throbber
Trials@uspto.gov
`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`
`Paper 12
`Entered: September 17, 2015
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`SERVICENOW, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case CBM2015-00077
`Patent 7,925,981 B2
`____________
`
`
`Before JAMES B. ARPIN, CHRISTOPHER L. CRUMBLEY, and
`JO-ANNE M. KOKOSKI, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`CRUMBLEY, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Denying Institution of Covered Business Method Patent Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.208
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`ServiceNow, Inc. filed a Petition seeking a covered business method
`
`patent review of claims 1, 22, and 23 of U.S. Patent No. 7,925,981 B2 (Ex.
`
`1001, “the ’981 patent”). Paper 2, “Pet.” The owner of the ’981 patent,
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00077
`Patent 7,925,981 B2
`
`Hewlett-Packard Company (“HP”), filed a Patent Owner’s Preliminary
`
`Response. Paper 11, “Prelim. Resp.” Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 324(a), we
`
`may not institute a covered business method review “unless the Director[1]
`
`determines that the information presented in the petition . . . , if such
`
`information is not rebutted, would demonstrate that it is more likely than not
`
`that at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition is unpatentable.”
`
`Upon consideration of the Petition, Preliminary Response, and the
`
`evidence of record, we decline to institute a covered business method patent
`
`review as to claims 1, 22, and 23 of the ’981 patent.
`
`A. The ’981 Patent
`
`1. Background
`
`The ’981 patent, entitled “Systems and Methods for Managing Web
`
`Services Via a Framework of Interfaces,” relates to a Web service
`
`management system comprising service managed objects. Ex. 1001, 3:41–
`
`43. The specification explains that Web services are “an approach to
`
`distributed computing in which interactions are carried out through the
`
`exchange of eXtensible Markup Language (XML) messages.” Id. at 1:55–
`
`58. The distributed nature of Web services presents challenges, including
`
`“[t]he problem of managing disparate IT resources . . . deployed in remote
`
`locations and accessed via information networks, such as the Internet” and
`
`the fact that “Web services have been designed to be extensible at all
`
`levels.” Id. at 1:42–45, 3:5–7.
`
`
`
`1 “The Board institutes the trial on behalf of the Director.” 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.4(a).
`
`2
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00077
`Patent 7,925,981 B2
`
`
`According to the specification, managed objects are “management
`
`representation[s] of a resource,” that implement “managed object interfaces
`
`to provide a common set of basic management capabilities.” Id. at 7:25–35.
`
`Figure 1A, depicting an embodiment of a web service management system,
`
`is reproduced below:
`
`In Figure 1A, web service management system 100 has service
`
`managed objects 104, 110 that have service interfaces 112, 114 that allow
`
`manager 102 to access information regarding the state of services 104, 110.
`
`Id. at 4:51–60. In this embodiment, the specification describes that:
`
`
`
`Service managed objects 108, 110 represent the management
`features of resource(s)
`that perform services 104, 106.
`Interfaces in one or more categories can be included in service
`interfaces 112, 114 for each service managed object 108, 110.
`Service interfaces 112, 114 can allow manager 102 to access
`information regarding the state of services 104, 106, as well as
`to control the operation of services 104, 106.
`
`Id. at 4:51–60.
`
`3
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00077
`Patent 7,925,981 B2
`
`
`
`The specification also provides examples of applications of the
`
`claimed invention, for example in Figure 2, reproduced below:
`
`
`
`
`
`Figure 2 depicts a “Service Management Example,” comprising
`
`online shopping service system 200 in which client 202 accesses online
`
`ordering service 204 at online store 206, for example over the Internet. Id. at
`
`14:27–33. A third party implements payment processor 212 with billing
`
`service 210, and information regarding transactions (for example, credit card
`
`authorizations) can be exchanged via conversations 214, 216. Id. at 14:37–
`
`41. Manager 102 may be configured to manage one or more of services 204,
`
`208, 210 and conversations 214, 216. Id. at 14:48–49.
`
`
`
`The ’981 patent provides an additional embodiment using managed
`
`objects to manage Web services, entitled “Distributed Business Process
`
`Example,” pertaining to an online auction manager. Id. at 16:44–52. The
`
`specification notes, however, that the described embodiments are illustrative
`
`and not limiting on the scope of the invention. Id. at 19:15–18.
`
`4
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00077
`Patent 7,925,981 B2
`
`
`2. Illustrative Claim
`
`Petitioner challenges claims 1, 22, and 23 of the ’981 patent. Claims
`
`1 and 22 are independent; claim 23 depends from claim 22. Claim 1 is
`
`directed to a system for managing a web service; claim 22 is directed to a
`
`computer program product tangibly embodied in a computer storage
`
`readable medium, comprising a service interface and a managed object
`
`interface. Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed subject matter and reads as
`
`follows:
`
`1. A system for managing a Web service, comprising:
`
`
`
`a computer processor; and
`
`a service managed object executable on the computer
`
`processor, wherein:
`
`the service managed object is associated with the Web
`
`service and includes at least one interface configured to allow a
`manager to access management features for the Web service;
`and
`
`the at least one interface is configured to provide a list of
`
`conversations associated with the Web service.
`
`Ex. 1001, 19:34–43 (claim 1).
`
`
`A. The Asserted Grounds
`
`ServiceNow presents the following grounds of unpatentability:
`
`1. Whether claims 1, 22, and 23 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 101
`as directed to patent-ineligible subject matter; and
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00077
`Patent 7,925,981 B2
`
`2. Whether claims 1, 22, and 23 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 103(a) as having been obvious over the combined disclosures of
`Hoffman2 and eBay for Dummies.3
`
`ServiceNow contends that Hoffman and eBay for Dummies are prior
`
`art to the ’981 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Pet. 39. At this stage of the
`
`proceeding, HP does not dispute the prior art status of the applied references.
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`
`Section 18 of the America Invents Act created a transitional program,
`
`limited to persons or their privies that have been sued or charged with
`
`infringement of a “covered business method patent,” which does not include
`
`patents for “technological inventions.” Leahy-Smith America Invents Act,
`
`§§ 18(a)(1)(B), 18(d)(1), Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284, 329–331
`
`(2011); see 37 C.F.R. § 42.302. As discussed below, we conclude that the
`
`question of whether the ’981 patent is a covered business method patent is
`
`dispositive to this case.
`
`A covered business method patent is one 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) (emphasis added); see 37 C.F.R. § 42.301(a). The
`
`“legislative history explains that the definition of covered business method
`
`patent was drafted to encompass patents ‘claiming activities that are
`
`financial in nature, incidental to a financial activity or complementary to a
`
`financial activity.’” See Transitional Program for Covered Business Method
`
`
`2 U.S. Published Patent Application No. 2002/0049664 A1 to Hoffman et al.
`(published Apr. 25, 2002) (Ex. 1004).
`3 MARSHA COLLIER, ET AL., EBAY FOR DUMMIES (2d ed.), Hungry Minds,
`Inc., (2001) (excerpts, Ex. 1005).
`
`6
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00077
`Patent 7,925,981 B2
`
`Patents—Definitions of Covered Business Method Patent and Technological
`
`Invention; Final Rule, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,734, 48,735 (Aug. 14, 2012) (quoting
`
`157 Cong. Rec. S5432 (daily ed. Sept. 8, 2011) (statement of Sen. Schumer)
`
`(emphasis added)). The focus is on what the patent claims, but a patent need
`
`only have one claim directed to a covered business method to be eligible for
`
`review. Id.; see also Versata Dev. Grp., Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d
`
`1306, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (affirming PTAB decision that used a single
`
`claim to determine eligibility for covered business method patent review).
`
`ServiceNow contends that the ’981 patent is eligible for covered
`
`business method patent review, because it claims a system for monitoring a
`
`Web service, and the specification explains that Web services can be used to
`
`implement “functions such as language translation or currency conversion,
`
`performing calculations for medical claims processing, and handling certain
`
`aspects of travel planning.” Pet. 5–6 (citing Ex. 1001, 1:60–64). In
`
`particular, ServiceNow directs our attention to an illustrative embodiment in
`
`the specification, depicted in Figure 2, which pertains to an online ordering
`
`system. Pet. 6–8; Ex. 1001, 14:47–16:40. According to ServiceNow,
`
`“[e]ach of the limitations from claim 1 is reflected in the online ordering
`
`system.” Pet. 6–8. ServiceNow also notes that the specification describes
`
`an additional illustrative embodiment, directed to an online auction system.
`
`Id. at 8 (citing Ex. 1001, 16:44–52). Based on these disclosures,
`
`ServiceNow argues that “the ’981 patent expressly contemplates using the
`
`system of claim 1 to manage a financial product or service,” thereby meeting
`
`the definition of covered business method patent. Pet. 8 (underlining
`
`omitted).
`
`7
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00077
`Patent 7,925,981 B2
`
`
`HP disagrees that the ’981 patent claims a covered business method,
`
`arguing that covered business method patent review “is not available for
`
`patents that claim generally useful technologies that happen to be also useful
`
`to financial applications.” Prelim. Resp. 17. HP first argues that none of the
`
`challenged claims of the ’981 patent “contains a single limitation that is
`
`financial in nature,” thus the claims “are directed to generally useful
`
`technologies that may be applied to various industries and processes.” Id. at
`
`18–19. HP further argues that ServiceNow’s Petition ignores the general
`
`nature of the claims, instead focusing on illustrative embodiments set forth
`
`in the specification whose financial aspects are not required by the claims.
`
`Id. at 20. According to HP, the specification indicates that the claims have
`
`broad application in fields—such as translation and travel planning—which
`
`are non-financial. Id. at 22. Even in the financial embodiments cited by
`
`ServiceNow, HP argues, the relevance of the claims is to managing the Web
`
`services, as opposed to performing any particular financial transaction. Id.
`
`We agree with HP that ServiceNow has not established that the ’981
`
`patent claims a method or apparatus for performing data processing or other
`
`operations used in the practice, administration, or management of a financial
`
`product or service. At the outset, we note the similarity of this case to
`
`another Petition filed by ServiceNow, in which the panel recently denied
`
`institution of review because it had not been established that the patent at
`
`issue therein was a covered business method patent. ServiceNow, Inc. v.
`
`BMC Software, Inc., Case CBM2015-00107, slip op. at 10–15 (PTAB Sept.
`
`11, 2015) (Paper 12) (“ServiceNow ’107”). Although not binding authority,
`
`we find the panel’s reasoning persuasive and adopt it herein.
`
`8
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00077
`Patent 7,925,981 B2
`
`
`In ServiceNow ’107, the panel noted that the claims at issue were
`
`directed to a method for fault analysis, and did not recite any step that
`
`involved a financial activity. Id. at 10. While the specification of the
`
`challenged patent provided a single illustrative embodiment directed to the
`
`use of the claimed method in an automatic teller machine network, and
`
`ServiceNow explained how the claims encompassed that embodiment, the
`
`panel found the claims were “of general applicability for fault analysis.” Id.
`
`at 11. The panel also found instructive that the problem addressed by the
`
`patent was non-financial in nature, and that a significant portion of the
`
`specification described the claimed method in general terms, before turning
`
`to the illustrative ATM network embodiment. Id. at 11–12. With respect to
`
`the ATM network embodiment, the panel stated that “[n]otably, the
`
`Specification does not attribute any significance to the choice of an ATM
`
`network as the illustrative enterprise.” Id. at 13.
`
`We are presented with a similar set of facts in the instant case. The
`
`challenged claims of the ’981 patent are directed to a system for managing a
`
`Web service, and contain no finance-related terminology or limitations. Cf.
`
`MaxMind, Inc. v. Fraud Control Systems.com Corp., Case CBM2015-
`
`00094, slip op. at 5–6 (PTAB Sept. 11, 2015) (Paper 7) (claim reciting
`
`method for “computerized fraud control” including the step of receiving a
`
`“transaction request”); Square, Inc. v. Unwired Planet, LLC, Case CBM
`
`2014-00156, slip op. at 9–10 (PTAB Dec. 24, 2014) (Paper 11) (claim
`
`reciting method for “controlling transactions” including the step of charging
`
`the correlated transaction amount to a source of funds”); see also Symphony
`
`Health Solutions Corp. v. IMS Health Inc., Case CBM2015-00085, slip op.
`
`at 10–11 (PTAB Sep. 10, 2015) (Paper 7) (“[E]ach claim recites a ‘health
`
`9
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00077
`Patent 7,925,981 B2
`
`care field’ relating to ‘health care data,’ which is described in the
`
`specification as including claims data, such as pharmaceutical, medical and
`
`hospital claims data, i.e., claims for receiving payment or reimbursement.”).
`
`We agree with HP that the claims are of general utility—the
`
`specification of the ’981 patent supports such a conclusion, stating that Web
`
`services may be used to implement language translation or travel planning
`
`functions, as well as financial functions. Ex. 1001, 1:55–67. As in
`
`ServiceNow ’107, a considerable portion of the specification of the ’981
`
`patent is devoted to a general description of the claimed Web service
`
`management system, without any reference to particular application to
`
`financial activities. Id. at 4:51–14:23. In addition, we note that the problem
`
`addressed by the ’981 patent is not financial in nature:
`
`The problem of managing disparate IT resources is becoming
`more acute as systems are increasingly developed using IT
`resources that are deployed in remote locations and accessed
`via information networks, such as the Internet. Generally, the
`resources to be managed are not readily identifiable when the
`resources are highly distributed and independent of one another.
`Further, it is difficult to obtain information regarding properties
`and attributes of the resources, and protocols for exchanging
`management
`information with
`the resources. A further
`difficulty lies in determining the relationships among the
`resources used in a system to pinpoint operational problems
`when one or more of the resources do not respond as expected.
`
`Id. at 1:42–54.
`
`Subsequent portions of the specification refer to management
`
`challenges particular to Web services, such as the fact that they may “form a
`
`distributed application that may extend across an enterprise or even the
`
`Internet,” and “have been designed to be extensible at all levels.” Id. at
`
`2:48–56; 3:5–18. These problems and challenges are applicable to
`
`10
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00077
`Patent 7,925,981 B2
`
`applications generally; the specification does not describe any specific
`
`challenges that are presented by financial applications. The clear
`
`implication is that the ’981 patent is directed to solving a problem of general
`
`applicability.
`
`Although we acknowledge the inclusion in the specification of two
`
`illustrative embodiments directed to applications of the claimed system in
`
`financial systems, we agree with the ServiceNow ’107 panel’s reasoning that
`
`such examples are insufficient to convert the ’981 patent into a covered
`
`business method patent. First, the specification gives no indication that the
`
`selection of these financial applications has any special significance.
`
`Indeed, the online shopping service example is titled “Service Management
`
`Example,” while the auction manager example is titled “Distributed
`
`Business Processes Example.” Ex. 1001, 14:25, 16:42. Second, the
`
`specification expressly states that “these embodiments are illustrative and
`
`. . . the scope of the invention is not limited to them.” Id. at 19:15–18.
`
`Finally, we agree with the ServiceNow ’107 panel that it is insufficient
`
`to simply show how the claims may be mapped to a financial embodiment in
`
`the specification, as ServiceNow does in its Petition. Pet. 6–8. At most, this
`
`shows that the claimed system could be used in a financial product or
`
`service; the Board has held recently that this is insufficient to confer covered
`
`business method review eligibility. Sony Corp. of Am. v. Network-1 Techs.,
`
`Inc., Case CBM2015-00078, slip op. at 11–12 (PTAB July 1, 2015) (Paper
`
`7). Congress defined a covered business method patent as one 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,” not a method or apparatus that “can be used,” “may be
`
`11
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00077
`Patent 7,925,981 B2
`
`used,” or “is capable of being used” in such a manner. AIA § 18(d)(1)
`
`(emphasis added). As the Board explained in Sony:
`
`[T]he fact that [the claimed] devices may have uses . . .
`pertaining to banking, does not mean that claim 23 ‘covers’
`such activities. Petitioner’s position, in essence, would mean
`that any patent claiming something that can be used in
`connection with a financial service (e.g., an Ethernet cable, a
`generic computer monitor, or even a ballpoint pen) would be
`eligible for covered business method patent review, regardless
`of what the patent claims.
`
`Id. (emphasis added).
`
`The primary justification for covered business method review
`
`eligibility provided by ServiceNow is that the illustrative embodiments in
`
`the specification of the ’981 patent show that the invention may be used in a
`
`financial system. Financially-related illustrative embodiments in the
`
`specification may be sufficient in cases where the specification indicates
`
`particular advantages or applicability to financial embodiments, where the
`
`specification makes clear that claim limitations are interpreted expressly to
`
`cover financial embodiments, or where there is not extensive evidence that
`
`the claimed invention has general utility. The present case, however,
`
`presents us with none of these supporting facts—the facts before us, as
`
`outlined above, establish that the claimed system is one of general utility,
`
`and weigh heavily in favor of finding the ’981 patent not eligible for covered
`
`business method patent review. As in ServiceNow ’107, “the absence of any
`
`finance-related limitation in the claims is the primary driver of our
`
`determination,” and is supported by the general nature of the problem
`
`addressed and the illustrative nature of the embodiments.
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00077
`Patent 7,925,981 B2
`
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`
`As the Office has stated, the legislative history of the America Invents
`
`Act indicates that “financial product or service” should be interpreted
`
`“broadly.” 77 Fed. Reg. 48,734, 48,736 (Aug. 14, 2012). But “broadly”
`
`does not mean “without limits.” As the Federal Circuit recently explained,
`
`“[t]he plain text of the statutory definition contained in § 18(d)(1)—
`
`‘performing . . . operations used in the practice, administration, or
`
`management of a financial product or service’—on its face covers a wide
`
`range of finance-related activities.” Versata, 793 F.3d at 1325 (emphasis
`
`added). Petitioner has not established that the activities covered by the
`
`claims of the ’981 patent—managing a Web service—are any more
`
`“finance-related” than they are “language translation-related” or “travel
`
`planning-related.” For these reasons, we conclude that the ’981 patent does
`
`not “claim[] 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,” and is ineligible for covered
`
`business method patent review under Section 18 of the America Invents Act.
`
`ServiceNow’s Petition, therefore, is denied on all asserted grounds.
`
`
`
`For the reasons given, it is
`
`IV. ORDER
`
`ORDERED that the Petition is denied, and no covered business
`
`method patent review is instituted.
`
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00077
`Patent 7,925,981 B2
`
`FOR PETITIONER:
`
`Heidi L. Keefe
`hkeefe@cooley.com
`Andrew C. Mace
`amace@cooley.com
`Phillip E. Morton
`pmorton@cooley.com
`Mark Weinstein
`mweinstein@cooley.com
`COOLEY LLP
`
`FOR PATENT OWNER:
`
`Evelyn Mak
`Evelyn.Mak@wilmerhale.com
`Joseph Haag
`joseph.haag@wilmerhale.com
`WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE & DORR LLP
`
`14

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


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

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

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket