throbber
Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper 66
`
`
`
` Entered: March 24, 2015
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`WESTLAKE SERVICES, LLC d/b/a WESTLAKE
`FINANCIAL SERVICES, LLC,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`CREDIT ACCEPTANCE CORP.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case CBM2014-00008
`Patent 6,950,807 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`Before JUSTIN T. ARBES, DAVID C. McKONE, and
`GREGG I. ANDERSON, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`ANDERSON, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
`35 U.S.C. § 328(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73
`
`

`

`CBM2014-00008
`Patent 6,950,807 B2
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`
`Westlake Financial Services, LLC (“Petitioner”) filed a Corrected
`
`Petition (Paper 17, “Pet.”) to institute a covered business method review of
`
`claims 1–42 of U.S. Patent 6,950,807 B2 (“the ’807 patent”). On March 31,
`
`2014, we granted the Petition and instituted trial for claims 1–9, 13, and 34–
`
`42 of the ’807 patent on one of the grounds of unpatentability alleged in the
`
`Petition. Paper 30 (“Decision on Institution” or “Dec. Inst.”).
`
`After institution of trial, Credit Acceptance Corp. (“Patent Owner”)
`
`filed a Patent Owner Response. Paper 39 (“PO Resp.”). Petitioner filed a
`
`Reply. Paper 47 (“Pet. Reply”).
`
`An oral hearing was held on November 5, 2014. The transcript of the
`
`hearing has been entered into the record. Paper 65 (“Tr.”).
`
`We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(c). This Final Written
`
`Decision is issued pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 328(a).
`
`A. Related Proceedings
`
`Petitioner has been sued for infringement of the ’807 patent in a
`
`district court case titled Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services LLC,
`
`No. 2:13-cv-01523-SJO-MRW (C.D. Cal.). Pet. 8.
`
`The Board instituted a covered business method patent review of
`
`claims 10–12 and 14–33 of the ’807 patent in Westlake Services, LLC v.
`
`Credit Acceptance Corp., Case CBM2014-00176 (PTAB Feb. 9, 2015)
`
`(Paper 15) (“’176 Decision”). We previously declined to review those same
`
`claims in the present case. Dec. Inst. 20–22. Our rationale for granting
`
`covered business method review in the ’176 Decision was based on
`
`additional guidance received from the Supreme Court and the Federal
`
`Circuit. ’176 Decision 10–12. Case CBM2014-00176 is pending.
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`CBM2014-00008
`Patent 6,950,807 B2
`
`
`B. The ’807 Patent (Ex. 1001)
`
`The ’807 patent relates to a method for facilitating the purchase of
`
`products on credit and a system for implementing such a method, as may be
`
`employed in the sale of automobiles and other vehicles, for example.
`
`Ex. 1001, 1:5–9. The invention is not limited to vehicle sales and also may
`
`be applied to the sale of any products for which a customer desires to
`
`finance the transaction. Id. at 1:9–12.
`
`The ’807 patent describes a system and method for providing
`
`financing to the customers of a dealer to allow the customers to purchase
`
`products from the dealer’s inventory. Ex. 1001, 3:27–30. The system,
`
`implementing the method, generates prospective financing packages for
`
`every item in the dealer’s inventory. Id. at 3:30–32.
`
`Figure 6 is reproduced below:
`
`Figure 6 is an example of a screen displaying several financing
`
`packages. Id. at 5:1–2. According to this example, a financing package
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`CBM2014-00008
`Patent 6,950,807 B2
`
`includes a set price a customer would agree to pay for a particular vehicle
`
`(selling price in column 312), a down payment the customer would pay
`
`(column 314 shows down payment percentages), and an agreement by the
`
`customer to pay the rest of the sale price with interest in a series of monthly
`
`payments (column 324 shows monthly payment amounts and column 326
`
`shows the number of months in the financing term). Id. at 8:40–45, 9:26–31.
`
`A party extending financing agrees to pay an “advance amount” when a sale
`
`is completed (column 316). “[T]he advance amount is determined by the
`
`party extending financing based on the customer’s credit score, the
`
`dealership’s past collection history, the particular vehicle being considered
`
`and other factors.” Id. at 9:21–24. As can be seen, the advance amount and
`
`the down payment together can be less than the sale price – in other words,
`
`the financer might not agree to loan the full purchase price to the customer.
`
`The dealer’s cost for each vehicle is shown in column 318 of Figure 6.
`
`The patent describes two types of profit realized by the dealer. First,
`
`“[t]he front-end profit is the actual profit that the dealer realizes immediately
`
`upon closing a sale with the customer,” and “[p]ut simply . . . is equal to the
`
`down payment amount plus the advance amount minus the dealer’s costs.”
`
`Id. at 8:53–62. This is shown in column 320 of Figure 6. Id. at 9:29.
`
`Second, “[t]he back-end profits are generated by the monthly payments
`
`received from the customer in satisfaction for the outstanding obligation.”
`
`Id. at 8:63–65. As explained above, the purchase price might be higher than
`
`the down payment plus the advance amount. In this case, the dealer receives
`
`a share of the customer’s monthly payments. Id. at 8:65–67. According to
`
`the example in the patent, the dealer’s share of the monthly payments first is
`
`credited towards paying back the advance amount. Id. at 9:2–4. The
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`CBM2014-00008
`Patent 6,950,807 B2
`
`dealer’s back-end profits can be estimated (column 322 of Figure 6) by
`
`“multiplying the total payment amount by the dealer’s percentage share of
`
`collections and subtracting the advance amount” and, if a more realistic
`
`estimate is desired, by taking into account an expected payment collection
`
`rate. Id. at 9:11–17.
`
`C. Illustrative Claim
`
`Claims 1, 34, and 41 are the independent method claims under review.
`
`Claims 2–9 and 13 all depend directly or indirectly from claim 1. Claims
`
`35–40 all depend directly or indirectly from claim 34. Claim 1 is
`
`reproduced below:
`
`1. A method for providing a financing source to a
`
`customer to purchase a product selected from an inventory of
`products, the method comprising the steps of:
`
`receiving information related to a database of a dealer’s
`
`inventory, wherein the dealer’s inventory includes a plurality of
`products, each product having a dealer cost associated therewith
`and a sale price at which the dealer desires to sell the product;
`
`receiving information from the customer including a
`
`down payment amount which the customer has available for a
`down payment towards the purchase of a product;
`
`calculating a credit score for the customer based at least
`
`in part on the information gathered from the customer;
`
`determining an advance amount to be paid to the dealer
`
`from the financing source for each individual product in the
`dealer inventory in the event that that particular product is sold
`to the customer;
`
`calculating a front-end profit to be realized by the dealer
`
`for each individual product in the dealer inventory based on the
`dealer cost associated with each individual product, the advance
`amount determined for each individual product, and the down
`payment amount; and
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`CBM2014-00008
`Patent 6,950,807 B2
`
`
`presenting a financing package to the dealer for each
`
`individual product in the dealer’s inventory for immediate offer
`for sale to the customer.
`
`D. Ground Upon Which Trial Was Instituted
`
`Trial was instituted on the ground that claims 1–9, 13, and 34–42 of
`
`the ’807 patent are drawn to non-statutory subject matter under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 101.
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`
`A. Claim Construction
`
`1. Principles
`
`In a covered business method patent review, claim terms in an
`
`unexpired patent are interpreted according to their broadest reasonable
`
`construction in light of the specification of the patent in which they appear.
`
`See 37 C.F.R. § 42.300(b); In re Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC, No. 2014-1301,
`
`2015 WL 448667, at *5–*7 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 4, 2015). Claim terms generally
`
`are given their ordinary and customary meaning, as would be understood by
`
`one of ordinary skill in the art in the context of the entire disclosure. See In
`
`re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
`
`2. “front-end profit”
`
`“Front-end profit” appears in independent claims 1 and 41, as well as
`
`dependent claims 36 and 40, but not independent claim 34. Petitioner argues
`
`that “front-end profit” should be interpreted to mean “the profit realized at
`
`the time of sale; revenue received at the time of sale minus cost.” Pet. 28.
`
`Patent Owner does not propose a specific interpretation for the term, but
`
`argues that the step associated with calculating a “front-end profit”
`
`distinguishes claim 1 from the abstract idea of financing a purchase because
`
`not all methods of financing would practice the claim. PO Resp. 9–10.
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`CBM2014-00008
`Patent 6,950,807 B2
`
`
`Claim 1 recites in pertinent part “calculating a front-end profit to be
`
`realized by the dealer for each individual product in the dealer inventory
`
`based on the dealer cost associated with each individual product, the
`
`advance amount determined for each individual product, and the down
`
`payment amount” (emphases added). The actual claim language as to
`
`calculation of the “front-end profit” is repeated in the Specification.
`
`Ex. 1001, 3:63–66. “Put simply, the front-end profit, is equal to the down
`
`payment amount plus the advance amount minus the dealer’s costs.” Id. at
`
`8:60–63. “Advance amount” is construed immediately hereafter.
`
`Thus, we construe “front-end profit” to mean “the down payment
`
`amount plus the advance amount minus the dealer cost.”
`
`3. “advance amount”
`
` “Advance amount” appears in independent claims 1, 34, and 41.
`
`Petitioner argues that “advance amount” should be interpreted to mean “an
`
`amount of money given by a lender to a dealer up front at the time a product
`
`is sold.” Pet. 29. As with “front-end profit,” Patent Owner does not propose
`
`a specific interpretation for the term, but argues that the step associated with
`
`calculating an “advance amount” distinguishes claim 1 from the abstract
`
`idea of financing a purchase because not all methods of financing would fall
`
`within the scope of the claim. PO Resp. 9–10.
`
`Claim 1 recites in pertinent part “determining an advance amount to
`
`be paid to the dealer from the financing source for each individual product in
`
`the dealer inventory in the event that that particular product is sold to the
`
`customer.” The Specification describes the “advance amount” as the amount
`
`the party extending the financing agrees to pay the dealer when the sale is
`
`complete. Ex. 1001, 8:45–46. The advance amount may be determined by
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`CBM2014-00008
`Patent 6,950,807 B2
`
`the party extending financing based on the customer’s credit score, the
`
`dealership’s past collection history, the particular vehicle being considered,
`
`and other factors. Id. at 9:21–24.
`
`Thus, we construe “advance amount” to mean “the amount the party
`
`extending the financing agrees to pay the dealer when the sale is complete.”
`
`4. Other Terms
`
`We construed two other terms in the Decision on Institution,
`
`“calculation unit” and “financing package generation unit.” Dec. Inst. 7–9.
`
`Both of the terms related to claims 14–24, none of which remain at issue
`
`after the Decision on Institution. Id. at 20–22. All remaining terms were not
`
`construed expressly in the Decision on Institution. Id. at 9.
`
`Patent Owner now proposes fifteen terms for construction. PO Resp.
`
`34–61. These terms were not previously designated for construction in
`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response. Petitioner argues Patent Owner
`
`should be precluded from proposing interpretations for terms it did not
`
`propose in the Preliminary Response. Pet. Reply 10. Petitioner does not cite
`
`any support for this position. Patent Owner was not required to file a
`
`Preliminary Response; thus, a Preliminary Response was not Patent Owner’s
`
`sole opportunity to propose claim constructions. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.207(a)
`
`(a “patent owner may file a preliminary response to the petition”). Rather,
`
`Patent Owner properly presented its claim construction arguments in its
`
`Patent Owner Response. Petitioner does not propose alternative
`
`constructions in its Reply, nor does it propose any other terms for
`
`construction. We will address each of the terms Patent Owner proposes for
`
`construction.
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`CBM2014-00008
`Patent 6,950,807 B2
`
`
`5. “database”
`
` The term “database” appears in claims 1, 34, and 41. Patent Owner
`
`proposes that “database” be construed as an “electronic collection of data
`
`stored on and/or accessible by a computer.” PO Resp. 34. Petitioner argues
`
`in its Petition that “database” should be construed to mean “an orderly
`
`collection of data.” Pet. 11.
`
`Patent Owner supports the construction with citations from the
`
`Specification including, for example, that the “database [is] configured to
`
`store the inventory of a dealer” and that a server is configured to access the
`
`database. See, e.g., PO Resp. 35 (citing Ex. 1001, 4:17–18). Patent Owner
`
`cites to the Declaration of John Nerenberg (“Nerenberg Declaration,”
`
`Ex. 2008) for what would be understood by a person of ordinary skill in the
`
`art, which tracks Patent Owner’s proposed construction. Ex. 2008 ¶ 40.
`
`We agree that “database” has a meaning to those of ordinary skill in
`
`the art, which is consistent with the Specification, and that the term requires
`
`an electronic collection of data. Thus, we determine that the broadest
`
`reasonable construction of “database” is an “electronic collection of data
`
`stored on and/or accessible by a computer.”
`
`6. “receiving information related to a database”
`
`Claim 1 recites “receiving information related to a database.” Patent
`
`Owner proposes that the term be construed as “electronically obtaining
`
`information related to a database.” PO Resp. 37. Petitioner argues in its
`
`Petition that “receiving” should be construed to mean “acquiring” or
`
`“getting,” and that “related to a database” should be construed to mean
`
`“pertaining to, contained in, or associated with the contents or structure of a
`
`database.” Pet. 14.
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`CBM2014-00008
`Patent 6,950,807 B2
`
`
`Patent Owner cites to several disclosures in the Specification for
`
`various disclosed functions related to the database, including that:
`
`information related to the database is electronic data; and the database
`
`exchanges data with other computer components. PO Resp. 37–38 (citing
`
`Ex. 1001, 5:60–63; 5:67–6:5). Patent Owner cites to the Nerenberg
`
`Declaration for testimony that the financing options described in the ’807
`
`patent need to be done quickly, i.e., electronically and not manually, and that
`
`the person of ordinary skill would recognize access requires “electronic
`
`means.” Id. at 39 (citing Ex. 2008 ¶¶ 42, 46).
`
`Patent Owner’s cites to the Specification are not directly supportive of
`
`its proposed construction, as they pertain primarily to the “database” itself,
`
`which we have construed already. We are not persuaded that “receiving
`
`information related to a database” requires any further construction. The
`
`addition of “electronically obtaining” is unnecessary for a clear
`
`understanding of the claim language, particularly in light of the fact that a
`
`person, i.e., a dealer, is involved. Ex. 1001, 5:60–63 (dealer uses terminal to
`
`access database).
`
`7. “receiving information from the customer”
`
`Claim 1 recites “receiving information from the customer.” Patent
`
`Owner proposes that the term be construed as “receiving over a network
`
`information gathered from a customer.” PO Resp. 40. Petitioner argues in
`
`its Petition that “receiving” should be construed to mean “acquiring” or
`
`“getting.” Pet. 14.
`
`Patent Owner’s cites to the Specification are not directly supportive of
`
`its proposed construction. PO Resp. 40–42. Patent Owner cites to the
`
`Nerenberg Declaration, as it did previously, for the proposition that
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`CBM2014-00008
`Patent 6,950,807 B2
`
`automation of financing options through a computer is quicker than doing so
`
`manually. Id. at 41 (citing Ex. 2008 ¶ 53).
`
`The speed with which a computer may perform calculations is not a
`
`part of the construction of the term at issue. Further, we see no reason why
`
`the claims should be construed to require communication over a “network,”
`
`when the term is not recited in any of the challenged claims (but is recited in
`
`others, such as claim 14, for example). We determine that the term
`
`“receiving information from the customer” is plain on its face and requires
`
`no express construction.
`
`8. “calculating”
`
`Claims 1, 37, and 41 include the term “calculating.” Patent Owner
`
`proposes that the term be construed as “computing via a financing package
`
`generating unit.” PO Resp. 42. Petitioner argues in its Petition that
`
`“calculating” should be construed to mean “ascertaining through
`
`mathematical methods.” Pet. 16.
`
`Patent Owner’s cites to the Specification are not directly supportive of
`
`its proposed construction. PO Resp. 42–44. Patent Owner cites to the
`
`Nerenberg Declaration to argue that “calculating” is quicker and more
`
`accurate than manual calculations. Id. at 43 (citing Ex. 2008 ¶ 59).
`
`The speed with which a computer may perform certain generic
`
`functions, including calculations, is not a part of the construction of the term
`
`at issue. Again, we see no reason why the claims should be construed to
`
`require a “financing package generating unit,” when the term is not recited
`
`in any of the challenged claims (but is recited in others, such as claim 14, for
`
`example). We determine that the term “calculating” is plain on its face and
`
`requires no further construction .
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`CBM2014-00008
`Patent 6,950,807 B2
`
`
`9. “determining”
`
`Claims 1, 9, 34, 36, 37, and 41 include the term “determining.” Patent
`
`Owner proposes that the term be construed as “ascertain or establish via a
`
`financing package generating unit.” PO Resp. 44. Petitioner argues in its
`
`Petition that “determining” should be construed to mean “setting, deciding,
`
`or specifying a numerical value, as opposed to calculating a value.” Pet. 16.
`
`Patent Owner’s cites to the Specification are not directly supportive of
`
`its proposed construction. PO Resp. 44–46. Patent Owner cites to the
`
`Nerenberg Declaration for support that “determining” cannot be done
`
`manually without the use of a computer. Id. at 45 (citing Ex. 2008 ¶ 64).
`
`The speed with which a computer may perform certain generic
`
`functions, like making a determination based on calculations, is not a part of
`
`the construction of the term at issue, and we see no reason why the
`
`challenged claims should be construed to require a “financing package
`
`generating unit.” The term “determining” is plain on its face and requires no
`
`further construction.
`
`10. “presenting . . . to the dealer” and “presenting . . . to the merchant”
`
`Claim 1 recites “presenting . . . to the dealer.” Claim 34 recites
`
`“presenting . . . to the merchant.” Patent Owner proposes that the terms be
`
`construed as “electronically providing to the dealer” and “electronically
`
`providing to the merchant,” respectively. PO Resp. 46–47. Petitioner
`
`argues in its Petition that “presenting” should be construed to mean
`
`“showing” or “displaying.” Pet. 19.
`
` Patent Owner’s cites to the Specification are not directly supportive
`
`of its proposed construction. PO Resp. 47–48. Patent Owner cites to the
`
`Nerenberg Declaration for support that “presentation” of information must
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`CBM2014-00008
`Patent 6,950,807 B2
`
`be done quickly and efficiently to allow review and sorting of multiple
`
`financing packages. Id. at 48 (citing Ex. 2008 ¶¶ 67, 69).
`
`The speed with which a computer may perform certain generic
`
`functions, like automating a process, is not a part of the construction of the
`
`terms at issue. We determine that the terms “presenting . . . to the dealer”
`
`and “presenting . . . to the merchant” require no further construction..
`
`11. “for immediate offer” and “for immediate purchase”
`
`Claims 1 and 2 recite “for immediate offer” and claims 34 and 41
`
`recite “for immediate purchase.” Patent Owner proposes that the terms be
`
`construed as “capable of being offered without further delay” and “capable
`
`of being purchased without further delay,” respectively. PO Resp. 48–49.
`
` Patent Owner’s cites to the Specification relate to the prior process of
`
`submitting financing being “labor intensive, difficult, and inefficient.” Id. at
`
`49 (citing Ex. 1001, 2:51–53). Patent Owner cites to the Nerenberg
`
`Declaration for support that “delay” causes lost customers and waste of
`
`resources. Id. (citing Ex. 2008 ¶ 73).
`
`Patent Owner’s proposed additional language adds nothing to the
`
`ordinary meaning of the terms. Further, it is unclear what is meant by
`
`“further delay,” and how the scope of such delay would be able to be
`
`determined. The terms “for immediate offer” and “for immediate purchase”
`
`require no further construction and will be given their ordinary and
`
`customary meaning.
`
`12. “automatically recalculated”
`
`Claim 2 includes the term “automatically recalculated.” Patent Owner
`
`proposes that the term be construed as “upon modification of input data,
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`CBM2014-00008
`Patent 6,950,807 B2
`
`calculated again via [a] financing package generating unit.” PO Resp. 49–
`
`50.
`
`Patent Owner’s cites to the Specification are not directly supportive of
`
`its proposed construction. Id. at 49–52. For example, that calculations are
`
`performed by the “financing package generating unit” does not require
`
`“automatically recalculated” to include the “financing package generating
`
`unit.” Id. at 51 (citing Ex. 1001, 5:42–44). Patent Owner cites to the
`
`Nerenberg Declaration for support that “the ability to recalculate financing
`
`packages based on altered input data” greatly reduces the time required. Id.
`
`at 52 (citing Ex. 2008 ¶ 79).
`
`The speed with which a computer may perform certain generic
`
`functions, like recalculating a formula based on new data, is not a part of the
`
`construction of the term at issue, and we see no reason why the challenged
`
`claims should be construed to require a “financing package generating unit.”
`
`The term “automatically recalculate” requires no further construction and
`
`will be given its ordinary and customary meaning.
`
`13. “transmitted”
`
`Claim 2 includes the term “transmitted.” Patent Owner proposes that
`
`the term be construed as “transmit[ted] over a network.” PO Resp. 52.
`
`Patent Owner’s cites to the Specification are not directly supportive of
`
`its proposed construction. Id. at 52–54. Patent Owner cites to the
`
`Nerenberg Declaration for support that “transmitted” requires transmission
`
`of information over a network, like the Internet. Id. at 53 (citing Ex. 2008
`
`¶¶ 82, 84 ). Patent Owner also cites to the Microsoft Computer Dictionary
`
`528 (5th ed. 2002) (Ex. 2013) for a definition of transmit: “[t]o send
`
`information over a communications line or a circuit.”
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`CBM2014-00008
`Patent 6,950,807 B2
`
`
`Patent Owner’s evidence does not support that a network is even
`
`required for “transmission.” See Ex. 2013. We again see no reason why the
`
`challenged claims should be construed to require a “network,” when they do
`
`not recite the term, but other claims, such as claim 14, do. The term
`
`“transmitted” requires no further construction and will be given its ordinary
`
`and customary meaning.
`
`14. “generating”
`
`Claims 34, 36, 37, and 41 include the term “generating.” Patent
`
`Owner proposes that the term be construed as “generating via a financing
`
`package generating unit.” PO Resp. 54. Petitioner argues in its Petition that
`
`“generating” should be construed to mean “producing or resulting in.”
`
`Pet. 20.
`
`Patent Owner cites to the Specification, arguing it “consistently
`
`teaches that the financing package generating unit ‘generates’ financing
`
`packages for each item in the dealer’s inventory.” PO Resp. 54 (citing
`
`Ex. 1001, 7:57–62). Patent Owner cites to the Nerenberg Declaration for
`
`support that “generating” requires a “specifically-configured” computer.
`
`Id. at 55 (citing Ex. 2008 ¶ 87).
`
`The speed with which a computer may perform certain generic
`
`functions, like generating financing packages, is not a part of the
`
`construction of the term at issue, and we see no reason why the challenged
`
`claims should be construed to require a “financing package generating unit.”
`
`The term “generating” requires no further construction and will be given its
`
`ordinary and customary meaning.
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`CBM2014-00008
`Patent 6,950,807 B2
`
`
`15. “merchant may select one or more”
`
`Claim 34 includes the term “merchant may select one or more.”
`
`Patent Owner proposes that the term be construed as “merchant may select
`
`on an interface one or more options displayed on the interface.” PO Resp.
`
`56.
`
`Patent Owner’s cites to the Specification are not directly supportive of
`
`its proposed construction. Id. at 56–57. Patent Owner argues that disclosure
`
`of an interface in the Specification supports the construction. Id. at 56
`
`(citing Ex. 1001, 6:54–57). Patent Owner cites to the Nerenberg Declaration
`
`for support that “select” is a computer term that refers to choosing options
`
`from an interface. Id. at 57 (citing Ex. 2008 ¶ 94). The interpretation of
`
`“select” as a computer term is further supported, according to Patent Owner,
`
`by the Microsoft Computer Dictionary 471 (5th ed. 2002) (Ex. 2013), which
`
`defines “select” as: “[i]n general computer use, to specify a block of data or
`
`text on screen by highlighting it or otherwise marking it with the intent of
`
`performing some operation on it.”
`
`We are not persuaded that use of the word “select” in the claim
`
`necessarily requires that a computer interface be read into the construction.
`
`An extraneous limitation should not be read into the claims from the
`
`specification. E.g., E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Phillips Petroleum
`
`Co., 849 F.2d 1430, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 1988). The term “merchant may select
`
`one or more” requires no further construction and will be given its ordinary
`
`and customary meaning.
`
`16. “estimating”
`
`Claims 37 and 38 include the term “estimating.” Patent Owner
`
`proposes that the term be construed as “approximately calculating via a
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`CBM2014-00008
`Patent 6,950,807 B2
`
`financing package generating unit.” PO Resp. 58. Petitioner argues in its
`
`Petition that “estimating” should be construed to mean “forming an
`
`approximate judgment or opinion.” Pet. 22.
`
`Patent Owner’s cites to the Specification are to the ordinary and
`
`customary meaning of “estimate.” PO Resp. 58 (citing Ex. 1001, 9:10–17
`
`(“the dealer’s back-end profits may be estimated”)). Patent Owner cites to
`
`the Nerenberg Declaration for support that estimating requires a calculation
`
`on the “financing package generating unit.” Id. at 58–59 (citing Ex. 2008
`
`¶¶ 98–101).
`
`The speed or accuracy with which a computer may perform certain
`
`generic functions, like estimation calculations, is not a part of the
`
`construction of the term at issue, and we see no reason why the challenged
`
`claims should be construed to require a “financing package generating unit.”
`
`The term “estimating” requires no further construction and will be given its
`
`ordinary and customary meaning.
`
`17. “enabling the merchant to sort”
`
`Claim 39 includes the term “enabling the merchant to sort.” Patent
`
`Owner proposes that the term be construed as “providing sorting commands
`
`on an interface.” PO Resp. 59.
`
`Patent Owner cites to the Specification as disclosing sorting options.
`
`Id. at 59–60 (citing Ex. 1001, 8:7–10 (“the financing package display screen
`
`is provided with sorting options”)). Patent Owner again cites to the
`
`Nerenberg Declaration for support that “sorting” requires an electronic
`
`interface. Id. at 60 (citing Ex. 2008 ¶¶ 102–106).
`
`That sorting is a generic computer function which a computer may
`
`perform does not require that a computer or a computer interface is part of
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`

`CBM2014-00008
`Patent 6,950,807 B2
`
`the construction of the term at issue. The term “enabling a merchant to sort”
`
`requires no further construction and will be given its ordinary and customary
`
`meaning.
`
`18. “selectable criteria”
`
`Claims 39, 40, and 42 include the term “selectable criteria.” Patent
`
`Owner proposes that the term be construed as “criteria electronically capable
`
`of being selected.” PO Resp. 60.
`
`Patent Owner’s cites to the Specification are not directly supportive of
`
`its proposed construction. Id. at 60–61. Patent Owner cites to the
`
`Nerenberg Declaration for support that “selectable criteria” cannot be
`
`viewed except by electronic means. Id. at 61 (citing Ex. 2008 ¶¶ 107–111).
`
`That computer technology can be used for, among many other things,
`
`selecting from a range of choices via a menu, for example, does not mean
`
`that selectable criteria are necessarily selected electronically. The claim
`
`term does not require additional limitations for construction. The term
`
`“selectable criteria” requires no further construction and will be given its
`
`ordinary and customary meaning.
`
`19. “accessing”
`
`Claim 41 includes the term “accessing.” Patent Owner proposes that
`
`the term be construed as “electronically communicating with.” PO Resp. 61.
`
`Petitioner argues in its Petition that “accessing” should be construed to mean
`
`“obtaining the use of.” Pet. 23.
`
`Patent Owner’s cites to the Specification are not directly supportive of
`
`its proposed construction. PO Resp. 61–62. Patent Owner’s citations to the
`
`Specification regarding “access” show the word is used in conformance with
`
`its ordinary meaning. Id. at 61 (citing Ex. 1001, 7:45–49 (“credit processing
`
`
`
`18
`
`

`

`CBM2014-00008
`Patent 6,950,807 B2
`
`server 104 accesses the credit processing database 106”)). Patent Owner
`
`cites to the Nerenberg Declaration for support that “access” cannot be done
`
`manually and requires electronic means. Id. at 61–62 (citing Ex. 2008
`
`¶¶ 112–117).
`
`That computer technology may use the word “access” does not require
`
`its construction to include an electronic component. Such additional
`
`language is an unnecessary limitation. The term “accessing” requires no
`
`further construction and will be given its ordinary and customary meaning.
`
`B. Whether the ’807 Patent is a Covered Business Method Patent
`
`In the Decision on Institution, at 10, we determined that the ’807
`
`patent is a covered business method patent. Patent Owner does not contest
`
`that determination in its Patent Owner Response. Petitioner has no
`
`additional arguments beyond those it advanced in the Petition. See Pet. 3–9.
`
`Neither did either party address the issue at the oral hearing. Thus, we are
`
`presented with no reason to change our original determination, a summary of
`
`which follows.
`
`A covered business method patent is “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.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.301(a). A covered business method patent “does
`
`not include patents for technological inventions.” Id. A technological
`
`invention is determined by considering whether the claimed subject matter
`
`as a whole recites a technical feature that is novel and unobvious over the
`
`prior art, and solves a technical problem using a technical solution. See 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.301(b).
`
`
`
`19
`
`

`

`CBM2014-00008
`Patent 6,950,807 B2
`
`
`The ’807 patent is a covered business method patent. As Petitioner
`
`argues, the Specification supports that the claimed invention is not a
`
`technological invention but rather financial in nature. Pet. 4 (citing
`
`Ex. 1001, 3:27–30). Claim 1 does not describe any technological
`
`component. It simply describes the steps performed in a method of
`
`providing a financing source. As Petitioner argues, claim 1 includes steps
`
`directed to a business problem—including calculating a “front-end profit.”
`
`Id. at 7. For example, the Specification describes the front-end profit as
`
`“equal to the down payment amount plus the advance amount

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket