

`

`passed. Ex. 1001.
`
`B.
`
`The `901 Patent Qualifies for Covered Business Method Review.
`
`The `901 Patent qualifies for covered business method (“CBM”) review as it
`
`satisfies the requirements of AIA § 18(d)(1). Initially, Petitioner notes that the
`
`PTO classified the `901 Patent in Class 705, titled “Data Processing: financial,
`
`business practice, management, or cost/price determination.” Ex. 1001 (citing
`
`“U.S. Cl. ... 705/7.14”). This classification weighs in favor of CBM qualification
`
`because the PTO has stated that patents subject to CBM review are “typically”
`
`assigned to Class 705. Ex. 1004, p. 48711; Ex. 1003.
`
`In order to qualify for CBM review, a patent: (1) must claim “a method …
`
`for performing data processing or other operations used in the practice,
`
`administration, or management of a financial product or service; and (2) must not
`
`be “for technological inventions.” AIA § 18(d)(1); 37 C.F.R. § 42.301. The `901
`
`Patent satisfies both requirements.
`
`1.
`
`The `901 Patent Claims Business Methods Used in Practice,
`Administration, or Management of a Financial Service
`
`All claims of the `901 Patent are either directed to “searching … candidate
`
`profiles” (see Ex. 1001, claims 1-22), or “searching … job descriptions” (see id.,
`
`claims 23-33). The specification of the `901 Patent (the “Specification”) explains
`
`that these searching methods are performed by “business logic” contained within a
`
`“server” hosting a website, called a “career site.” Ex. 1001, 8:34-38 (emphasis
`
`- 4 -
`
`

`

`added); see also id., 7:64-9:6, Fig. 1; Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 24-26. Use of the term “business
`
`logic” to describe the software that implements the business methods recited in the
`
`claims indicates that the `901 Patent qualifies for CBM review. Id.
`
`Moreover, the Board construes the AIA standards for CBM qualification
`
`broadly, in a way that clearly encompasses the `901 Patent. The AIA states that a
`
`CBM patent must claim “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. The legislative history of the AIA states
`
`that this language is “intended to cover any ancillary activities related to a financial
`
`product or service.” Ex. 1024, p. S1365; see also AIA § 18(d)(1). The term
`
`“financial … service” “should be interpreted broadly,” encompassing “activities …
`
`financial in nature, incidental … or complementary to a financial activity.” Ex.
`
`1004, p. 48735. The Board has held that a patent need not literally claim a
`
`financial service to qualify for CBM review. SAP Am., Inc. v. Versata Dev. Grp.,
`
`Inc., CBM2012-00001, Paper No. 36 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 09, 2013) (Ex. 1006), p. 23.
`
`The Board only requires that claims be broad enough to cover a financial service.
`
`CRS Adv. Tech., Inc. v. Frontline Tech., Inc., CBM2012-00005, Paper No. 17
`
`(P.T.A.B. Jan. 23, 2013) (Ex. 1007), p. 8 (claims covering a method of providing
`
`“substitute workers” for “organizations” held broad enough to include performance
`
`of the same method for financial organizations such as banks).
`
`- 5 -
`
`

`

`All claims of the `901 Patent are at least “broad enough to cover” a financial
`
`service because the Specification describes a preferred embodiment in which the
`
`“career site is operated as a business” where an employer pays “fees” for
`
`information on qualified candidates. Ex. 1001, 9:1-15 (emphasis added). The
`
`Board has explained that “financial” is “an adjective that simply means relating to
`
`monetary matters.” Ex. 1006, p. 23. Because the claims cover methods performed
`
`by a “career site … operated as a business” where an employer pays “fees,” the
`
`claims at least cover methods relating to “monetary matters,” and thus qualify for
`
`CBM review. Id.
`
`In addition, all of the claims recite the term “requirements,”
`
`which includes either the “minimum required compensation” of the candidate, or
`
`the “maximum provided compensation” for the job. Ex. 1001, 10:37-64. Thus, all
`
`of the claims at least cover methods of searching based on “compensation”
`
`requirements, which relate to “monetary matters,” and thus all of the claims are
`
`subject to CBM review. Ex. 1006, p. 23; Ex. 1007, p. 8.
`
`The searching methods claimed in the `901 Patent also constitute services
`
`“incidental … or complementary to a financial activity” because these methods are
`
`used to search for candidates (or jobs) in specified industries, which may include
`
`the financial services industry. Ex. 1004, p. 48735; Ex. 1001, 18:31-21:10.
`
`Indeed, the Specification explains that the claimed methods may be used to search
`
`for a candidate who qualifies as a “Certified Public Accountant [CPA],” or else to
`
`- 6 -
`
`

`

`search for a job listing that requires CPA qualification. Ex. 1001, 12:58-60.
`
`Because all claims of the `901 Patent at least cover methods of searching based on
`
`CPA qualifications, the claimed methods are at least complementary to accounting
`
`activities, which are “financial” in nature. Ex. 1007, p. 7-8 (claims covering a
`
`method of providing “substitute workers” for “organizations” held broad enough to
`
`include performance of the same method for financial organizations).
`
`And although all claims of the `901 Patent are broad enough to cover a
`
`financial service, the Board has held that “the presence of a single claim is
`
`sufficient to institute a covered business method review.” Ex. 1006, p. 26. In this
`
`case, at least claims 3, 10, 21, 30, and 32 of the `901 Patent are sufficient to
`
`institute CBM review as these claims recite use of an “occupational classification
`
`system” to facilitate the claimed searching methods. Ex. 1001, 52:39-41. The
`
`Specification cites to the “Dictionary of Occupational Titles,” which is a book that
`
`classifies occupations in the financial industry. Id., 13:1-14:35; see also Ex. 1008
`
`at 186.117-078 (defining a classification for “Vice President, Financial
`
`Institution.”) So, the methods recited in claims 3, 10, 21, 30, and 32 are at least
`
`complementary to the management of a “Financial Institution.”
`
`Another example is claim 26, which requires ranking of job descriptions for
`
`“indicating a relative maximum compensation.” Ex. 1001, 54:32-35. As
`
`mentioned, the term “financial” simply “means relating to monetary matters.” Ex.
`
`- 7 -
`
`

`

`1006, p.23. Because claim 26 requires ranking of jobs based on “compensation,” it
`
`clearly relates to “monetary matters.” Id. Therefore at least claim 26 literally
`
`recites a method fitting the Board’s interpretation of a “financial service.” Id.
`
`For all of the reasons described above, at least some (if not all) claims of the
`
``901 Patent are drawn to “method[s] … for performing data processing or other
`
`operations used in the practice, administration, or management of a financial
`
`product or service,” thus satisfying the first requirement of Section 18 of the AIA.
`
`2.
`
`The `901 Patent Does Not Claim Technological Inventions
`
`As mentioned, “patents for technological inventions” are excluded from
`
`CBM review. AIA § 18(d)(1). However, none of the claims of the `901 Patent are
`
`for technical inventions. To identify a technological invention, one must consider
`
`“whether the claimed subject matter as a whole [1] recites a technological feature
`
`that is novel and unobvious over the prior art; and [2] solves a technical problem
`
`using a technical solution.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.301. If a single claim fails to satisfy
`
`these two requirements, then the technological invention exception does not apply
`
`and the entire patent is subject to CBM review. Ex. 1004, p. 48736. As explained
`
`below, all claims of the `901 Patent satisfy this test.
`
`First, none of the claims of the `901 Patent recite “a technological feature
`
`that is novel and unobvious over the prior art.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.301. The claims of
`
`the `901 Patent are drawn to simple business methods that have been traditionally
`
`- 8 -
`
`

`

`performed by humans using pen and paper. Ex. 1001, 53:4-23 (e.g., claim 12:
`
`“comparing said job description with … candidate threshold requirements”). The
`
`only structural elements recited in the claims are generic computer parts. Id.,
`
`52:14-54:8 (e.g., claims 1, 12 and 23, reciting a “computer,” “processor,” and
`
`“computer network”). The Board has held that a claim may recite a computer-
`
`implemented process using known techniques for storing information and still be
`
`considered a business method. Interthinx, Inc. v. Corelogic Solutions, LLC, No.
`
`CBM2012-00007 (BJM), Paper 16 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 31 2013) (Ex. 1009), p. 18. So,
`
`the recitation of generic computer parts does not transform the `901 Patent claims
`
`into “technological inventions.” Ex. 1004 at 48763-48764, Ex. 1001. Even the
`
`Specification merely describes generic computer hardware. Ex. 1001, 7:64-8:67.
`
`The claimed combinations of generic computer parts simply achieve “the normal,
`
`expected or predictable result[s]” of the combinations, which further weighs
`
`against finding any of the claims are drawn to “technological inventions.” Ex.
`
`1004 at 48763-48764; Ex. 1001 (claims 1, 12 and 23). Therefore, no claim of the
`
``901 Patent recites a “technological feature that is novel and unobvious over the
`
`prior art.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.301.
`
`Second, the `901 Patent does not claim any subject matter that “solves a
`
`technical problem using a technical solution.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.301. The problem
`
`described in the Specification is not a technical one, but rather a business one. Ex.
`
`- 9 -
`
`

`

`1001,1:15-45 (describing problems of “optimizing individuals' employment
`
`searches” and “optimizing employers’ recruiting and hiring processes and
`
`decisions”). The described solution is also a business solution, and not a “technical
`
`solution.” As explained, all of the `901 Patent claims merely recite the use of
`
`generic prior art computer systems to perform the recited methods. Ex. 1001 (see
`
`claims 1, 12 and 23, each reciting a “computer,” “processor,” and “network”).
`
`These recitations of generic computer parts do not transform the `901 Patent claims
`
`into technological inventions. Ex. 1004, p. 48764. For example, in CRS Adv.
`
`Tech., Inc. v. Frontline Tech., Inc., the Board held that claims drawn to a method
`
`of providing “substitute workers” are not transformed into “technological
`
`inventions” simply by reciting generic elements such as “Internet,” “computers,”
`
`“website,” “database,” and “server.” Ex. 1007, p. 9. Therefore, none of the claims
`
`of the`901 Patent are “for technological inventions.” AIA § 18(d)(1). For all of
`
`the foregoing reasons, Petitioner submits that all claims of the `901 Patent are
`
`subject to CBM review.
`
`IV.
`
`STATEMENT OF THE PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED FOR EACH
`CLAIM CHALLENGED
`
`A.
`
`Overview of the `901 Patent
`
`The `901 Patent relates to an employment website that allows for posting
`
`jobs and resumes. Ex. 1001, Abstract, 9:1-15. Employers and candidates access
`
`the website and create “profiles” describing their attributes and requirements, and
`
`- 10 -
`
`

`

`the website uses the profiles to determine “matches.” Id., 10:10-64.
`
`The `901 Patent has 33 claims, including 3 independent claims (i.e., claims
`
`1, 12 and 23). Ex. 1001, 52:14-35, 53:4-23, 54:4-21. Claim 1 recites a method of
`
`“searching … candidate profiles” based on a “search parameter.” Ex. 1001, 52:14-
`
`35. Claim 12 recites a method of “searching … candidate profiles” wherein a
`
`search request is “associated with a specific job description,” and includes a step of
`
`“determining … whether said job description matches … [a] … candidate
`
`threshold requirement.” Id., 53:4-23. Claim 23 recites a method of “searching …
`
`job descriptions” based on a “search parameter,” including “comparing said
`
`candidate profile with … [an] employer threshold requirement.” Id., 54:4-21.
`
`Claims 2-11, 13-22, and 24-33 depend from independent claims 1, 12, and 23
`
`respectively. The Specification describes an example of “requirements” where it
`
`refers to “comparing the minimum required compensation of the talent with the
`
`maximum provided compensation of the job position.” Id., 10:37-45; 22:43-47;
`
`23:19-23; and 41:27-29.
`
`The Earliest Possible Priority Date is March 19, 2002.
`1.
`The earliest possible priority date of the `901 Patent is March 19, 2002. See
`
`Ex. 1001 (claiming priority to filing date of U.S. Patent App. No. 10/101,644).
`
`2.
`
`Prosecution History of the `901 Patent
`
`During prosecution of the `901 Patent, Applicant argued that the prior art
`
`- 11 -
`
`

`

`does not teach a “threshold requirement” or attributes stored in a “structured
`
`format.” Ex. 1010, pp. 19-22. The Examiner said these arguments “reflect the
`
`Examiner's opinion as to why claims 12-34 and 61-62 are allowable.” Ex. 1011, p.
`
`3. But as explained below, these features are described in prior art references.
`
`Overview of Prior Art References
`B.
`PCT Patent Pub. No. WO 99/17242, by Cooper et al, (Ex. 1016, “Cooper”),
`
`published Apr. 8, 1999, is prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Coope