Filed on behalf of SAP America, Inc.
`By:
`Michael Q. Lee
`
`Lori A. Gordon
`
`Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox PLLC
`
`1100 New York Avenue, NW
`
`
`Washington, D.C.
`
`
`Tel: (202) 371-2600
`
`Fax: (202) 371-2540
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`SAP AMERICA, INC.
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`PI-NET INTERNATIONAL, INC.
`Patent Owner.
`_____________
`
`Patent 8,037,158
`
`PETITION FOR COVERED BUSINESS METHOD REVIEW OF CLAIMS
`4-6, 9 AND 10 OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,037,158
`
`
`
`
`- i -
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`I. MANDATORY NOTICES (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(A)(1)) ....................................................................................... 1
`II. GROUNDS FOR STANDING (37 C.F.R. § 42.304(A)). ................................................................................. 3
`A. THE PTAB PREVIOUSLY HELD THE ‘158 PATENT ELIGIBLE FOR COVERED BUSINESS METHOD REVIEW ........ 4
`a)
`Claims 4-6, 9 and 10 are Directed to a Covered Business Method. ....................................................... 4
`b) Claims 4-6, 9 and 10 are Not Directed to a “Technological Invention.” ............................................... 6
`PETITIONER HAS STANDING TO PETITION FOR REVIEW, AND PETITIONER IS NOT ESTOPPED (37 C.F.R. §
`B.
`42.302) ...................................................................................................................................................................... 9
`III. IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGE ......................................................................................................... 10
`A.
`STATUTORY GROUNDS FOR THE CHALLENGE ................................................................................................. 10
`B. CITATION OF PRIOR ART ................................................................................................................................ 11
`C.
`THE CLAIMS OF THE ‘158 PATENT AND THEIR CONSTRUCTION ...................................................................... 12
`IV. GROUNDS UNDER SECTION 101 ............................................................................................................... 15
`A. GROUND 1: CLAIMS 9 AND 10 ARE INVALID FOR FAILING TO RECITE STATUTORY SUBJECT MATTER UNDER
`35 U.S.C. § 101 ....................................................................................................................................................... 15
`a)
`Claim 1 ................................................................................................................................................ 15
`b) Claims 9 and 10 ................................................................................................................................... 17
`V. GROUNDS UNDER SECTION 103 ............................................................................................................... 17
`A. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ........................................................................................................ 17
`B. GROUNDS BASED ON LAWLOR ....................................................................................................................... 18
`a) Ground 2: Lawlor, Computerworld And CORBA1 Render Claims 4-6 Unpatentable ........................ 18
`(1) Lawlor and Computerworld render claim 1 unpatentable ............................................................... 18
`(a) Lawlor and Computerworld teach “a method for performing a real time Web transaction from a
`Web application over a digital network atop the Web” ....................................................................... 18
`(b) Lawlor and Computerworld teach “providing a Web page for display on a computer system
`coupled to an input device” ................................................................................................................. 19
`(c) Lawlor and Computerworld teach “providing a point-of-service application as a selection
`within the Web page, wherein the point-of-service application provides access to both a checking and
`savings account, the point-of-service application operating in a service network atop the World Wide
`Web” 20
`(d) Lawlor teaches “accepting a first signal from the Web user input device to select the point-of-
`service application”.............................................................................................................................. 23
`(e) Lawlor teaches “accepting subsequent signals from the Web user input device” ...................... 24
`(f) Lawlor and Computerworld render obvious “transferring funds from the checking account to
`the savings account in real-time utilizing a routed transactional data structure that is both complete
`and non-deferred, in addition to being specific to the point-of-service application, the routing
`occurring in response to the subsequent signals” ................................................................................. 24
`(i) Lawlor teaches “transferring funds from the checking account to the savings account in real
`time” 25
`(ii) Lawlor teaches “utilizing a routed transactional data structure that is both complete and non-
`deferred, in addition to being specific to the point-of-service application, the routing occurring in
`response to the subsequent signals” ................................................................................................ 26
`(2) Lawlor, Computerworld, and CORBA1 render claim 4 unpatentable ............................................ 27
`(a) Object Routing ........................................................................................................................... 28
`(b) Web Application ........................................................................................................................ 34
`(3) Lawlor, Computerworld, and CORBA1 render claim 5 unpatentable ............................................ 35
`(4) Lawlor, Computerworld, and CORBA1 render claim 6 unpatentable ............................................ 38
`b) Ground 3: Lawlor, Computerworld, CORBA1 and SNMP render claims 5 and 6 unpatentable ......... 40
`(1) Claim 5 ............................................................................................................................................ 40
`(2) Claim 6 ............................................................................................................................................ 42
`c) Ground 4: Lawlor, Computerworld, and CORBA2 render claims 4-6 Unpatentable .......................... 43
`
`
`
`- ii -
`
`

`

`(1) Claim 1 ............................................................................................................................................ 43
`(2) Claim 4 ............................................................................................................................................ 43
`(a) Object Routing ........................................................................................................................... 43
`(b) Web Application ........................................................................................................................ 47
`(3) Claim 5 ............................................................................................................................................ 48
`(4) Claim 6 ............................................................................................................................................ 52
`d) Ground 5: Lawlor, Computerworld, CORBA2 and SNMP render claims 5 and 6 unpatentable ......... 53
`e)
`Rationale for Combining Lawlor, Computerworld, Corba standard and SNMP ................................ 53
`(1) Lawlor and Computerworld ............................................................................................................ 53
`(a) Nature of the Problem to be Solved ........................................................................................... 53
`(b) Combination of Prior Art Elements ............................................................................................ 54
`(2) Rationale for Modifying Lawlor and Computerworld with the CORBA standard ......................... 56
`(3) Rationale for Modifying Lawlor, Computerworld, the Corba standard with SNMP ...................... 57
`C. GROUNDS BASED ON STANFORD FEDERAL CREDIT UNION (SFCU) .............................................................. 59
`a) Ground 6: SFCU, Electronic Banking and CORBA1 render claims 4-6 unpatentable ....................... 59
`(1) SFCU and Electronic Banking render claim 1 unpatentable ........................................................... 59
`(a) SFCU teaches “a method for performing a real time Web transaction from a Web application
`over a digital network atop the Web” .................................................................................................. 59
`(b) SFCU teaches “providing a Web page for display on a computer system coupled to an input
`device” ................................................................................................................................................. 60
`(c) SFCU renders obvious “providing a point-of-service application as a selection within the Web
`page, wherein the point-of-service application provides access to both a checking and savings
`account, the point-of-service application operating in a service network atop the World Wide Web”60
`(d) SFCU renders obvious “accepting a first signal from the Web user input device to select the
`point-of-service application” ............................................................................................................... 62
`(e) SFCU renders obvious “accepting subsequent signals from the Web user input device” .......... 63
`(f)
`SFCU and Electronic Banking teaches “transferring funds from the checking account to the
`savings account in real-time utilizing a routed transactional data structure that is both complete and
`non-deferred, in addition to being specific to the point-of-service application, the routing occurring in
`response to the subsequent signals” ..................................................................................................... 64
`(i)
`SFCU teaches “transferring funds from the checking account to the savings account” ........ 64
`(ii) SFCU and Electronic Banking teach “utilizing a routed transactional data structure that is
`both complete and non-deferred, in addition to being specific to the point-of-service application,
`the routing occurring in response to the subsequent signals” .......................................................... 65
`(2) SFCU, Electronic Banking, and CORBA1 render claim 4 unpatentable ........................................ 67
`(3) SFCU, Electronic Banking, and CORBA1 render claim 5 unpatentable ........................................ 69
`(4) SFCU, Electronic Banking, and CORBA1 render claim 6 unpatentable ........................................ 69
`b) Ground 7: SFCU, Electronic Banking, CORBA1 and SNMP render claims 5 and 6 unpatentable .... 70
`(1) Claim 5 ............................................................................................................................................ 70
`(2) Claim 6 ............................................................................................................................................ 71
`c) Ground 8: SFCU, Electronic Banking, and CORBA2 render claims 4-6 unpatentable ....................... 72
`(1) Claim 1 ............................................................................................................................................ 72
`(2) Claim 4 ............................................................................................................................................ 73
`(3) Claim 5 ............................................................................................................................................ 74
`(4) Claim 6 ............................................................................................................................................ 74
`d) Ground 9: SFCU, Electronic Banking, CORBA2 and SNMP render claims 5 and 6 unpatentable ..... 75
`e)
`Rationale for Combining SFCU, Electronic Banking, CORBA and SNMP ........................................ 76
`(1) SFCU and Electronic Banking ........................................................................................................ 76
`(a) Nature of the Problem to be Solved ........................................................................................... 76
`(b) Combination of Prior Art Elements ............................................................................................ 77
`(2) Rationale for Modifying SFCU and Electronic Banking with the CORBA standard ..................... 78
`(3) Rationale for Modifying SFCU, Electronic Banking, the CORBA standard with SNMP .............. 78
`VI. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................................................. 80
`
`
`
`
`- ii -
`
`

`

`On March 22, 2013, Petitioner SAP America, Inc. (“SAP”) petitioned the
`
`United States Patent Office to institute a post-grant review of claims 1-6 and 11 of
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,037,158 to Lakshmi Arunachalam (“the ‘158 patent”). On
`
`September 19, 2013, the Patent Trial And Appeal Board instituted a covered
`
`business method review of the ‘158 patent as Case No. CBM2013-00013
`
`(CBM2013-00013, Paper No. 15).
`
`Here, Petitioner SAP petitions the United States Patent Office to institute a
`
`second post-grant review of the ‘158 patent, this time of claims 4-6, 9 and 10
`
`(collectively, the “challenged claims” or “claims under review”). A copy of the
`
`‘158 patent is provided as SAP 1001.
`
`Accompanying this petition is a request for joinder of this trial with
`
`CBM2013-00013 under § 42.222.
`
`I. Mandatory Notices (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(a)(1))
`Real Party In Interest: The real party-in-interest of Petitioner is SAP
`
`America.
`
`Related Matters: The following current proceedings may affect or be affected
`
`by a decision in this proceeding:
`
`In the United States Patent and Trademark Office: Covered Business Method
`
`review CBM2013-00013 (U.S. Patent No. 8,037,158); Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`- 1 -
`
`

`

`IPR2013-00194 (U.S. Patent No. 8,108,492); and Inter Partes Review IPR2013-
`
`00195 (U.S. Patent No. 5,987,500).
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,037,158 is involved in the following current proceedings that
`
`may affect or be affected by a decision in this proceeding:
`
`In the District of Delaware: Pi-Net International, Inc v. Citizens Financial
`
`Group, Inc. (No. 1:12-cv-00355); Bank of America, N.A. and Merrill Lynch,
`
`Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. (No. 1:12-cv-00280); JP Morgan Chase & Co. (No.
`
`1:12-cv-00282); Capital One Financial Corporation et al. (No. 1:12-cv-00356);
`
`Sovereign Bank, N.A. (No. 1:12-cv-00354); UBS Financial Services (No. 1:12-cv-
`
`00353); Wilmington Trust Company et al. (No. 1:12-cv-00281); and WSFS
`
`Financial Corporation et al. (No. 1:12-cv-00352).
`
`In the Central District of California: Pi-Net International, Inc. v. 1st Valley
`
`Credit Union (No. 5:12-cv-01989); Cal Poly Federal Credit Union (No. 2:12-cv-
`
`09703); In-Land Valley Federal Credit Union (No. 5:12-cv-01990); Media City
`
`Community Credit Union (No. 2:12-cv-09699); and South Bay Credit Union, (No.
`
`2:12-cv-09705).
`
`In
`
`the Northern District of California: Pi-Net International, Inc. v.
`
`Commonwealth Central Credit Union (No. 5:12-cv-05730); My Credit Union (No.
`
`3:12-cv-05733); and San Jose Credit Union (No. 4:12-cv-05732).
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`

`

`On March 19, 2013, SAP America filed a declaratory judgment of non-
`
`infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,037,158; 5,987,500; and 8,108,492 against Pi-
`
`Net International, Inc. in the Northern District of California (No. 3:13-cv-01248).
`
`Service Information: Please address all correspondence to the lead counsel as
`
`shown below. Petitioner consents to electronic service by email at the email
`
`address provided below.
`
` Lead and Backup Counsel:
`
`Lead Counsel
`
`Backup Counsel
`
`Michael Q. Lee, Reg. No. 35,239
`
`
`
`Lori A. Gordon, Reg. No. 50,633
`
`STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX
`
`STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX
`
`1100 New York Avenue, N.W.
`
`1100 New York Avenue, N.W.
`
`Washington, D.C. 20005-3932
`
`Washington, D.C. 20005-3932
`
`Tel:202-772-8674 Fax: 202-371-2540
`
`Tel:202-772-8862 Fax: 202-371-2540
`
`mlee-PTAB@skgf.com
`
`lgordon-PTAB@skgf.com
`
`
`
`II. Grounds for Standing (37 C.F.R. § 42.304(a)).
`The undersigned and SAP certify that the ‘158 patent is available for post-
`
`grant review. Because the ‘158 patent is a covered business method, as defined by
`
`§ 18 of the AIA, the timing requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 321(c) do not apply.
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`

`

`A. The PTAB Previously Held the ‘158 Patent Eligible for Covered
`Business Method Review
`
`On September 19, 2013, the Patent Trial And Appeal Board found the ‘158
`
`patent eligible for Covered Business Method review, and instituted Case
`
`CBM2013-00013 (CBM2013-00013, Paper No. 15).
`
`Petitioner SAP again asserts the ‘158 patent is eligible for Covered Business
`
`Method review, for the reasons set forth below.
`
`a)
`Claims 4-6, 9 and 10 are Directed to a Covered
`Business Method.
`
`The AIA defines a covered business method (“CBM”) patent as “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….” AIA § 18(d)(1); see also 37 C.F.R. § 42.301.
`
`The USPTO noted that the AIA’s legislative history demonstrates that
`
`“financial product or service” should be “interpreted broadly,” encompassing
`
`patents “claiming activities that are financial in nature, incidental to a financial
`
`activity or complementary to a financial activity.” 77 Fed. Reg. 157, p. 48735.
`
`Moreover, the language “practice, administration, or management” is “intended to
`
`cover any ancillary activities related to a financial product or service, including . . .
`
`marketing, customer interfaces, [and] Web site management and functionality. . . .”
`
`21 Fed. Cir. Bar J. 4, pp. 635-636.
`
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`

`

`The ‘158 patent, titled “Multimedia transactional services,” is exactly the
`
`type of patent envisioned by Senator Schumer as a CBM patent. The sole
`
`independent claim recites, inter alia, “providing a point-of-service application as a
`
`selection within the Web page, wherein the point-of-service application provides
`
`access to both a checking and savings account” and “transferring funds from the
`
`checking account to the savings account.” Thus, the ‘158 patent claims an activity
`
`that is entirely financial in nature: transferring money from one bank account to
`
`another. Moreover, the ‘158 patent claims a customer interface directly related to
`
`financial services, i.e., retail banking, and Web site functionality ancillary to such
`
`financial services.
`
`The specification of the ‘158 patent further demonstrates that the ‘158 patent
`
`is for a CBM. The patent describes transactions or user interactions that include “a
`
`deposit into a bank account, a request for a loan from a bank…or a purchase of a
`
`car with financing from a bank.” (‘158 patent, 5:25-29). The ‘158 patent further
`
`notes that a bank “may also decide to provide intra-merchant or intra-bank
`
`services” such as “payroll processing.” (‘158 patent, 7:30-41).
`
`Because the ‘158 patent claims a method for transferring funds between
`
`bank accounts (claim 1), requesting a loan from a lender (claim 9), and purchasing
`
`a vehicle with bank financing (claim 10), it is a CBM patent subject to review
`
`under Section 18.
`
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`

`

`b) Claims 4-6, 9 and 10 are Not Directed to a
`“Technological Invention.”
`
`The AIA excludes “patents for technological inventions” from the definition
`
`of CBM patents. AIA § 18(d)(2). To determine when a patent is for a technological
`
`invention, “the following will be considered on a case-by-case basis: whether the
`
`claimed subject matter as a whole recites a technological feature that is novel and
`
`unobvious over the prior art; and solves a technical problem using a technical
`
`solution.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.301. When this definition was first proposed by the
`
`USPTO, commentators asked the USPTO to revise the definition to clarify that a
`
`technological invention could meet one of these tests or the other, or to provide a
`
`wholly different test. See, e.g., 77 Fed. Reg. 157, p. 48736-37.
`
`But the USPTO declined to loosen the definition, deciding instead to
`
`maintain the limited effect and scope of the “Technological Invention” exception
`
`to CBM patents. In particular, citing the legislative history, which explained that
`
`the “‘patents for technological inventions’ exception only excludes patents whose
`
`novelty turns on a technological innovation over the prior art and are concerned
`
`with a technical problem which is solved by a technical solution,” id. at p. 48735,
`
`the USPTO declined to change the definition, leaving the “and” and explaining that
`
`this definition is consistent with the AIA’s legislative history and represents “the
`
`best policy choice.” 77 Fed. Reg. 157, p. 48735-36.
`
`
`
`- 6 -
`
`

`

`Thus, to qualify as a technological invention, and therefore not be a CBM
`
`patent, a patent must have: (1) a technological feature; (2) the technical feature
`
`must be novel and unobvious; and (3) the patent must solve a technical problem
`
`using a technical solution. Moreover, to institute a CBM post-grant review, a
`
`patent need only have one claim directed to a CBM, and not a technological
`
`invention, even if the patent includes additional claims. 77 Fed. Reg. 157, p.
`
`48736.
`
`The claims of the ‘158 patent fail all these requirements of being a
`
`technological invention. In particular, the ‘158 patent fails to recite a novel and
`
`unobvious technological feature and fails to recite a technical problem solved by a
`
`technical solution. Thus, the ‘158 patent is not directed to a technological
`
`invention.
`
`First, the claims of the ‘158 patent do not recite any novel and unobvious
`
`technical features. The challenged claims 4-6, 9 and 10 depend from claim 1.
`
`Claim 1 recites “providing a Web page for display on a computer system
`
`coupled to an input device,” “providing a point-of-service application as a
`
`selection within the web page” and “accepting a first signal from the Web user
`
`input device to select the point-of-service application.” These steps, as well as the
`
`other steps of claim 1, do not recite technical features. Even assuming, arguendo,
`
`that they recite some de minimus technical feature, they are not novel and
`
`
`
`- 7 -
`
`

`

`unobvious over the prior art, as discussed below. Nor does the remainder of the
`
`claim recite any other novel and unobvious technical features.
`
`Moreover, “transferring funds from the checking account to the savings
`
`account in real-time” is neither a technical problem, nor is it solved by a technical
`
`solution. To the extent it qualifies as a problem at all, it does not involve
`
`technology, and its solution does not involve technology. Thus, a technical
`
`problem neither existed nor was it solved by a claimed technical solution.
`
`The same is true for the dependent claims of the '158 patent. For example,
`
`claim 9 recites "wherein the Web transaction is a loan requested from a lender
`
`across the Web from a Web application." Claim 10 recites "wherein the Web
`
`transaction is a vehicle purchased with bank financing across the Web from a Web
`
`application." These claims do not recite technical features. Even assuming,
`
`arguendo, that they recite some de minimus technical feature, they do not appear
`
`novel and unobvious over prior art.1
`
`Also, "a loan requested from a lender across the Web" (claim 9) and "a
`
`vehicle purchased with bank financing across the Web" (claim 10) are not
`
`technical problems. To the extent they qualify as a problem at all, they do not
`
`involve technology, and their solution does not involve technology.
`
`
`1 Petitioner's decision to focus its challenge of claims 9 and 10 on Section
`101 grounds should not be construed as acquiescence to their patentability on other
`grounds.
`
`
`
`- 8 -
`
`

`

`Accordingly, the ‘158 patent does not qualify for the “technological
`
`invention” exception, and the patent is a CBM patent subject to review under
`
`Section 18.
`
`B. Petitioner has standing to petition for review, and Petitioner is
`Not Estopped (37 C.F.R. § 42.302)
`
`Patent Owner has sued Citizens Financial Group, Inc. (“Citizens”) in the
`
`District of Delaware, and has accused Citizens of infringing claims 1-6 and 11 of
`
`the ‘158 patent (“Concurrent Litigation”). Based on an agreement between SAP’s
`
`subsidiary (Financial Fusion/Sybase) and Citizens (See SAP 1008), Citizens has
`
`requested indemnification from SAP for, inter alia, losses and legal fees incurred
`
`by Citizens associated with the Concurrent Litigation.
`
`SAP thus has standing to bring a declaratory judgment action in Federal
`
`court. See Arris Group, Inc. v. British Telecommunications PLC, 639 F.3d 1368,
`
`1375 (Fed. Cir. 2011). (A “supplier has standing to commence a declaratory
`
`judgment action if (a) the supplier is obligated to indemnify its customers from
`
`infringement liability…”). In fact, SAP has sued the Patent Owner for a
`
`declaratory judgment of non-infringement of the ‘158 patent. Accordingly, “a real
`
`and substantial controversy regarding infringement of a covered business method
`
`patent exists,” and SAP has standing to file the instant petition to institute a
`
`covered business method patent review. 37 C.F.R. § 42.302(a).
`
`
`
`- 9 -
`
`

`

`Further, SAP is not estopped from challenging the claims on the grounds
`
`identified in the petition. 37 C.F.R. § 42.302(b).
`
`III.
`
`Identification of Challenge
`A. Statutory grounds for the challenge2
`SAP requests post-grant review of claims 4-6, 9 and 10 (collectively referred
`
`to herein as the “challenged claims”) based on the following grounds:
`
`Ground 1: Claims 9 and 10 are unpatentable for failing to recite statutory
`
`subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
`
`Ground 2: Lawlor, Computerworld And CORBA1 Render Claims 4-6
`
`Unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103(a).
`
`Ground 3: Lawlor, Computerworld, CORBA1 and SNMP render claims 5
`
`and 6 unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103(a).
`
`Ground 4: Lawlor, Computerworld, and CORBA2 render claims 4-6
`
`Unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103(a).
`
`Ground 5: Lawlor, Computerworld, CORBA2 and SNMP render claims 5
`
`and 6 unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103(a).
`
`Ground 6: SFCU, Electronic Banking and CORBA1 render claims 4-6
`
`unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103(a).
`
`
`2 If the Board finds the CORBA1 and CORBA2 grounds grantable but
`cumulative, Petitioner respectfully requests adoption of the grounds based on
`CORBA2 given its apparent earlier publication date.
`
`
`
`- 10 -
`
`

`

`Ground 7: SFCU, Electronic Banking, CORBA1 and SNMP render claims
`
`5 and 6 unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103(a).
`
`Ground 8: SFCU, Electronic Banking, and CORBA2 render claims 4-6
`
`unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103(a).
`
`Ground 9: SFCU, Electronic Banking, CORBA2 and SNMP render claims
`
`5 and 6 unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103(a).
`
`B. Citation of Prior Art
`The earliest possible priority date of the '158 patent is November 13, 19953.
`
`The following prior art references are applied in the above grounds:
`
`1. Electronic Banking, Lipis et al. (“Electronic Banking,” provided as SAP
`
`1004). Electronic Banking is § 102(b)4 prior art to the ‘158 patent. Electronic
`
`Banking is a book published in 1985.
`
`2.
`
`Stanford Federal Credit Union Pioneers Online Financial Services
`
`(“SFCU," provided as SAP 1005). SFCU is § 102(a) prior art to the ‘158 patent.
`
`SFCU is an article appearing in Business Wire published June 21, 1995.
`
`
`3 Solely for this Petition, it is assumed arguendo that the ‘158 patent is
`entitled to the November 13, 1995 filing date of U.S. Provisional Application No.
`60/006,634.
`4 References designated herein as § 102(b) prior art also qualify as prior art
`under § 102(a).
`
`
`
`- 11 -
`
`

`

`3. U.S. Patent No. 5,220,501 to Lawlor et al. (“Lawlor,” provided as SAP
`
`1006). Lawlor is § 102(b) prior art to the ‘158 patent. Lawlor was issued on June
`
`15, 1993.
`
`4. Computerworld, June 26, 1995 (“Computerworld,” provided as SAP
`
`1007). Computerworld is § 102(a) prior art to the ‘158 patent. Computerworld
`
`was published on June 26, 1995.
`
`5. The Essential CORBA: Systems Integration Using Distributed Objects
`
`("CORBA1," provided as SAP 1009). CORBA1 is § 102(a) prior art to the ‘158
`
`patent. CORBA1 was published at least as of November 8, 1995 (the copyright
`
`registration webpage of CORBA1 is provided as SAP 1010).
`
`6.
`
`Protocol Operations For Version 2 Of The Simple Network
`
`Management Protocol ("SNMP," provided as SAP 1011). SNMP is § 102(b)
`
`prior art to the ‘158 patent. SNMP was publicly available at least as of April 1993.
`
`7. The Common Object Request Broker: Architecture and Specification
`
`("CORBA2," provided as SAP 1012). CORBA2 is § 102(a) prior art to the ‘158
`
`patent. CORBA2 was published in July 1995.
`
`
`
`C. The Claims of the ‘158 Patent and their Construction
`The PTAB has previously instituted Covered Business Method review of the
`
`‘158 patent in Case Number CBM2013-00013 (CBM2013-00013, Paper No. 15).
`
`
`
`- 12 -
`
`

`

`In CBM2013-00013, the PTAB construed a number of terms of the ‘158
`
`patent. These constructions, reproduced below, are applied in this Petition.5
`
`CLAIM TERM/CLAIM
`
`PTAB Construction From Case Number CBM2013-
`
`00013
`
`Web application/1-4, 11
`
`“Therefore, we construe “Web application” to mean
`
`
`
`a software program, that can be accessed by an
`
`internet user.” (CBM2013-00013, Paper No. 15,
`
`page 14; emphasis in original)
`
`Service network atop the
`
`“Therefore, we construe “service network running
`
`World Wide Web/1
`
`atop the World Wide Web” to mean a network on
`
`
`
`which services other
`
`than underlying network
`
`communications services are provide over the
`
`internet.” (CBM2013-00013, Paper No. 15, page 15;
`
`emphasis in original)
`
`Web user input device/1
`
`“We construe “the Web user input device” to mean
`
`
`
`the same input device as that coupled to the
`
`computer system that provides the Web page for
`
`display, recited earlier in claim 1.” (CBM2013-
`
`
`5 Application of these constructions herein should not be construed as
`acquiescence to the PTAB’s constructions in other proceedings.
`
`
`
`- 13 -
`
`

`

`00013, Paper No. 15, page 15)
`
`Utilizing
`
`a
`
`routed
`
`“Therefore, we construe “utilizing a routed data
`
`transactional data structure
`
`structure that is both complete and non-deferred” to
`
`that is both complete and
`
`mean using a data structure
`
`that
`
`facilitates
`
`non-deferred/1
`
`switching a user who selects a
`
`transactional
`
`
`
`application to a service provider program that
`
`provides
`
`immediate processing.”
`
` (CBM2013-
`
`00013, Paper No. 15, page 16; emphasis in original)
`
`The routing occurring
`
`in
`
`“We understand “the routing” to be routing resulting
`
`response to the subsequent
`
`from “utilizing a routed transactional data structure”
`
`signals
`
`previously recited in claim 1. We understand “the
`
`subsequent signals” to be the subsequent signals
`
`from the Web user input device recited in claim 1,
`
`accepted after a first signal from the Web user input
`
`device to select the point-of-service application.”
`
`(CBM2013-00013, Paper No. 15, pages 16 and 17)
`
`Object routing/4
`
`“Therefore, we construe “object routing” to mean
`
`
`
`
`
`the use of individual network objects to route a user
`
`from a selected transactional application to the
`
`processing provided by
`
`the service provider.”
`
`- 14 -
`
`

`

`(CBM2013-00013, Paper No. 15, page 17; emphasis
`
`in original)
`
`Distributed on-line service
`
`“Therefore, we construe “distributed on-line service
`
`information bases/5
`
`information bases” to mean virtual information
`
`
`
`stores optimized for networking.” (CBM2013-
`
`00013, Paper No. 15, page 17; emphasis in original)
`
`Virtual information store/6
`
`“[We] construe “virtual information store” to mean
`
`
`
`an information store in which information entri