`571.272.7822
`
`
`Paper No. 10
`Entered: May 4, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`
`AT&T MOBILITY LLC,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`INTELLECTUAL VENTURES II LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`_______________
`
`Case CBM2015-00185
`Patent 5,339,352
`_______________
`
`Before GEORGIANNA W. BRADEN, FRANCIS L. IPPOLITO, and
`KEVIN W. CHERRY, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`BRADEN, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Denying Institution of Covered Business Method Patent Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.208
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CBM2015-00185
`Patent 5,339,352
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`I.
`AT&T Mobility LLC (“Petitioner”) filed a Corrected Petition (Paper
`6, “Pet.”) to institute a covered business method patent review of claims 1, 2,
`5, and 9 of U.S. Patent No. 5,339,352 (Ex. 1001, “the ’352 patent”).
`Intellectual Ventures II LLC (“Patent Owner”) filed a Preliminary Response
`(Paper 8, “Prelim. Resp.”). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 324.
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 324(a), the Director may not authorize a covered
`business method patent review unless the information in the petition, if
`unrebutted, “would demonstrate that it is more likely than not that at least 1
`of the claims challenged in the petition is unpatentable.” For reasons that
`follow, the information presented in the Petition does not establish that the
`ʼ352 patent qualifies as a covered business method patent for purposes of
`section 18(d)(1) of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”), Pub. L.
`No. 112–29, 125 Stat. 284, 331 (2011). Accordingly, we decline to institute
`a covered business method patent review of claims 1, 2, 5, and 9. See
`35 U.S.C. § 324(a).
`
`II.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`A. Related Proceedings
`Petitioner informs us that the ’352 patent is the subject of district court
`case Intellectual Ventures II LLC v. AT&T Mobility LLC, No. 1:13-cv-01631
`(D. Del.). Pet. 2 (citing Ex. 1009); see Paper 5, 1 (Patent Owner’s
`Mandatory Notices).
`B. The ’352 Patent
`The ’352 patent discloses systems and methods for providing
`Directory Assistance Call Completion (“DACC”) services to cellular
`telephone users. Ex. 1001, Abst. One embodiment of the ’352 patent
`
`2
`
`
`
`CBM2015-00185
`Patent 5,339,352
`
`provides a system that implements a DACC service for cellular subscribers.
`Id. at 5:58–62. Figure 1, reproduced below, illustrates an exemplary
`architecture for such a system.
`
`
`
`
`As shown in Figure 1, above, wireless subscriber 11 communicates with
`mobile telephone switching office 17 via cell site antenna 13. Ex. 1001,
`6:12–18. The “mobile telephone switching office or ‘MTSO’ is owned and
`operated by the cellular carrier” and “provides a switched connection point
`between the network operated by the cellular carrier and the landline
`telephone network.” Id. at 1:41–44. The MTSO connects to switch 21 of an
`operator service system (OSS 20). Id. at 6:32–35. The OSS “functions as a
`directory assistance service system.” Id. at 6:38–39.
`Per the ’352 patent, any existing interconnection between MTSO 17
`and OSS 20 is replaced with “dedicated trunk 19.” Id. at 6:32–33. In one
`embodiment, dedicated trunk 19 uses Feature Group D signaling. Id. at
`6:32–35. Feature Group D is a type of switched access service signaling that
`“provide[s] customer access to alternate long distance interexchange carriers
`(IXC’s).” Id. at 7:36–39.
`
`3
`
`
`
`CBM2015-00185
`Patent 5,339,352
`
`Use of a dedicated trunk serves as a means for OSS 20 to identify the
`carrier and to determine whether the caller can use directory assistance. Id.
`at 3:21–24. The dedicated trunk has an “area code and exchange number”
`(referred to as the NPA-NXX). Id. at 8:33–35. The NPA-NXX of the
`dedicated trunk is also the NPA-NXX of the wireless switch, e.g., MTSO 17.
`Id. at 8:33–35. The trunk has a fixed location and the NPA-NXX of the
`dedicated trunk provides present location information for the calling wireless
`customer. Id. Therefore, OSS 20 can use the NPA-NXX of the dedicated
`trunk, rather than the received calling number (ANI), to check eligibility for
`directory assistance and calculate charges for call completion: “The
`operator service system will establish whether completion requests would
`meet the intra-LATA criteria using the area code and exchange data (NPA-
`NXX) of the dedicated trunk and the NPA-NXX area code and exchange
`data of the destination identified in the directory listing.” Ex. 1001, 9:45–
`50. LATA being the Local Access and Transport Area. Id. at 6:7–8.
`In other embodiments of the ’352 patent, modification to existing
`OSSs are necessary in order to implement the inventions of ’352 patent for
`data recording and billing purposes. Id. at 5:30–32. For example,
`“[e]xisting OSS switches are programmed to treat calls received on trunks
`using Feature Group D signaling as interexchange carrier calls and provide
`appropriate translations for routing and billing.” Id. at 12:35–38. But,
`according to the ’352 patent, this processing is not compatible with directory
`assistance call completion. Id. at 12:38–40. Therefore, OSS 20 is modified
`to bypass “the interexchange carrier translations for calls received over the
`dedicated trunk 19.” Id. at 12:49–51. Additionally, OSS 20 is modified to
`use the NPA-NXX of dedicated trunk 19 (and corresponding MTSO) during
`
`4
`
`
`
`CBM2015-00185
`Patent 5,339,352
`
`eligibility checking “to indicate the point of origin of the landline
`connection” (id. at 12:53–55) and “to calculate any distances needed to set
`call rates or toll charges for the landline connection” (id. at 13:10–13).
`C. Illustrative Claims
`As noted above, Petitioner challenges claims 1, 2, 5, and 9 of the ’352
`patent, of which claim 1 is the only independent claim. Claim 1 is
`illustrative of the challenged claims and is reproduced below:
`1. A method of providing a directory assistance call completion
`service to a wireless communication service subscriber
`comprising:
`receiving a request for directory assistance from a wireless
`communication
`terminal at a mobile communications
`switching office;
`forwarding data identifying the wireless communication terminal from
`the mobile communications switching office to an operator service
`system;
`establishing a landline communication link between the mobile
`communications switching office and the operator service system to
`provide
`two way communications between
`the wireless
`communication terminal and the operator service system;
`receiving information from the wireless communication terminal
`identifying a particular listing from a directory of listings;
`retrieving a destination number corresponding to the identified listing;
`receiving a request for completion of a communication link between
`the wireless communication terminal and a station identified by the
`destination number;
`establishing a landline communication link to provide a complete
`communication connection between the wireless communication
`terminal and the identified station; and
`recording the identity of the wireless communication terminal in the
`operator service system.
`
`Ex. 1001, 13:41–14:2.
`
`5
`
`
`
`CBM2015-00185
`Patent 5,339,352
`
`D. The Asserted Ground of Unpatentability
`Petitioner asserts claims 1, 2, 5, and 9 of the ’352 patent are
`unpatentable based on the grounds set forth in the table below:
`References
`Basis
`Challenged Claim(s)
`
`§ 101
`1, 2, 5, and 9
`Padden and Chadha
`§ 103(a)
`1, 2, and 5
`Padden, Chadha, and Suzuki § 103(a)
`9
`
`Pet. 22.
`
`III. COVERED BUSINESS METHOD (CBM) PATENT REVIEW
`
`A. Standing to File a Petition for CBM Review
`Section 18 of the AIA provides for the creation of a transitional
`program for reviewing covered business method patents. Section 18 limits
`reviews to persons or their privies who have been sued or charged with
`infringement of a “covered business method patent.” AIA § 18(a)(1)(B); see
`37 C.F.R. § 42.302. As discussed above in Section II.A., Petitioner
`represents it has been sued for infringement of the ’352 patent and is not
`estopped from challenging the claims on the grounds identified in the
`Petition. Pet. 2–3 (citing Ex. 1005).
`
`B. Qualifying as a CBM Patent for CBM Review
`
`The parties dispute whether the ’352 patent is a “covered business
`method patent,” as defined in the AIA and 37 C.F.R. § 42.301. See Pet. 9–
`13; Prelim. Resp. 10–30. It is Petitioner’s burden to demonstrate that
`the ’352 patent is a covered business method patent. See 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.304(a). For the reasons discussed below, we determine Petitioner has
`
`6
`
`
`
`CBM2015-00185
`Patent 5,339,352
`
`made an insufficient showing that the ’352 patent is a “covered business
`method patent.”
`The AIA defines “covered business method 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 37 C.F.R. § 42.301(a). The
`legislative history of the AIA “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.’” 77 Fed. Reg. 48,374, 48,735 (Aug.
`14, 2012) (quoting 157 Cong. Rec. S5432 (daily ed. Sept. 8, 2011)). To
`determine whether a patent is eligible for a covered business method patent
`review, the focus is on the claims. See Transitional Program
`for Covered Business Method Patents—Definitions
`of Covered Business Method Patent and Technological Invention; Final
`Rule, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,734, 48,736 (Aug. 14, 2012) (Response to Comment
`4: “[T]he definition . . . is based on what the patent claims.”). A patent need
`have only one claim directed to a covered business method to be eligible for
`review. Id.; see Versata Dev. Grp., Inc. v. SAP Am. Inc., 793 F.3d 1306,
`1326–27 (affirming Board and accepting analysis of single claim as
`representative of determination whether to institute a covered business
`method patent review).
`Petitioner contends the ’352 patent is a covered business method
`patent, because the ’352 patent specification and claims “are directed to
`collecting and recording data (e.g., the identity of a wireless caller) for
`
`7
`
`
`
`CBM2015-00185
`Patent 5,339,352
`
`billing for call completion services from an OSS.” Pet. 9 (citing Ex. 1001,
`Abst, Claim 1). Petitioner notes that the specification includes embodiments
`for “facilitat[ing] billing all charges incurred by directory assistance call
`completion services provided to a mobile wireless communication terminal,
`such as a cellular telephone, to the subscriber who actually requests the call
`completion service,” and “facilitat[ing] billing for the service to the
`individual customers.” Id. (citing Ex 1001, 2:54–58, 2:63–64). Petitioner
`also relies on the last limitation of claim 1 to support its position, arguing
`that claim 1 recites the step of “forwarding data identifying the wireless
`communication terminal from the mobile communications switching office
`to an operator service system,” and such data is collected for the purpose of
`“recording the identity of the wireless communication terminal in the
`operator service system.” Id. at 10. According to Petitioner, the collecting
`and recording of the billing information for use in operator services in Claim
`1 is an activity that is “financial in nature, incidental to a financial activity or
`complementary to a financial activity” in that it recites recording billing
`information for billing purposes. Id. (citing Ex. 1001, 14:1–2).
`Petitioner further argues that claims 2 and 9 recite activities that are
`“financial in nature, incidental to a financial activity or complementary to a
`financial activity” in that they recite ”form[ing] a billing record” and
`“determin[ing] if the subscriber has subscribed” to a particular service. Id.
`(citing Ex. 1001, 14:3–8, 14:50–53).
`Patent Owner disputes Petitioner’s position, contending that none of
`the claims recites a method used in the practice, administration, or
`management of a financial product or service; rather, each claim recites a
`method for performing an operation used in a communications network.
`
`8
`
`
`
`CBM2015-00185
`Patent 5,339,352
`
`Prelim. Resp. 11. Patent Owner argues that Petitioner misstates claim 1,
`specifically the final step of claim 1––“recording the identity of the wireless
`communication terminal in the operator services system”––to argue that this
`step “recites recording billing information for billing purposes.” Id. at 12
`(citing Pet. 10). Patent Owner explains, however, that nowhere does claim 1
`recite the word “billing” and that the limitation for “recording” is not
`recording billing information for billing purposes. Id. at 12–13 (citing
`Ex. 1001, 3:57–4:16; Ex. 2002, 27–28).
`Patent Owner further argues that claim 2 cannot be used to support
`Petitioner’s arguments that the ’352 patent qualifies as a covered business
`method. Id. at 17–18 (citing Ex. 2003). Specifically, Patent Owner argues
`that it filed a statutory disclaimer disclaiming claims 2, 3, 7, and 17, and as a
`consequence of the disclaimer, the Board should not base its determination
`on whether or not to institute a trial on claim 2 or any of the other disclaimed
`claims. Id. at 18.
`With respect to claim 9, Patent Owner argues that Petitioner’s analysis
`is conclusory, and, in any event, claim 9 is not directed to a financial product
`or service. Id. at 19–20. Patent Owner asserts that, just as with claim 1,
`claim 9 does not recite any financial terms or an activity involving the
`movement of money or extension of credit in exchange for a product or
`service. Id. at 20.
`We agree with Patent Owner. First, as noted above, Patent Owner has
`filed a statutory disclaimer under 37 C.F.R. § 1.321(a) of claims 2, 3, 7, and
`17. See Prelim. Resp. 17–18 (citing Ex. 2003). Rule 1.321(a) is the rule
`promulgated by the Office for creating a procedure for a patentee to avail
`itself of the provisions of 35 U.S.C. § 253. See MPEP § 1490. Our
`
`9
`
`
`
`CBM2015-00185
`Patent 5,339,352
`
`reviewing court has held that a patent with a statutory disclaimer is to be
`treated as though the disclaimed claims never existed. See Guinn v. Kopf, 96
`F.3d 1419, 1422 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (“A statutory disclaimer under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 253 has the effect of canceling the claims from the patent and the patent is
`viewed as though the disclaimed claims had never existed in the patent.”).
`Therefore, for the purposes of whether or not to institute a covered business
`method patent review, we treat claims 2, 3, 7, and 17 as never having
`existed, and we will not consider the now-statutorily disclaimed claims in
`our determination. See Google Inc. v. SimpleAir, Inc., CBM2015-00019 slip
`op. at 14–15 (PTAB May 19, 2014) (Paper 11); Great West Casualty Co., v.
`Intellectual Ventures II LLC, CBM2015-00171 slip op. at 7 (PTAB Feb. 9,
`2016) (Paper 10).
`Second, although we do not interpret section 18 of the AIA as
`requiring the literal recitation of financial products or services in a claim, the
`presence in the challenged claims of financial terminology, or a method step
`requiring the movement of money, weighs in favor of a financial product or
`service. See Apple, Inc. v. SightSound Techs., LLC, Case CBM2013-00020,
`slip op. at 9–13 (PTAB Oct. 8, 2013) (Paper 17) (“transferring money
`electronically”); see also FFF Enterprises, Inc. v. AmerisourceBergen
`Specialty Group, Inc., Case CBM2014-00154, slip op. at 7 (PTAB Jan. 29,
`2015) (Paper 14) (“server system creates an invoice”). Here, the claims are
`devoid of any terms that reasonably could be argued as rooted in the
`financial sector or directed to a financial transaction. See ServiceNow, Inc.
`Hewlett-Packard, Co., CBM2015-00108, slip. op. at 15 (PTAB Oct. 7,
`2015) (Paper 10).
`
`10
`
`
`
`CBM2015-00185
`Patent 5,339,352
`
`Lastly, statements in the specification that a claimed invention has
`particular utility in financial applications may weigh in favor of determining
`that a patent is eligible for a covered business method patent review;
`however, we do not find covered business method patent review available
`for patents that claim generally useful technologies that also happen to be
`useful to financial applications. J.P. Morgan Chase v. Intellectual Ventures
`II LLC, CBM2014-00160, slip op. at 6–12 (PTAB Jan. 29, 2015) (Paper
`11); see Salesforce.com, Inc. v. Applications in Internet Time LLC,
`CBM2014-00162, slip op. 10 (PTAB Feb. 2, 2015) (Paper 11) (“Petitioner’s
`contentions based on the written description alone do not show that the ’111
`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’ or claims an activity that is ‘financial in nature,
`incidental to a financial activity or complementary to a financial activity.’”).
`Other panels of the Board have found patents not to meet the definition of
`“covered business method patent” in similar circumstances. See, e.g.,
`Google Inc. v. SimpleAir, Inc., CBM2015-00019, slip op. at 11–12 (PTAB
`May 19, 2015) (Paper 11) (claim directed to system for transmitting,
`receiving, and processing data recites “only generic, context-neutral ‘data,’”
`without any language relating to a financial product or service); Sega of Am.,
`Inc. v. Uniloc USA, Inc., CBM2014-00183, slip op. at 11–13 (PTAB Mar.
`10, 2015) (Paper 11) (claims were “directed to technology that restricts the
`use of software” where the software had “no particular relationship to a
`financial product or service”); PNC Fin. Servs. Group, Inc. v. Intellectual
`Ventures I LLC, CBM2014-00032, slip op. at 6–15 (PTAB May 22, 2014)
`(Paper 13) (claims described “software systems that have general utility not
`
`11
`
`
`
`CBM2015-00185
`Patent 5,339,352
`
`specific to any application.”); and Par Pharm. Inc. et al. v. Jazz Pharm.,
`Inc., CBM2014-00149, slip op. 10–13 (PTAB Jan. 13, 2015) (Paper 12)
`(concluding that in the context of the claim as whole, a claim relating to a
`method for controlling access to a prescription drug did not recite or require
`an activity involving the movement of money, extension of credit, or other
`financial product or service).
`As Patent Owner correctly notes (Prelim. Resp. 16–17), finding that
`anything with a possible use with respect to activities involving financial
`products and services would capture claimed inventions only tangentially
`related to activities involving financial products and services and would not
`be limited to a covered business method patent. See Sony Corp. of Am. v.
`Network-1 Techs., Inc., Case CBM2015-00078, slip op. at 11–12 (PTAB
`July 1, 2015) (Paper 7)). Additionally, the Office has stated, the legislative
`history of the AIA indicates that “financial product or service” should be
`interpreted “broadly,” but “broadly” does not mean “without limits.” See
`Transitional Program for Covered Business Method Patents, 77 Fed. Reg. at
`48,736.
`Although we acknowledge the specification includes at least one
`illustrative embodiment directed to an application of the claimed method for
`billing purposes (see Ex. 1001, 2:54–64 (describing billing of wireless
`cellular subscribers)), we find that such an example is insufficient to make
`the challenged claims of the ’352 patent eligible for covered business
`method patent review. The primary justification
`for covered business method review eligibility provided by Petitioner is that
`the illustrative embodiments in the specification of the ’352 patent
`merely show that the invention may be used for billing. Pet. 9. Mere ability
`
`12
`
`
`
`CBM2015-00185
`Patent 5,339,352
`
`to use the claimed invention in a financial context, standing alone, does not
`require a finding that the financial prong has been met, especially when the
`specification as a whole suggests a broader application. See ServiceNow,
`Inc., CBM2015-00108, slip. op. at 17 (claims were directed to the general
`utility of managing a conversation in a Web service and did not cover a
`financial transaction); ServiceNow, Inc. v. BMC Software, Inc., Case
`CBM2015-00107, slip op. at 11–12 (PTAB Sept. 11, 2015) (Paper 12)
`(panel 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). Petitioner’s citations to the
`specification, however, do not provide a persuasive basis to conclude that
`the claims deal with the movement of money or are involved directly in a
`financial transaction in anything other than a tangential way. Rather, we
`find that the challenged claims recite a method of general utility for
`providing a directory assistance call completion service to a wireless
`communication service subscriber, and the cited example from the ’352
`patent makes clear that any financial aspect of the invention as discussed in
`the specification is, at most, a non-limiting example. See Ex. 1001, 4:55–66,
`8:44–57; see ServiceNow, Inc., CBM2015-00108, slip. op. at 15; PNC Bank
`NA v. Parus Holding, Inc., CBM2015-00112, slip op. at 16–17 (PTAB
`Nov. 9, 2015) (Paper 11).
`The facts before us, as outlined above, establish that the claimed
`method is of general utility, and Petitioner has not introduced persuasive
`evidence to show that at least one claim of the ’352 patent recites a method
`used in the practice, administration, or management of a financial product or
`service. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.301(a); see ServiceNow, Inc., CBM2015-00108,
`
`13
`
`
`
`CBM2015-00185
`Patent 5,339,352
`
`slip. op. at 17. Accordingly, Petitioner has not met its burden of
`demonstrating that the ’352 patent is eligible for covered business method
`patent review.
`
`
`IV. CONCLUSION
`For the foregoing reasons, we are not persuaded that the ’352 patent is
`eligible for covered business method patent review.
`
`
`V. ORDER
`For the reasons given, it is
`ORDERED that, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 324(a), a covered business
`
`patent method review is not instituted for claims 1, 2, 5, and 9 of the
`’352 patent.
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`CBM2015-00185
`Patent 5,339,352
`
`FOR PETITIONER:
`Eliot Williams
`Jon Swenson
`Nick Schuneman
`Baker Botts LLP
`eliot.williams@bakerbotts.com
`jon.swenson@bakerbotts.com
`nick.schuneman@bakerbotts.com
`
`FOR PATENT OWNER:
` Lori Gordon
`Robert Sokohl
`Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C.
`lgordon-ptab@skgf.com
`rsokohl-ptab@skgf.com
`
`James Hietala
`Tim Seeley
`Intellectual Ventures II LLC
`jhietala@intven.com
`tseeley@intven.com
`
`15