IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`)
`) U.S. Class: 705/401
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`) FILED ELECTRONICALLY
`) PER 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(b)(1)
`)
`
`
`In re Post-Grant Review of:
`
` U.S. Patent No. 6,826,548
`
`Nov. 30, 2004
`Issued:
`
`
`Inventors: Ralph M. HUNGERPILLER
` Ronald C. CAGLE
`
`
`Application No.: 10/057,608
`
`
`Filed:
`Jan. 24, 2002
`
`
`For: SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR
`
`PROCESSING RETURN MAIL
`
`Mail Stop Patent Board
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`USPTO
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR POST-GRANT REVIEW UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 321 AND
`§ 18 OF THE LEAHY-SMITH AMERICA INVENTS ACT
`
`
`
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`PRELIMINARY STATEMENT ............................................................................... 1
`
`BACKGROUND .......................................................................................................... 3
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`The ’548 Patent .................................................................................................. 3
`
`Prosecution History ........................................................................................... 4
`
`III. GROUNDS FOR STANDING ................................................................................. 5
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`At Least One Challenged Claim Is Unpatentable ......................................... 5
`
`The ’548 Patent Is a Covered Business Method Patent ............................... 5
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Claims 39 Recites Covered Business Method .................................... 5
`
`Claims 39–44 Do Not Claim Any Novel or Unobvious
`“Technological Invention” ................................................................... 8
`
`Patent Owner Sued Petitioner for Infringement of the ’548 Patent ........ 10
`
`Fees Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.15(b) ................................................................... 10
`
`IV. MANDATORY NOTICES ...................................................................................... 11
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Real Party-In-Interest ...................................................................................... 11
`
`Related Matters ................................................................................................. 11
`
`Lead and Back-up Counsel Service Information ........................................ 11
`
`V.
`
`STATEMENT OF PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED FOR EACH
`CLAIM CHALLENGED .......................................................................................... 12
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Claims on Which Petitioner Requests Review ............................................ 12
`
`Grounds of Challenge Under 35 U.S.C. § 282(b)(2), (3) &
`35 U.S.C. § 324(b) ............................................................................................ 12
`
`C.
`
`Claim Construction .......................................................................................... 13
`
`VI. CLAIMS 39–44 OF THE ’548 PATENT RECITE ONLY NON-
`STATUTORY SUBJECT MATTER ....................................................................... 17
`
`i
`4/15/2014
`
`

`

`A.
`
`Claim 39 Is Unpatentable Under 35 U.S.C. § 101 ...................................... 19
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Claim 39 Recites an Abstract Idea with Only Insignificant
`Extra-Solution Technology ................................................................ 19
`
`Claim 39 Fails the Machine-or-Transformation Test ..................... 20
`
`Computer-Readable Medium Claim 40 Embodies Claim 39 and Is
`Thus Likewise Unpatentable .......................................................................... 22
`
`System Claim 41 Parrots Claim 39 and Is Thus Likewise Invalid ............ 23
`
`Claim 42 Adds Only Conventional Non-Technological Steps ................. 25
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E. Dependent Claims 43 and 44 Add Nothing Patent-Eligible ..................... 26
`
`VII. CLAIMS 39–44 ARE UNPATENTABLE UNDER § 102 AND § 103 ........... 27
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`Claims 39-44 Are Not Entitled to any Priority Date Earlier Than
`January 24, 2002 ............................................................................................... 27
`
`The Patent Owner Admits that Many Features of Claims 39-44
`Were Known in the Prior Art ........................................................................ 30
`
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art .................................................................. 31
`
`Park Anticipates Claims 39-44 ....................................................................... 32
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`Park Anticipates Claim 39 ................................................................... 32
`
`Park Anticipates Claim 40 ................................................................... 34
`
`Park Anticipates Claim 41 ................................................................... 37
`
`Park Anticipates Claim 42 ................................................................... 39
`
`Park Anticipates Claim 43 ................................................................... 41
`
`Park Anticipates Claim 44 ................................................................... 42
`
`E.
`
`Address Change Service System (“1997 ACS”) Anticipates Claims
`39-44 .................................................................................................................. 42
`
`1.
`
`1997 ACS Anticipates Claim 39 ........................................................ 45
`
`ii
`4/15/2014
`
`

`

`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`1997 ACS Anticipates Claim 40 ........................................................ 47
`
`1997 ACS Anticipates Claim 41 ........................................................ 48
`
`1997 ACS Anticipates Claim 42 ........................................................ 49
`
`1997 ACS Anticipates Claim 43 ........................................................ 52
`
`1997 ACS Anticipates Claim 44 ........................................................ 52
`
`F.
`
`Uhl Anticipates Claims 39 – 41 ...................................................................... 53
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`Uhl Anticipates Claim 39 ..................................................................... 53
`
`Claim 39 Is Obvious over Uhl in View of Krause ............................ 54
`
`Claim 39 Is Obvious over Uhl in View of 1997 ACS .................... 55
`
`Uhl Anticipates Claim 40 ..................................................................... 56
`
`Claim 40 Is Obvious over Uhl in view of Krause ............................. 57
`
`Claim 40 Is Obvious Over Uhl in View of 1997 ACS ................... 58
`
`Uhl Anticipates Claim 41 ..................................................................... 59
`
`G.
`
`H.
`
`Claim 42 Is Obvious Over Uhl in View of Jatkowski.................................. 60
`
`Claim 42 Is Obvious Over Uhl in View Jatkowski and Further in
`View of 1997 ACS ........................................................................................... 63
`
`I.
`
`Claim 43 Is Obvious ........................................................................................ 64
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Claim 43 Is Obvious Over Uhl in View of Jatkowski ...................... 64
`
`Claim 43 Is Obvious Over Uhl in View of Jatkowski and
`Further in View of 1997 ACS ............................................................ 64
`
`J.
`
`Claim 44 Is Obvious ........................................................................................ 65
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Claim 44 Is Obvious Over Uhl in View of Jatkowski ...................... 65
`
`Claim 44 Is Obvious Over Uhl in View of Jatkowski and
`Further in View of 1997 ACS ............................................................ 65
`
`iii
`4/15/2014
`
`

`

`VIII. Amendments During the Reexamination Impermissibly Broadened
`Claims 39-44 ................................................................................................................. 66
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`Impermissible Broadening of Method Claim 39 ......................................... 68
`
`Impermissible Broadening of the Computer-Readable-Medium
`Claim 40 ............................................................................................................. 70
`
`Impermissible Broadening of the System Claim 41 ................................... 72
`
`Impermissible Broadening of the Method Claim 42 .................................. 73
`
`Impermissible Broadening of Dependent Claims 43 and 44 .................... 74
`
`IX. CONCLUSION........................................................................................................... 74
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`4/15/2014
`
`

`

`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`FEDERAL CASES
`Accenture Global Services, GmBH v. Guidewire Software, Inc.,
`No. 2011-1486 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 06, 2011) ................................................................ 21, 23
`
`Page(s)
`
`Bancorp Services, L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assurance. Co. of Canada (U.S.),
`687 F.3d 1266 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ........................................................................... 21, 22, 23
`
`Bilski v. Kappos,
`130 S. Ct. 3218 (2010) ............................................................................................... passim
`
`CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc.,
`654 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ................................................................................ passim
`
`Dealertrack, Inc. v. Huber,
`674 F.3d 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ................................................................................ passim
`
`Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Gen-Probe Inc.,
`323 F.3d 956 (Fed. Cir. 2002) .......................................................................................... 28
`
`In re Freeman,
`30 F.3d 1459 (Fed. Cir. 1994) ................................................................................... 66, 67
`
`In re Giacomini,
`612 F.3d 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ........................................................................................ 28
`
`In re NTP, Inc.,
`654 F.3d 1269 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ........................................................................................ 28
`
`In re Yamamoto,
`740 F.2d 1569 (Fed. Cir. 1984) ........................................................................................ 13
`
`KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) ................................................................................................... passim
`
`Lockwood v. American Airlines, Inc.,
`107 F.3d 1565 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ........................................................................................ 28
`
`Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Labs., Inc.,
`132 S. Ct. 1289 (2012) ............................................................................................... passim
`
`
`v
`4/15/2014
`
`

`

`State Street Bank Trust Company v. Signature Financial Group, Inc.,
`149 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 1998) ................................................................................ passim
`Total Containment, Inc. v. Environ Products, Inc.,
`921 F. Supp. 1355 (E.D. Pa. 1995) ................................................................................. 67
`PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE DECISIONS
`
`Apple Inc. v. SignSound Tech. LLC,
`CBM2013-00020, Paper 14 (PTAB Oct. 15, 2013) ........................................................ 7
`
`CRS Advanced Technology Inc., v. Frontline Tech. Inc.,
`CBM2012-00005, Paper 66 (PTAB Jan. 23, 2014) ............................................... passim
`
`Ex parte Edelson,
`No. 2011-004285 (BPAI Feb 6, 2012) ........................................................................... 27
`
`Ex parte Harris,
`No. 2007-0325 (BPAI Jan. 13, 2009) .............................................................................. 26
`
`Ex parte Neuwirth,
`229 USPQ 71 (BPAI 1985) .............................................................................................. 67
`
`Ex parte Ramanujam,
`No. 2009-002483, 2010 WL 3214559 (BPAI Aug. 12, 2010) ..................................... 24
`
`Ex parte Rigoutsos,
`No. 2009-010520 (BPAI Feb. 7, 2012) .......................................................................... 27
`
`International Flavors & Fragrances Inc. v. U.S. Department of Agriculture,
`IPR2013-00124, Paper 6 (PTAB June 27, 2013) .......................................................... 11
`
`Groupon, Inc. v. Blue Calypso, LLC,
`CBM2013-00033, Paper 9 (PTAB Dec. 19, 2013) ......................................................... 7
`
`Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. v. Progressive Casualty Insurance Co.,
`CBM2012-00002, Paper 66, (Jan. 23, 2014.) ................................................................... 7
`FEDERAL STATUTES
`
`35 U.S.C. § 18 .............................................................................................................. 1, 5, 8, 10
`
`35 U.S.C. § 101 ................................................................................................................. passim
`
`
`vi
`4/15/2014
`
`

`

`35 U.S.C. § 102 ................................................................................................................. passim
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 ................................................................................................................. passim
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 1 .......................................................................................................... 28, 32
`
`35 U.S.C. § 119(e) .................................................................................................................... 28
`
`35 U.S.C. § 282(b)(2) ............................................................................................................... 12
`
`35 U.S.C. § 282(b)(3) ............................................................................................................... 12
`
`35 U.S.C. § 321 ........................................................................................................................... 1
`
`35 U.S.C. § 321(a)(1) ............................................................................................................... 10
`
`35 U.S.C. § 324(a) ...................................................................................................................... 5
`
`35 U.S.C. § 324(b).................................................................................................................... 12
`
`§18 of Leahy–Smith America Invents Act ............................................................. 1, 6, 8, 10
`RULES
`
`Covered Business Method and Technological Invention Definitions Final
`Rules, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,734 (Aug. 14, 2012) ............................................................ 5, 6, 8
`REGULATIONS
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1) .............................................................................................................. 11
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2) .............................................................................................................. 11
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3) .............................................................................................................. 11
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4) .............................................................................................................. 11
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.15(b) ................................................................................................................ 10
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.203(a) ............................................................................................................... 10
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.300(b) .............................................................................................................. 13
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.301 ................................................................................................................. 5, 8
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.302 ................................................................................................................... 10
`
`
`vii
`4/15/2014
`
`

`

`
`Number
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`Description
`
`Exhibit 1001: U.S. Patent No. 6,826,548 (“the ’548 patent”)
`
`Exhibit 1002: Ex Parte Reexamination Certificate No. 7964 (Jan. 4, 2011)
`
`Exhibit 1003: Korean Patent No. 2000-3860 Certified Translation (“Park”)
`
`Exhibit 1004: Address Change Service, Publication 8, July 1997 (“1997 ACS”)
`
`Exhibit 1005: U.S. Patent No. 6,292,709 (“Uhl”)
`
`Exhibit 1006: U.S. Patent No. 7,778,840 (“Krause”)
`
`Exhibit 1007: U.S. Patent No. 6,457,012 (“Jatkowski”)
`
`Exhibit 1008: Declaration of Joe Lubenow, Ph.D.
`
`Exhibit 1009: Reexamination Patent Prosecution History of U.S. Patent No.
`
`6,826,548
`
`Exhibit 1010: MERRIAM-WEBSTER’S COLLEGIATE DICTIONARY (10th ed. 2001)
`
`Exhibit 1011: Return Mail, Inc. v. United States, No. 11-00130 (Fed. Cl. Oct. 4,
`
`2013)(Dkt. No. 54 claim construction order).
`
`Exhibit 1012: Cheetah Omni, LLC v. The United States of America, No. 11-00255 (Fed.
`
`Cl. June 7, 2013) (order granting stay).
`
`Exhibit 1013: Korean Patent No. 2000-3860 Original (“Park”)
`
`Exhibit 1014: Korean Patent No. 2000-3860 Certified Statement of Translation
`
`Exhibit 1015: Original Patent Prosecution History of U.S. Patent No. 6,826,548
`
`
`viii
`4/15/2014
`
`

`

`Exhibit 1016: Reissue Application No. 11/605,488 for U.S. Patent No. 6,826,548
`
`Exhibit 1017:
`
`Patent Application Serial No. 60/263,788
`
`Exhibit 1018: United States Postal Service’s Redirection History, May 1999
`
`Exhibit 1019: Move Update, April 1997
`
`
`ix
`4/15/2014
`
`

`

`PETITION FOR POST-GRANT REVIEW UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 321 AND
`§ 18 OF THE LEAHY-SMITH AMERICA INVENTS ACT
`
`Under 35 U.S.C. § 321, § 18 of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA),
`
`
`
`and 37 C.F.R. § 4.300, the United States Postal Service (Petitioner or USPS) requests
`
`covered business method patent post-grant review of claims 39-44 of U.S. Patent No.
`
`6,826,548 (the ’548 patent, attached as Exhibit 1001), issued to Ralph Mitchell
`
`Hungerpiller and Ronald C. Cagle on November 30, 2004, as amended by Ex parte
`
`Reexamination Certificate No. 7964 (attached as Exhibit 1002) on January 4, 2011,
`
`assigned on its face to Return Mail, Inc. (Patent Owner).
`
`I.
`
`PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
`
`The ’548 patent—which in the applicant’s words merely automates the “very
`
`labor intensive task of manually updating individual mailing address records”—is the
`
`very type of Class 705 business-method patent Congress had in mind when it created
`
`covered business method (CBM) post-grant review. The broad relaying data claims are
`
`non-statutory (35 U.S.C. § 101), anticipated (35 U.S.C. § 102), and obvious
`
`(35 U.S.C. § 103), and were impermissibly broadened during reexamination (35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 305). Petitioner challenges claims 39–44 of the reexamined ’548 on all four of these
`
`grounds.
`
`Under the Supreme Court’s recent decisions in Bilski v. Kappos, 130 S. Ct. 3218
`
`(2010), and Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289
`
`(2012), claims 39-44 recite only non-statutory subject matter. The Bilski plurality made
`
`1
`
`
`

`

`clear that the spread of computers into traditionally non-technological fields of human
`
`endeavor is a reason to be vigilant in enforcing the traditional limits of patent-
`
`eligibility. 130 S. Ct. at 3229. The plurality further stated that the abstract-ideas
`
`exception to Section 101 provides a “useful tool” with which to enforce such limits.
`
`Id. And in Mayo, the Court explained that the elements of a claim must add more than
`
`routine, well-understood steps to an unpatentable natural law or abstract idea. 132
`
`S. Ct. at 1298.
`
`Here, the patent applicant stated in the specification that the claimed subject
`
`matter was designed merely to avoid human error and reduce the need for manual
`
`labor. The claims invoke no specific computer technology and add no meaningful
`
`limitations to general computer technology, and preempt using a computer merely to
`
`relay data—specifically, mailing address records. Indeed, beyond this abstract concept,
`
`the claims merely recite data, electronic transmission, a processor, and a detector,
`
`none of which imposes a limitation on the claims’ scope sufficient to render them
`
`statutory under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
`
`Similarly and for many of the same reasons, the claims are anticipated under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 102 by many preexisting systems, including Park, 1997 ACS, and Uhl,
`
`discussed below. They are likewise obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as merely using
`
`commonplace electronic technology, for example, as described by Uhl, discussed
`
`below, to, in the Patent Owner’s own words, make more efficient the long-existing
`
`manual update of mailing address records. Finally, the claims that emerged from the
`
`2
`
`
`

`

`reexamination were impermissibly broader than those of the original claims, and
`
`should not have issued. For at least these reasons, claims 39-44 of the ’548 patent are
`
`unpatentable and should be cancelled.
`
`II. BACKGROUND
`A.
`The ’548 Patent
`The patent takes a self-admitted preexisting method of updating mail data and
`
`
`
`adds “conventional,” widely known technological expedients, such as telephone lines
`
`or software programming on a general-purpose computer. The Patent Owner argues
`
`the claimed invention “eliminates the very labor intensive task of manually updating
`
`individual mailing address records.” Ex. 1015 at 250. It does so using “conventional,”
`
`widely known preexisting technological expedients, such as electronic data lines—like
`
`telephones, communications circuits, or dial-up modems. Ex. 1001 at 3:52-58 (the
`
`system “is preferably electronically linked by a data line, which may be any
`
`conventional telecommunications data line”). The patent recites contacting a “dial-up
`
`server” for data retrieval. Ex. 1001 at Fig. 3. And the specification indicates the
`
`disclosed system requires no hardware, and a user may implement the method using
`
`software alone. The specification explains: “the present invention can be realized in
`
`software or a combination of hardware and software.” Ex. 1001 at 7:5-10 (emphasis
`
`added). The invention may “be embedded in a computer program product” that,
`
`“when loaded and executed,” i.e., “loaded in a computer system,” will “carry out these
`
`methods.” Id. at 7:13-18.
`
`3
`
`
`

`

`Prosecution History
`
`B.
`The applicant filed a provisional application, No. 60/263,788, on January 24,
`
`2001. Ex. 1013 at 1. On January 24, 2002, the applicant filed a corresponding non-
`
`provisional application, adding substantial subject matter, including figure 3 and the
`
`associated detailed description. See Ex. 1015 at 1, 3-25. After examination, including a
`
`number of amendments, the patent issued on November 30, 2004, Ex. 1001 at 1.
`
`In 2006, the Patent Owner applied for reissue, cancelling the original claims
`
`and proposing new claims. Ex. 1016 (Reissue Application 11/605,488, filed Nov. 26,
`
`2006). In 2007, the USPS also requested an ex parte reexamination of the patent based
`
`on five prior art references, Ex. 1009 at 3-4 (filed Jan. 31, 2007), the most notable
`
`reference being the Address Change Service, “Publication 8” (United States Postal
`
`Service (USPS), July 1997) (the 1997 ACS reference). Ex. 1009 at 4. The PTO granted
`
`the reexamination request, id. at 78, and merged the two proceedings, id. at 102
`
`(merged on June 1, 2007), but later dissolved the merger, Ex. 1016 at 13-16. The
`
`Office eventually allowed the reexamined claims on October 27, 2010, and the
`
`Reexamination Certificate issued on January 4, 2011. See Ex. 1009 at 748, 754. The
`
`Patent Owner expressly abandoned the reissue application on April 18, 2011. Ex.
`
`1016 at 3.
`
`4
`
`
`

`

`III. GROUNDS FOR STANDING
`A.
`At Least One Challenged Claim Is Unpatentable
`As further detailed below, claims 39-44 of the ’548 patent are unpatentable
`
`under one or more of 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102, and 103, and should not have been
`
`issued during the reexamination under 35 U.S.C. § 305. As set forth below, it is more
`
`likely than not that at least one of these claims is unpatentable. 35 U.S.C. § 324(a).
`
`B. The ’548 Patent Is a Covered Business Method Patent
`1.
`Claims 39 Recites Covered Business Method
`The AIA defines a 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, except
`
`that the term does not include patents for technological inventions.” AIA § 18(d)(1);
`
`see also 37 C.F.R. § 42.301. “[F]inancial product or service’’ “should be interpreted
`
`broadly” to include services complementary to banks, businesses, and sales. Covered
`
`Business Method and Technological Invention Definitions Final Rules, 77 Fed. Reg.
`
`48,734, 48,735 (Aug. 14, 2012). The legislative history of Section 18 further confirms
`
`that the ’548 patent is a CBM patent. According to Senator Schumer, one of the bill’s
`
`proponents:
`
`In addition to patents covering a financial product or service, the
`‘practice, administration and management’ language is intended to cover
`any ancillary activities related to a financial product or service, including
`. . . marketing, customer interfaces, Web site management and functionality,
`
`5
`
`
`

`

`transmission or management of data, servicing, underwriting, customer
`communications, and back office operations . . . .”
`
`157 Cong. Rec. S5432 (daily ed. Mar. 8, 2011) (emphases added).
`
`The PTO classified the ’548 patent in Class 705, strongly suggesting that it is a
`
`CBM patent. See Ex. at 1 (U.S. Cl. 705/401). According to the PTO’s rules governing
`
`CBM, “patents subject to covered business method review are anticipated to be
`
`typically classifiable in Class 705.” 77 Fed. Reg. at 48,739. The patent specification
`
`points to the broad-based nature of the business method at issue here, stating the
`
`method refers to “business mail” and is useful to “high volume mail users” including
`
`“insurance companies, mortgage and financial companies, and bulk mail advertisers,
`
`and credit card companies.” Id. at 1:20-41.
`
`At a minimum, method claim 39 covers the “practice, administration, and
`
`management” of financial services. And the Board consistently institutes CBM review
`
`on patented methods and systems ancillary to financial services. These include
`
`fulfillment software that schools use to schedule substitute teachers,1 transmitting a
`
`
`1 CRS Advanced Tech. Inc., v. Frontline Tech. Inc., CBM2012-00005, Paper 66 (PTAB Jan.
`
`23, 2014).
`
`6
`
`
`

`

`desired digital video or digital audio signal,2 and peer-to-peer advertising in mobile
`
`communications.3
`
`Method claim 39 is broad, abstract, and invalid. It reads:
`
`
`39. A method for processing returned mail items sent by a sender to an
`intended recipient, the method comprising:
`decoding, subsequent to mailing of the returned mail items, information
`indicating whether the sender wants a corrected address to be
`provided for the intended recipient, on at least one of the returned mail
`items;
`obtaining an updated address of the intended recipient subsequent to
`determining that the sender wants a corrected address to be
`provided for the intended recipient; and
`electronically transmitting an updated address of the intended recipient to a
`
`transferee, wherein the transferee is a return mail service provider.
`
`In Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. v. Progressive Casualty Insurance Co., CBM2012-
`
`00002, Paper 66 (Jan. 23, 2014), the PTAB affirmed that where at least one claim of a
`
`patent is directed to a covered business method (“CBM”), the PTAB has statutory
`
`authority to institute a CBM review as to any claim of that patent. Claim 39 provides a
`
`method for easing the administrative burden of finance companies, mortgage
`
`companies, and credit card companies by making relaying updated mailing address
`
`
`2 Apple Inc. v. SignSound Tech. LLC, CBM2013-00020, Paper 14 (PTAB Oct. 15, 2013).
`
`3 Groupon, Inc. v. Blue Calypso, LLC, CBM2013-00033, Paper 9 (PTAB Dec. 19, 2013).
`
`7
`
`
`

`

`data more cost effective. See id., 1:25-38. The Patent Owner argued “[i]n the present
`
`invention, the processing of undeliverable mail items . . . enables the sender to resend
`
`items such as bills to its customers . . . .” Ex. 1015 at 250. The specification likewise
`
`discusses credit card companies, and indicates that the claimed service can apply
`
`across businesses. Indeed, in one particular preferred embodiment described in the
`
`patent specification, “the process…is particularly applicable to high volume (bulk)
`
`mail users such as credit card companies,” but “is also applicable to any mail user who
`
`experienced and must deal with quantities of returned mail each month.” Ex. 1001 at
`
`2:60-65. Thus, the specification does not limit the field-of-use, and the service is
`
`applicable across financial businesses and services, such as credit cards or mortgage
`
`services.
`
`2.
`
`
`Claims 39-44 Do Not Claim Any Novel or Unobvious
`“Technological Invention”
`
`The AIA excludes “patents for technological inventions” from CBM. AIA
`
`§ 18(d)(1). To determine whether a patent is 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.
`
`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. at 48,736. Because the claims of the ’548 patent fail to
`
`8
`
`
`

`

`define a novel and unobvious technological feature and fail to recite a technical
`
`solution to a technical problem, the patent is not for a technological invention.
`
`Here, as the prosecution history notes, the claimed invention merely
`
`“eliminates the very labor intensive task of manually updating individual mailing
`
`address records.” Ex. 1015 at 250. Moreover, claims 39-44 recite methods and related
`
`systems employing no specific technology, much less any that is novel or unobvious
`
`over the prior art. They recite only nominal, generic, long-existing technologies, such
`
`as the common telephone, any computer, or any Internet or intranet address or
`
`location—none novel or unobvious technological features; all well-known many years
`
`before the claimed priority date of the patent.
`
`And none of the patent’s six challenged claims recite any specialized
`
`technological feature—and some of the claims do not recite any. Claim 39 recites
`
`“electronically transmitting,” but recites no clear technological feature, and the
`
`specification discloses the “obtaining an updated address” step may be accomplished
`
`over any “conventional telecommunications data line” linking return mail application
`
`server to the address service that provides the updated information. See Ex. 1001 at
`
`3:51-57. Claim 40 recites a generic “computer readable medium” in the preamble of
`
`the claim—but again, no clear, specialized technological feature. Claim 41 recites a
`
`“detector” and “processor” that uses a “computer program,” none of which the
`
`specification shows are specialized (or in the case of detector and processor, even
`
`defined). Claim 42 recites two alternatives—one which involves “electronically
`
`9
`
`
`

`

`transferring” data and another which involves posting to a “network.” Neither
`
`alternative is explicitly defined in the specification beyond that any “conventional
`
`telecommunications data line” can be used. See Ex. 1001 at 3:35–55. Dependent
`
`claims 43 and 44 do not recite anything technological to add to claim 42.
`
`Claims 39-44 fail to recite a technical problem solved by a technical solution.
`
`According to the patent’s Background, one of the problems faced by applicant is “the
`
`cost of maintaining a staff to handle return mail, to update company address
`
`databases, and the postage expense . . . is substantial,” a financial problem, not a
`
`technical problem. Ex. 1001 at 1:51-54. Instead, the patent merely makes more cost
`
`efficient the process of relaying mailing address data by using conventional
`
`telecommunications technology. See id. at 3:35-55; Ex. 1015 at 250.
`
`Patent Owner Sued Petitioner for Infringement of the ’548 Patent
`
`C.
`Patent Owner charged Petitioner with infringement of the ’548 patent and sued
`
`Petitioner’s real party-in-interest, the United States, as represented by the Postmaster
`
`General for patent infringement. Return Mail, Inc. (RMI) v. United States, No. 11-