`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