throbber
Trials@uspto.gov
`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`Paper 22
`Entered: May 26, 2016
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`APPLE INC., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS LTD, SAMSUNG
`ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., and GOOGLE INC.,
`Petitioner, 1
`
`v.
`
`SMARTFLASH LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case CBM2015-000312
`Patent 8,336,772 B2
`
`Before JENNIFER S. BISK, RAMA G. ELLURU, GREGG I. ANDERSON,
`MATTHEW R. CLEMENTS, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`ANDERSON, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
`35 U.S.C. § 328(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73
`
`1 “Petitioner” refers collectively to Petitioner Inc,, Samsung Electronics
`LTD, Samsung Electronics America, Inc., and Google Inc.
`
`2 Samsung’s challenge to claims 5 and 10 of US Patent No. 8,336,772 B2
`(“the ’772 patent”) in CBM2015-00059 was consolidated with this
`proceeding. Paper 24, 9. Google’s challenge to claims 1, 5, and 10 of the
`’772 patent in CBM2015-00132 was consolidated with this proceeding.
`Paper 31, 11; Paper 37, 2–3.
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00031
`Patent 8,336,772 B2
`
`A. Background
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. filed a Corrected Petition to institute covered
`
`business method patent review of claims 1, 5, 8, and 10 of U.S. Patent No.
`
`8,336,772 B2 (Ex. 1201, “the ’772 patent”) pursuant to § 18 of the Leahy-
`
`Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”). Paper 5 (“Pet.”). Patent Owner,
`
`Smartflash LLC (“Smartflash”), filed a Preliminary Response. Paper 8
`
`(“Prelim. Resp.”). On May 28, 2015, we instituted a covered business
`
`method patent review (Paper 11, “Institution Decision” or “Inst. Dec.”)
`
`based upon Apple’s assertion that claims 1, 5, 8, and 10 are directed to
`
`patent ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Inst. Dec. 19.
`
`Subsequent to institution, Smartflash filed a Patent Owner Response
`
`(Paper 23, “PO Resp.”) and Apple filed a Reply (Paper 26, “Reply”) to
`
`Patent Owner’s Response.
`
`On January 15, 2015, Petitioner Samsung Electronics America, Inc.
`
`and Samsung Electronics, Co., Ltd. filed a Petition to institute covered
`
`business method patent review of claims 5, 10, 14, 26, and 32 of the ’772
`
`patent on the ground that they are directed to patent ineligible subject matter
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Samsung Electronics America, Inc. and Samsung
`
`Electronics, Co., Ltd. v. Smartflash LLC, Case CBM2015-00059 (Paper 2,
`
`“Samsung Petition”). On June 29, 2015, Samsung filed a Motion for Joinder
`
`(CBM2015-00059, Paper 11) seeking to consolidate its challenge to claims 5
`
`and 10 with the covered business method patent review in CBM2015-
`
`2
`
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00031
`Patent 8,336,772 B2
`
`00031.3 On August 5, 2015, we granted Samsung’s Petition and
`
`consolidated Samsung’s challenge to claims 5 and 10 with this proceeding.
`
`Paper 24; Samsung Electronics America, Inc. and Samsung Electronics, Co.,
`
`Ltd. v. Smartflash LLC, Case CBM2015-00059, slip. op. at 9 (PTAB Aug. 5,
`
`2015) (Paper 13).
`
`On May 8, 2015, Petitioner Google Inc. filed a Petition to institute
`
`covered business method patent review of claims 1, 5, 9, 10, 14, 21, and 22
`
`of the ’772 patent on the ground that they are directed to patent ineligible
`
`subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Google Inc. v. Smartflash LLC, Case
`
`CBM2015-00132 (Paper 64, “Google Petition”). On June 29, 2015, Google
`
`filed a “Motion for Joinder” of its newly filed case with previously instituted
`
`Apple cases CBM2015-00031 and CBM2015-00032. CBM2015-00132
`
`(Paper 10, “Google Mot.”). On December 1, 2015, we granted Google’s
`
`Petition and consolidated Google’s challenge to claims 1, 5, 9, and 10 of the
`
`’772 patent with this proceeding.5 Paper 31; Google Inc. v. Smartflash LLC,
`
`Case CBM2015-00132, slip. op. at 11 (PTAB Dec. 1, 2015) (Paper 14).
`
`Google’s challenge to claims 14, 21, and 22 of the ’772 patent were
`
`consolidated with CBM2015-00032. Id. On December 16, 2015, we revised
`
`
`3 Samsung’s Motion requested that: its challenge to claims 5 and 10 be
`consolidated with this case; its challenge to claim 14 be consolidated with
`CBM2015-00032; and its challenge to claims 26 and 32 be consolidated
`with CBM2015-00033. CBM2015-00032 and CBM2015-00033 were both
`filed by Apple and involve claims 14, 19, and 21, and claims 25, 26, 30, and
`32, respectively, of the ’772 patent. Final Written Decisions in CBM2015-
`00032 and CBM2015-00033 are issued concurrently with this Decision.
`
`4 We refer to the redacted version of the Petition.
`5 For purposes of this Decision, we will cite only to Apple’s Petition and the
`record in CBM2015-00031.
`
`3
`
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00031
`Patent 8,336,772 B2
`
`our institution order to consolidate Google’s challenge to claims 9 and 21
`
`with CBM2015-00133, instead of with this proceeding and CBM2015-
`
`00032, respectively. Paper 37, 3.
`
`An oral hearing was held on January 6, 2016, and a transcript of the
`
`hearing is included in the record (Paper 43, “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) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73.
`
`For the reasons that follow, we determine that Petitioner has shown by
`
`a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1, 5, 8, and 10 of the ’772 patent
`
`are directed to patent ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
`
`B. The ’772 Patent
`
`The ’772 patent relates to “a portable data carrier for storing and
`
`paying for data and to computer systems for providing access to data to be
`
`stored” and the “corresponding methods and computer programs.”
`
`Ex. 1201, 1:24–28. Owners of proprietary data, especially audio recordings,
`
`have an urgent need to address the prevalence of “data pirates,” who make
`
`proprietary data available over the internet without authorization.
`
`Id. at 1:32–58. The ’772 patent describes providing portable data storage
`
`together with a means for conditioning access to that data upon validated
`
`payment. Id. at 1:62–2:3. According to the ’772 patent, this combination of
`
`the payment validation means with the data storage means allows data
`
`owners to make their data available over the internet without fear of data
`
`pirates. Id. at 2:10–18.
`
`As described, the portable data storage device is connected to a
`
`terminal for internet access. Id. at 1:62–2:3. The terminal reads payment
`
`information, validates that information, and downloads data into the portable
`
`4
`
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00031
`Patent 8,336,772 B2
`
`storage device from a data supplier. Id. The data on the portable storage
`
`device can be retrieved and output from a mobile device. Id. at 2:4–7. The
`
`’772 patent makes clear that the actual implementation of these components
`
`is not critical and the alleged invention may be implemented in many ways.
`
`See, e.g., id. at 25:59–62 (“The skilled person will understand that many
`
`variants to the system are possible and the invention is not limited to the
`
`described embodiments . . . .”).
`
`C. Illustrative Claims
`
`Petitioner challenges claims 1, 5, 8, and 10 of the ’772 patent. Claims
`
`1 and 8 are independent and claims 5 and 10 depend from claims 1 and 8,
`
`respectively. Claims 1 and 8 are reproduced below:
`
`1. A handheld multimedia terminal, comprising:
`
`a wireless interface configured to interface with a wireless
`network for accessing a remote computer system;
`
`non-volatile memory configured to store multimedia content,
`wherein said multimedia content comprises one or more of music
`data, video data and computer game data;
`
`a program store storing processor control code;
`
`a processor coupled to said non-volatile memory, said program
`store, said wireless interface and
`
`a user interface to allow a user to select and play said multimedia
`content;
`
`a display for displaying one or both of said played multimedia
`content and data relating to said played multimedia content;
`
`wherein the processor control code comprises:
`
`code to request identifier data identifying one or more
`items of multimedia content stored in the non-volatile memory;
`
`code to receive said identifier data;
`
`5
`
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00031
`Patent 8,336,772 B2
`
`code to present to a user on said display said identified one
`or more items of multimedia content available from the non-
`volatile memory;
`
`code to receive a user selection to select at least one of said
`one or more of said stored items of multimedia content;
`
`code responsive to said user selection of said at least one
`selected item of multimedia content to transmit payment data
`relating to payment for said at least one selected item of
`multimedia content via said wireless interface for validation by a
`payment validation system;
`
`code to receive payment validation data via said wireless
`interface defining if said payment validation system has
`validated payment for said at least one selected item of
`multimedia content; and
`
`code to control access to said at least one selected item of
`multimedia content on said terminal responsive to said payment
`validation data,
`
`wherein said user interface is operable to enable a user to
`select said at least one item of multimedia content available from
`said non-volatile memory; and
`
`wherein said user interface is operable to enable a user to
`access said at least one selected item of multimedia content
`responsive to said code to control access permitting access to said
`at least one selected item of multimedia content.
`
`Ex. 1201, 25:65–26:43.
`
`8. A data access terminal for controlling access to one or more
`content data items stored on a data carrier, the data access
`terminal comprising:
`
`a user interface;
`
`a data carrier interface;
`
`a program store storing code implementable by a processor; and
`
`a processor coupled to the user interface, to the data carrier
`interface and to the program store for implementing the stored
`code, the code comprising:
`
`6
`
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00031
`Patent 8,336,772 B2
`
`code to request identifier data identifying one or more
`content data items stored on the data carrier;
`
`code to receive said identifier data;
`
`code to present to a user via said user interface said
`identified one or more content data items available from the data
`carrier;
`
`code to receive a user selection selecting at least one of
`said one or more of said stored content data items;
`
`code responsive to said user selection of said selected
`content data item to transmit payment data relating to payment
`for said selected content item for validation by a payment
`validation system;
`
`code to receive payment validation data defining if said
`payment validation system has validated payment for said
`content data item; and
`
`code to control access to said selected content data item
`responsive to the payment validation data.
`
`Ex. 1201, 27:15–41.
`
`A. Claim Construction
`
`ANALYSIS
`
`Consistent with the statute and the legislative history of the AIA,6 the
`
`Board interprets claim terms in an unexpired patent according to the
`
`broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in
`
`which they appear. See In re Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC, 793 F.3d 1268,
`
`1278–79 (Fed. Cir. 2015), cert. granted sub nom. Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC
`
`v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 890 (mem.) (2016); 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Under that
`
`standard, and absent any special definitions, we give claim terms their
`
`ordinary and customary meaning, as would be understood by one of ordinary
`
`
`6 Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, Pub. L. No. 11229, 125 Stat. 284
`(2011) (“AIA”).
`
`7
`
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00031
`Patent 8,336,772 B2
`
`skill in the art at the time of the invention. See In re Translogic Tech., Inc.,
`
`504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Any special definitions for claim
`
`terms must be set forth with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision.
`
`See In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
`
`For purposes of this Decision, we do not need to expressly construe
`
`any claim term.
`
`B. Statutory Subject Matter
`
`Petitioner challenges claims 1, 5, 8, and 10 as directed to patent-
`
`ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Pet. 22–35. Petitioner
`
`submits a declaration from Anthony J. Wechselberger (“Wechselberger
`
`Declaration”)7 in support of its petition. Ex. 1219.
`
`According to Petitioner, claims 1, 5, 8, and 10 are directed to an
`
`abstract idea and do not disclose an “inventive concept” that is “significantly
`
`more” than the abstract idea. Pet. 22–35. Smartflash argues that claims 1, 5,
`
`8, and 10 are directed to statutory subject matter because they are “‘rooted in
`
`computer technology in order to overcome a problem specifically arising in
`
`the realm of computer networks’ – that of digital data piracy.” PO Resp. 18
`
`(citation omitted). Specifically, Smartflash asserts that “the claims are
`
`directed to particular devices that can download and store digital content into
`
`non-volatile memory / a data carrier.” Id. at 17.
`
`
`7 In its Response, Patent Owner argues that the Wechselberger Declaration
`should be given little or no weight. PO Resp. 4–11. Because Patent Owner
`has filed a Motion to Exclude that includes a request to exclude the
`Wechselberger Declaration in its entirety, or in the alternative, portions of the
`declaration based on essentially the same argument, we address Patent
`Owner’s argument as part of our analysis of the motion, discussed below.
`
`8
`
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00031
`Patent 8,336,772 B2
`
`1. Abstract Idea
`
`Under 35 U.S.C. § 101, we must first identify whether an invention
`
`fits within one of the four statutorily provided categories of patent-
`
`eligibility: “processes, machines, manufactures, and compositions of
`
`matter.” Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 713–714 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2014). Here, claims 1 and 5 recite a “handheld multimedia terminal” and
`
`claims 8 and 10 recite a “data access terminal,” which fall into the
`
`“machine” category under § 101. Section 101, however, “contains an
`
`important implicit exception [to subject matter eligibility]: Laws of nature,
`
`natural phenomena, and abstract ideas are not patentable.” Alice Corp. Pty.
`
`Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l., 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2354 (2014) (citing Assoc. for
`
`Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 133 S. Ct. 2107, 2116 (2013)
`
`(internal quotation marks and brackets omitted)). In Alice, the Supreme
`
`Court reiterated the framework set forth previously in Mayo Collaborative
`
`Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289, 1293 (2012) “for
`
`distinguishing patents that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena, and
`
`abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible applications of those
`
`concepts.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355. The first step in the analysis is to
`
`“determine whether the claims at issue are directed to one of those patent-
`
`ineligible concepts.” Id.
`
`According to the Federal Circuit, “determining whether the section
`
`101 exception for abstract ideas applies involves distinguishing between
`
`patents that claim the building blocks of human ingenuity—and therefore
`
`risk broad pre-emption of basic ideas—and patents that integrate those
`
`building blocks into something more, enough to transform them into specific
`
`patent-eligible inventions.” Versata Dev. Grp., Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793
`
`9
`
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00031
`Patent 8,336,772 B2
`
`F.3d 1306, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (emphasis added); accord id. at 1333–1334
`
`(“It is a building block, a basic conceptual framework for organizing
`
`information . . . .” (emphasis added)). This is similar to the Supreme Court’s
`
`formulation in Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 611 (2010) (emphasis added),
`
`noting that the concept of risk hedging is “a fundamental economic practice
`
`long prevalent in our system of commerce.” See also buySAFE, Inc. v.
`
`Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1353–54 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (stating that patent
`
`claims related to “long-familiar commercial transactions” and relationships
`
`(i.e., business methods), no matter how “narrow” or “particular,” are
`
`directed to abstract ideas as a matter of law). As a further example, the
`
`“concept of ‘offer based pricing’ is similar to other ‘fundamental economic
`
`concepts’ found to be abstract ideas by the Supreme Court and [the Federal
`
`Circuit].” OIP Tech., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1362 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2015) (citations omitted).
`
`Petitioner argues that claims 1, 5, 8, and 10 are directed to the abstract
`
`idea of “paying for and/or controlling access to content.” Pet. 23; see id. at
`
`24–27. Although Smartflash does not concede, in its Patent Owner
`
`Response, that claims 1, 5, 8, and 10 are directed to an abstract idea, it does
`
`not persuasively explain how the challenged claims escape being classified
`
`as abstract. PO Resp. 15–25 (Patent Owner Response arguing that claims
`
`are statutory under only the second step of Mayo and Alice); see also Tr.
`
`7:19–22 (Petitioner stating that “Patent Owner has made no argument that its
`
`claims are not directed to abstract ideas under the first prong of Mayo and
`
`Alice.”) (emphasis added), id. at 7:22–23 (Petitioner also stating “[Patent
`
`Owner] has never disputed the articulation of those abstract ideas”).
`
`10
`
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00031
`Patent 8,336,772 B2
`
`We are persuaded that claims 1, 5, 8, and 10 are drawn to the abstract
`
`idea of conditioning and controlling access to content based on, for example,
`
`payment. Specifically, independent claim 1 recites “code to receive
`
`payment validation data . . . for said at least one selected item of multimedia
`
`content.” Independent claim 8 recites “code to control access to said
`
`selected content data item responsive to the payment validation data.”
`
`Claim 5 depends from claim 1 and recites “code to retrieve supplementary
`
`data via said wireless interface and output said supplementary data to said
`
`user using said display.” Claim 10 depends from claim 8 and recites “said
`
`data access terminal is integrated with a mobile communications device and
`
`audio/video player.”
`
`Furthermore, as discussed above, the ’772 patent discusses addressing
`
`recording industry concerns of data pirates offering unauthorized access to
`
`widely available compressed audio recordings. Ex. 1201, 1:23–57. The
`
`patent specification explains that these pirates obtain data either by
`
`unauthorized or legitimate means and then make the data available over the
`
`Internet without authorization. Id. The specification further explains that
`
`once data has been published on the Internet, it is difficult to police access to
`
`and use of it by Internet users who may not even realize that it is pirated. Id.
`
`The ’772 patent proposes to solve this problem by restricting access to data
`
`on a portable data carrier based upon payment validation. Id. at 1:61–2:3.
`
`The ’772 patent makes clear that the crux of the claimed subject matter is
`
`restricting access to stored content based on validation of payment. Id.
`
`Although the specification refers to data piracy on the Internet, claims
`
`1, 5, 8, and 10 are not limited to the Internet. Claim 1, from which claim 5
`
`depends, recites “code to” perform various functions related to the abstract
`
`11
`
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00031
`Patent 8,336,772 B2
`
`idea. Independent claim 1 recites, among other things, code to: “request
`
`identifier data,” “receive said identifier data,” “present to a user . . .
`
`multimedia content,” “receive a user selection . . . of multimedia content,”
`
`“responsive to said user selection . . . to transmit payment data relating to
`
`payment for . . . multimedia content,” “receive payment validation data . . .
`
`for said at least one selected item of multimedia content,” and “control
`
`access to said at least one selected item of multimedia content.”
`
`Independent claim 8, from which claim 10 depends, recites code to “request
`
`identifier data,” “receive said identifier data,” “present to a user . . . one or
`
`more content items,” “receive a user selection . . . of said stored content data
`
`items,” “response to said user selection . . . to transmit payment data relating
`
`to payment for said selected content item for validation by a payment
`
`validation system,” “to receive payment validation data,” and “control
`
`access to said selected content data item responsive to the payment
`
`validation data.” The underlying concept of claims 1, 5, 8, and 10
`
`particularly when viewed in light of the ’772 patent specification, is
`
`conditioning and controlling access to content based on, for example,
`
`payment. As discussed further below, this is a fundamental economic
`
`practice long in existence in commerce. See Bilski, 561 U.S. at 611.
`
`We are, thus, persuaded, based on the ’772 patent specification and
`
`the claim language, that each of claims 1, 5, 8, and 10 is directed to an
`
`abstract idea. See Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2356 (holding that the concept of
`
`intermediated settlement at issue in Alice was an abstract idea); Accenture
`
`Global Servs., GmbH v. Guidewire Software, Inc., 728 F.3d 1336, 1344
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2013) (holding the abstract idea at the heart of a system claim to
`
`12
`
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00031
`Patent 8,336,772 B2
`
`be “generating tasks [based on] rules . . . to be completed upon the
`
`occurrence of an event”).
`
`2. Inventive Concept
`
`“A claim that recites an abstract idea must include ‘additional
`
`features’ to ensure ‘that the [claim] is more than a drafting effort designed to
`
`monopolize the [abstract idea].’” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2357 (quoting Mayo,
`
`132 S. Ct. at 1297). “This requires more than simply stating an abstract idea
`
`while adding the words ‘apply it’ or ‘apply it with a computer.’ Similarly,
`
`the prohibition on patenting an ineligible concept cannot be circumvented by
`
`limiting the use of an ineligible concept to a particular technological
`
`environment.” Versata, 793 F.3d at 1332 (citations omitted). Moreover, the
`
`mere recitation of generic computer components performing conventional
`
`functions is not enough. See Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2360 (“Nearly every
`
`computer will include a ‘communications controller’ and ‘data storage unit’
`
`capable of performing the basic calculation, storage, and transmission
`
`functions required by the method claims.”).
`
`Petitioner argues that the challenged claims do not disclose an
`
`“inventive concept” because any additional features recited in the challenged
`
`claims are either field of use limitations—limiting the ideas of payment and
`
`controlling access to content to payment for retrieving “data” and controlling
`
`access to content based on “payment data”—or generic computer
`
`implementations, which Petitioner argues is insufficient to bring the claims
`
`within § 101 patent eligibility. Pet. 27–32. Specifically, Petitioner contends
`
`that the challenged claims “recite no more than generic computer elements
`
`and functions that were well-known, routine, and conventional to a POSITA
`
`at the time of filing.” Reply 6 (citations omitted); see id. at 13–14.
`
`13
`
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00031
`Patent 8,336,772 B2
`
`Petitioner persuades us that claims 1, 5, 8, and 10 of the ’772 patent do not
`
`add an inventive concept sufficient to ensure that the claims in practice
`
`amount to significantly more than claims on the abstract idea itself. Alice,
`
`134 S. Ct. at 2355; see also Accenture Global Servs., 728 F.3d at 1344
`
`(holding claims directed to the abstract idea of “generating tasks [based on]
`
`rules . . . to be completed upon the occurrence of an event” to be
`
`unpatentable even when applied in a computer environment and within the
`
`insurance industry). Specifically, we agree with and adopt Petitioner’s
`
`rationale that the additional elements of claims 1, 5, 8, and 10 are field of
`
`use limitations and/or generic features of a computer that do not bring these
`
`claims within § 101 patent eligibility. Pet. 27–32; Reply 4–6.
`
`a. Every claimed hardware component and function was
`known
`
`Petitioner argues that the challenged claims are unpatentable because
`
`they are “directed only to an abstract idea with nothing more than ‘well-
`
`understood, routine, conventional, activity.’” Pet. 27 (citations omitted).
`
`Smartflash argues that the challenged claims are patentable because they
`
`“are directed to particular devices that can download and store digital
`
`content into non-volatile memory / a data carrier.” PO Resp. 17. We agree
`
`with Petitioner for the following reasons.
`
`The ’772 patent specification treats as well-known all potentially
`
`technical aspects of claims 1, 5, 8, and 10, including “a wireless interface,”
`
`“non-volatile memory,” “a processor,” “a program store,” “a user interface,”
`
`“code” and “a display.” See Reply 11. For example, the specification states
`
`the recited “non-volatile memory” may be an EEPROM, the recited
`
`“program store” may be a ROM, and the recited “non-volatile memory” may
`
`14
`
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00031
`Patent 8,336,772 B2
`
`be Flash memory (Ex. 1201, 17:31–36), as found in a standard “smart Flash
`
`card” (id. at 17:15–24). See also id. at 4:7–8, 6:23–25 (stating that “[t]he
`
`data memory for storing content data may be optic, magnetic or
`
`semiconductor memory, but preferably comprises Flash memory.”), 11:28–
`
`37, 14:33–38, 16:55–58, 18:16–20 (describing components as
`
`“conventional”), Figs. 6, 9. Furthermore, the claimed “code” in claims 1 and
`
`8 performs generic computer functions, such as requesting, receiving, ,
`
`selecting, accessing, transmitting, displaying, identifying, storing,
`
`presenting, and controlling. Pet. 2–4; see id. at 29. The recitation of these
`
`generic computer functions is insufficient to confer specificity. See Content
`
`Extraction and Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat. Ass’n., 776
`
`F.3d 1343, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“The concept of data collection,
`
`recognition, and storage is undisputedly well-known. Indeed, humans have
`
`always performed these functions.”).
`
`Moreover, we are not persuaded that claims 1, 5, 8, and 10 “‘recite
`
`specific ways of using distinct memories, data types, and use rules that
`
`amount to significantly more than’” conditioning and controlling access to
`
`content based on, for example, payment. See PO Resp. 25 (citation omitted).
`
`None of the challenged claims recite any particular or “distinct memories.”
`
`As noted above, the ’772 patent specification indicates that the required
`
`memories may be conventional types of memory. As noted above, the ’772
`
`patent specification indicates that the required memories may be
`
`conventional types of memory. Ex. 1201, 4:7–8, 6:23–25 (stating that “[t]he
`
`data memory for storing content data may be optic, magnetic or
`
`semiconductor memory, but preferably comprises Flash memory.”), 11:28–
`
`37, 14:33–38, 16:55–58, 17:15–24, 17:31–36, 18:16–20 (describing
`
`15
`
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00031
`Patent 8,336,772 B2
`
`components as “conventional”), Figs. 6, 9. The recitation of generic
`
`memory, being used to store data in the conventional manner, is insufficient
`
`to confer the specificity required to elevate the nature of the claim into a
`
`patent-eligible application. See Content Extraction, 776 F.3d at 1347 (“The
`
`concept of data collection, recognition, and storage is undisputedly well-
`
`known. Indeed, humans have always performed these functions.”).
`
`Claims 1, 5, 8, and 10 also recite several conventional computer
`
`components, including a “data carrier,” “memory,” “program store,”
`
`“processor,” “code,” “interface,” and “display.” See Pet. 31. We are not
`
`persuaded that the recitation of these computer components alone amounts
`
`to significantly more than the underlying abstract idea. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at
`
`2355 (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294) (“We have described step two of
`
`this analysis as a search for an ‘inventive concept’—i.e., an element or
`
`combination of elements that is ‘sufficient to ensure that the patent in
`
`practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the [ineligible
`
`concept] itself.’”) (brackets in original). Smartflash does not point to any
`
`inventive concept in the ’772 patent related to the way the recited
`
`components are constructed or used. As discussed above, the ’772 patent
`
`states many claimed components are “conventional,” including the “data
`
`access terminal” recited in the preambles of claims 8 and 10. Ex. 1201, 4:7–
`
`8. Other components specifically described as “conventional” include “a
`
`processor,” “permanent program memory,” and “timing and control logic,”
`
`“all coupled by a data and communications bus.” Id. at 18:16–20.
`
`In addition, because the recited elements can be implemented on a
`
`general purpose computer, claims 1, 5, 8, and 10 do not cover a “particular
`
`machine.” Pet. 35; see Bilski, 561 U.S. at 604–05 (stating that machine-or-
`
`16
`
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00031
`Patent 8,336,772 B2
`
`transformation test remains “a useful and important clue” for determining
`
`whether an invention is patent eligible). And claims 1, 5, 8, and 10 do not
`
`transform an article into a different state or thing. Id.
`
`Thus, we determine the potentially technical elements of claims 1, 5,
`
`8, and 10 are nothing more than “generic computer implementations” and
`
`perform functions that are “purely conventional.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358–
`
`59; Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294.
`
`b. Challenged claims are not comparable to DDR
`Holdings claims
`
`Relying on the Federal Circuit’s decision in DDR Holdings,
`
`Smartflash asserts that claims 1, 5, 8, and 10 are directed to statutory subject
`
`matter because the claims are “‘rooted in computer technology in order to
`
`overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer
`
`networks.’” PO Resp. 1, 18 (quoting DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com,
`
`L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2014)). Specifically, Smartflash
`
`contends that
`
`[T]he claims are directed to particular devices that can download
`and store digital content into non-volatile memory / a data
`carrier. By using a system that combines on the data carrier both
`the digital content and code to control access to the digital
`content that is responsive to payment validation data when
`obtaining digital content, the claimed multimedia terminals / data
`access terminals enable digital content to be obtained effectively
`and legitimately, including, for example, by allowing access to
`stored content only after payment validation data has been
`received to reduce risk of piracy or non-payment to content rights
`owners.
`
`Id. at 17.
`
`Petitioner responds that claims 1, 5, 8, and 10 are distinguishable from
`
`the claims in DDR Holdings. Reply 7–14. The DDR Holdings patent is
`
`17
`
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00031
`Patent 8,336,772 B2
`
`directed at retaining website visitors when clicking on an advertisement
`
`hyperlink within a host website. DDR Holdings, 773 F.3d at 1257.
`
`Conventionally, clicking on an advertisement hyperlink would transport a
`
`visitor from the host’s website to a third party website. Id. The Federal
`
`Circuit distinguished this Internet-centric problem over “the ‘brick and
`
`mortar’ context” because “[t]here is . . . no possibility that by walking up to
`
`[a kiosk in a warehouse store], the customer will be suddenly and completely
`
`transported outside the warehouse store and relocated to a separate physical
`
`venue associated with the third party.” Id. at 1258. The Federal Circuit
`
`further determined that the DDR Holdings claims specify “how interactions
`
`with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result—a result that
`
`overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily
`
`triggered by the click of a hyperlink.” Id. The unconventional result in
`
`DDR Holdings is that the website visitor is retained on the host website, but
`
`is still able to purchase a product from a third-party merchant. Id. at 1257–
`
`58. The limitation referred to by the Federal Circuit in DDR Holdings
`
`recites “using the data retrieved, automatically generate and transmit to the
`
`web browser a second web page that displays: (A) information associated
`
`with the commerce object associated with the link that has been activated,
`
`and (B) the plurality of visually perceptible elements visually corresponding
`
`to the source page.” Id. at 1250. Importantly, the Federal Circuit identified
`
`this limitation as differentiating the DDR Holdings claims from those held to
`
`be unpatentable in Ultramercial, which “broadly and generically claim ‘use
`
`of the Internet’ to perform an abstract business practice (with insignificant
`
`added activity).” Id. at 1258.
`
`18
`
`
`

`
`CBM2015-0

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