UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Sally Beauty Holdings, Inc., and Sally Beauty Supply LLC,
`
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`Intellectual Ventures I LLC,
`
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`Case CBM2016-_____
`
`Reissued Patent RE43,715
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR COVERED BUSINESS METHOD REVIEW
`
`Petitioners Sally Beauty Holdings, Inc., and Sally Beauty Supply LLC
`
`submit this Petition pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(2)(iii) for covered business
`
`method review of U.S. Reissue Patent No. RE43,715.
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`PRELIMINARY STATEMENT .................................................................... 1 
`
`PETITIONERS’ STANDING TO SEEK CBM REVIEW ............................ 2 
`
`I. 
`
`II. 
`
`III.  MANDATORY NOTICES (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(A)(1) ..................................... 2 
`
`A. 
`
`B. 
`
`C. 
`
`D. 
`
`E. 
`
`F. 
`
`Real Parties-in-Interest (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1)) ................................. 2 
`
`Related Matters (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2)) ............................................. 3 
`
`Designation of Lead and Backup Counsel and Service
`Information (37 C.F.R. §§ 42.8(b)(3)-(4)) ........................................... 3 
`
`Proof of Service (37 C.F.R. §§ 42.6(e) and 42.105(a)) ........................ 3 
`
`Fee for Covered Business Method Review (37 C.F.R. § 42.103) ....... 3 
`
`Grounds for Standing (37 C.F.R. § 42.304(a)) .................................... 4 
`
`IV.  THE ’715 PATENT IS A COVERED BUSINESS METHOD
`PATENT ......................................................................................................... 4 
`
`A. 
`
`B. 
`
`The ’715 Patent Is Directed to a “Financial Product or Service” ........ 4 
`
`The ’715 Patent Is Not Directed to a “Technological Invention” ........ 8 
`
`1. 
`
`Claim 14 Does Not Recite a Novel or Non-Obvious
`Technological Feature ................................................................ 9 
`Claim 14 Does Not Solve a Technical Problem with a
`Technical Solution ................................................................... 11 
`PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED ............................................................... 12 
`
`2. 
`
`V. 
`
`VI.  OVERVIEW OF THE ʼ715 PATENT ......................................................... 14 
`
`VII.  CLAIM CONSTRUCTION FOR PURPOSES OF CBM REVIEW ........... 15 
`
`“Public Data” ...................................................................................... 16 
`
`“Private Data” ..................................................................................... 16 
`
`i
`
`A. 
`
`A. 
`
`
`
`

`
`B. 
`
`C. 
`
`D. 
`
`E. 
`
`“Private Data Store” ........................................................................... 17 
`
`“Publicly Available Data Store” ........................................................ 17 
`
`“Public Data Is Determined By Private Data” ................................... 18 
`
`“Integrated Data” ................................................................................ 18 
`
`VIII.  DETAILED EXPLANATION OF GROUNDS FOR INSTITUTION ....... 19 
`
`A. 
`
`Claims 1-50 Recite Patent-Ineligible Subject Matter ........................ 19 
`
`Legal Standard ......................................................................... 19 
`1. 
`The ’715 Patent Claims Recite an Abstract Idea ..................... 20 
`2. 
`The Claims Do Not Pass the Machine or Transformation Test ......... 27 
`
`B. 
`
`IX.  CLAIMS 1-50 ARE OBVIOUS UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 103 ......................... 28 
`
`Claims 1-6, 8-10, 20, 25, 27-32, 35-42, 44, and 47-49 are
`obvious under 35. U.SC. § 103(a) over Farber in view of
`CompuServe ...................................................................................... 28 
`
`Claims 7, 9, 18, 22-24, 26, 34, 39, 46, and 50 are obvious over
`Farber in view of CompuServe and Nazem ....................................... 55 
`
`Claims 11, 12, 14, 15, 17, and 33 are obvious over Farber in
`view of CompuServe and Dedrick ..................................................... 62 
`
`Claim 13 is obvious over Farber in view of CompuServe,
`Dedrick, and Griffin ........................................................................... 70 
`
`Claim 16 is obvious over Farber in view of CompuServe,
`Nazem, Dedrick, and Williams .......................................................... 71 
`
`Claim 19 is obvious over Farber in view of CompuServe,
`Dedrick, and Cragun .......................................................................... 73 
`
`Claims 21 and 43 are obvious over Farber in view of
`CompuServe and Oracle SQL ............................................................ 75 
`
`Claim 45 is obvious over Farber in view of CompuServe and
`Bauer ................................................................................................... 78 
`
`ii
`
`A. 
`
`B. 
`
`C. 
`
`D. 
`
`E. 
`
`F. 
`
`G. 
`
`H. 
`
`
`
`

`
`X. 
`X.
`
`CLAIMS 10 AND 19 ARE INDEFINITE UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 112 ......... 79 
`CLAIMS 10 AND 19 ARE INDEFINITE UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 112 ....... ..79
`
`A. 
`A.
`
`B. 
`B.
`
`Claim 10 is Indefinite Under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) .............................. 79 
`Claim 10 is Indefinite Under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) ............................ ..79
`
`Claim 19 is Indefinite Under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) .............................. 80 
`Claim 19 is Indefinite Under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) ............................ ..8O
`
`XI.  CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 80 
`
`CONCLUSION ........................................................................................... ..8O
`
`XI.
`
`iii
`
`iii
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
` Page(s)
`
`Cases
`Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l,
`134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014) ......................................................... 19, 21, 24, 25, 26, 27
`
`Ariad Pharm., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co.,
`598 F.3d 1336, 94 USPQ2d 1161 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc) ............................ 80
`
`Ass’n for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc.,
`133 S. Ct. 2107 (2013) ........................................................................................ 19
`
`Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assur. Co. of Can. (U.S.),
`687 F.3d 1266 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ............................................................................ 1
`
`Bilski v. Kappos,
`130 S. Ct. 3218 (2010) .................................................................................. 27, 28
`
`buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc.,
`765 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ......................................................................... 27
`
`Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat.
`Ass’n,
`776 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2014) .......................................................................... 25
`
`Cybersource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc.,
`654 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2011) .......................................................................... 20
`
`Google Inc. v. SimpleAir Inc.,
`CBM2014-00170, Paper 13 at 6 (PTAB Jan. 22, 2015) ....................................... 5
`
`Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63 (1972) ............................................................... 26
`
`Informatica Corp. v. Protegrity Corp.,
`CBM2015-0010, Paper 13, 11-12 (PTAB May 11, 2015) ................................... 8
`
`Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA),
`792 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015) .................................................................... 20, 24
`
`Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Progressive Cas. Ins. Co.,
`CBM2012-00003, Paper No. 78, 7 (PTAB, Feb. 11, 2014) ................................. 4
` iv
`
`
`
`

`
`Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Progressive Cas. Ins. Co.,
`CBM2013-00001, Paper No. 13, 8 (PTAB, Feb. 27, 2013) ............................... 12
`
`Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc.,
`132 S. Ct. 1289 (2012) ........................................................................ 1, 19, 20, 26
`
`OIP Tech., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ................... 25
`
`SAP Am., Inc. v. Versata Dev. Grp., Inc,
`CBM2012-00001, Paper No. 36 at 21-22 (PTAB, Jan. 9, 2013) ............... 5, 9, 15
`
`Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC,
`772 F.3d 709 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ...................................................................... 24, 26
`
`Versata Development Group, Inc. v. SAP America, Inc.,
`793 F.3d 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ........................................................................ 5, 9
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 101 ..................................................................... 1, 13, 21, 24, 25, 26, 27
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(a) ................................................................................................... 13
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(b) ................................................................................................... 13
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) ............................................................................... 1, 2, 13, 14, 28
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112 .................................................................................................... 2, 79
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112(a) ............................................................................................. 14, 80
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112(b) ............................................................................................. 14, 79
`
`Other Authorities
`
`AIA § 18(a)(1)(B) .................................................................................................. 2, 4
`
`AIA § 18(d)(1) ....................................................................................................... 4, 8
`
`America Invents Act, Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284, 331 (2011) ...................... 2
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e) ..................................................................................................... 3
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(a)(1) ................................................................................................ 2
`
`
`
` v
`
`

`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1) ................................................................................................ 2
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1) .............................................................................................. ..2
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2) ................................................................................................ 3
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2) .............................................................................................. ..3
`
`37 C.F.R. §§ 42.8(b)(3)-(4) ........................................................................................ 3
`37 C.F.R. §§ 42.8(b)(3)-(4) ...................................................................................... ..3
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b) .................................................................................................. 3
`37 C.F.R. §42.10(b) ................................................................................................ ..3
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.15 ....................................................................................................... 3
`37 C.F.R. § 42.15 ..................................................................................................... ..3
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.15(b) .................................................................................................. 3
`37 C.F.R. §42.15(b) ................................................................................................ ..3
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.105(a)) ............................................................................................... 3
`37 C.F.R. § 42.105(a)) ............................................................................................. ..3
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.300(b) .............................................................................................. 15
`37 C.F.R. § 42.300(b) ............................................................................................ ..15
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.301(b) ................................................................................................ 8
`37 C.F.R. §42.301(b) .............................................................................................. ..8
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.304(a) ................................................................................................. 4
`37 C.F.R. §42.304(a) ............................................................................................... ..4
`
`77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,764 (Aug. 14, 2012) ..................................................... 9, 12
`77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,764 (Aug. 14, 2012) ................................................... ..9, 12
`
`MPEP § 2163 ........................................................................................................... 80
`MPEP § 2163 ......................................................................................................... ..8O
`
`MPEP § 2173 ........................................................................................................... 79
`MPEP § 2173 ......................................................................................................... ..79
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` vi
`
`Vi
`
`

`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`1001. United States Reissue Patent No. RE43,715 (“the ’715 Patent”)
`
`1002.
`
`Intellectual Ventures I LLC et al. v. Sally Beauty Holdings, Inc. et al.,
`No. 2:15-cv-01414, ECF No. 1, August 14, 2015 (E.D. Tex.)
`
`1003.
`
`File History of the ’715 Patent
`
`1004.
`
`File History of U.S. Patent No. 6,941,376 (“the ’376 Patent”)
`
`1005. Declaration of Dr. Philip Greenspun as to the ’715 Patent
`
`1006. Curriculum Vitae of Dr. Philip Greenspun
`
`1007. United States Patent No. 5,819,284 (“Farber”)
`
`1008. United States Patent No. 5,696,965 (“Dedrick”)
`
`1009. United States Patent No. 6,006,216 (“Griffin”)
`
`1010. United States Patent No. 5,983,227 (“Nazem”)
`
`1011. United States Patent No. 5,774,868 (“Cragun”)
`
`1012.
`
`International Pub. No. WO2000033158 (“Williams”)
`
`1013. Non Patent Literature: Oracle 8.1.5 SQL Reference, February 1999,
`(“Oracle SQL”)
`
`1014. United States Patent No. 5,877,759 (“Bauer”)
`
`1015. Non Patent Literature: Steve Davis, CompuServe Information Manager
`for Windows, 1994 (CompuServe).
`
`1016. Non Patent Literature: Archive.org capture of Etrade Website showing
`“Portfolio Summary” dated April 9, 1997.
`
`1017. Non Patent Literature: Oracle Concepts manual, version 8.1.6, December
`1999 (“Oracle Concepts Manual”)
`
`
`
` vii
`
`

`
`1018. Non Patent Literature: Oracle Data Warehousing Guide, version 8.1.6
`version, December 1999 (“Oracle Data Warehousing Guide”)
`
`1019. Non Patent Literature: Single Sign-On Deployment Guide (1997)
`(“Single Sign-On”)
`
`1020. Declaration of Dr. Sylvia Hall-Ellis
`
`
`
`
`
` viii
`
`

`
`I.
`
`PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
`
`On August 14, 2015, Intellectual Ventures I LLC and Intellectual Ventures
`
`II LLC (collectively, “IV”) sued Sally Beauty Holdings, Inc. and Sally Beauty
`
`Supply LLC (collectively, “Petitioners”) for infringement of U.S. Pat. No.
`
`RE43,715 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. See
`
`Ex. 1002 at ¶38. Petitioners request CBM review of the ’715 Patent’s claims and a
`
`determination that the ’715 Patent’s claims are (i) unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §
`
`101; (ii) rendered obvious under (pre-AIA) 35 U.S.C. § 103(a); and/or (iii)
`
`indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112.
`
`The ’715 Patent’s claims are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because
`
`they are directed to the abstract idea of presenting integrated (combined)
`
`information to a user, some of which is public, and some of which is private. Ex.
`
`1001 at, e.g., claims 1 and 20. The claimed abstract idea is embodied by the mental
`
`process of obtaining publicly available information, obtaining private information,
`
`integrating the public and private information, and delivering the integrated
`
`information to a third party (i.e., a user system). Ex. 1005 at ¶55; see also Ex. 1001
`
`at claim 1. These claims thus do nothing more than execute “well-understood,
`
`routine, conventional activity” using general purpose computers. See Bancorp
`
`Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assur. Co. of Can. (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1279 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2012); see also Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 132 S. Ct.
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`
`1289, 1297 (2012). The America Invents Act, Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284,
`
`331 (2011) (the “AIA”) established CBM proceedings for this type of patent.
`
`The claims of the ’715 Patent are also obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in
`
`view of the references cited herein, which show that the limitations of the ’715
`
`Patent’s claims were known in the art well before the application that resulted in
`
`the ’715 Patent was filed. Finally, certain of the ʼ715 Patent claims are invalid
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 112 as they are indefinite.
`
`II.
`
`PETITIONERS’ STANDING TO SEEK CBM REVIEW
`
`A party has standing to bring a CBM review proceeding against a covered
`
`business method patent if the party has been sued for infringement of the patent.
`
`AIA § 18(a)(1)(B). Petitioners satisfy this requirement because they have been
`
`sued for infringement of at least claim 20 of the ’715 Patent. See Ex. 1002 at ¶35.
`
`Petitioners are not estopped from challenging the ’715 Patent on the grounds
`
`identified in this Petition and have not been party to any other post-grant review of
`
`the challenged claims.
`
`III. MANDATORY NOTICES (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(a)(1)
` Real Parties-in-Interest (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1))
`A.
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1), Sally Beauty Holdings, Inc., Sally
`
`Beauty Supply LLC, Sally Holdings LLC, Sally Investment Holdings LLC, and
`
`Beauty Systems Group LLC certify that they are the real parties-in-interest.
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`
`B.
`
` Related Matters (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2))
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2), Petitioners identify the following related
`
`matter: Intellectual Ventures I LLC et al. v. Sally Beauty Holdings, Inc. et al., Case
`
`No. 2:15-cv-01414, ECF No. 1, August 14, 2015 (E.D. Tex.); see Ex. 1002. This
`
`litigation is pending and may affect, or be affected by, decisions in this proceeding.
`
`C.
`
` Designation of Lead and Backup Counsel and Service
`Information (37 C.F.R. §§ 42.8(b)(3)-(4))
`
`Lead counsel is Robert C. Hilton (Reg. No. 47,649), and back-up counsel is
`
`Jason W. Cook (Reg. No. 48,456). The address for all PTAB correspondence is
`
`MCGUIREWOODS LLP, 2000 McKinney Ave., Suite 1400, Dallas, TX 75201,
`
`Tel.:
`
`(214)
`
`932-6400, Fax:
`
`(214)
`
`932-6499, E-mail:
`
`sallybeauty-
`
`iv@mcguirewoods.com. Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b), a Power of Attorney
`
`accompanies this Petition. Please address all correspondence to lead and back-up
`
`counsel at sallybeauty-iv@mcguirewoods.com.. Sally Beauty also consents to
`
`electronic service by email.
`
`D.
`
`
`
`Proof of Service (37 C.F.R. §§ 42.6(e) and 42.105(a))
`
`A Certificate of Service of this Petition is appended hereto as Attachment A.
`
`E.
`
`
`
`Fee for Covered Business Method Review (37 C.F.R. § 42.15)
`
`Petitioners certify that an electronic payment in the amount of $56,750 for
`
`the CBM request fee and post-institution fee specified by 37 C.F.R. § 42.15 is
`
`being paid at the time of filing this petition. The Director is hereby authorized to
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`
`charge any additional fees, which may be required for this request, or credit any
`
`overpayment to Deposit Account No. 23-1951 under Matter No. 2067722-0002,
`
`from which the undersigned is authorized to draw.
`
` Grounds for Standing (37 C.F.R. § 42.304(a))
`F.
`
`A party has standing to bring a CBM review proceeding against a covered
`
`business method patent if the party has been sued for infringement of the subject
`
`patent. AIA § 18(a)(1)(B). Petitioners certify that they have been sued for
`
`infringement of at least claim 20 of the ’715 Patent, are not estopped from
`
`challenging the claims on the grounds identified in this petition, and have not been
`
`party to any other post-grant review of the challenged claims.
`
`IV. THE ’715 PATENT IS A COVERED BUSINESS METHOD PATENT
`A patent qualifies for CBM review “if it 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.” Id. at § 18(d)(1). “A
`
`patent is eligible for a covered business method patent review if the subject matter
`
`of at least one claim is directed to a covered business method. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co.
`
`v. Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., CBM2012-00003, Paper No. 78, 7 (PTAB, Feb. 11,
`
`2014). As discussed below, the ’715 Patent qualifies for CBM review.
`
`A.
`
` The ’715 Patent Is Directed to a “Financial Product or Service”
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`
`A “financial product or service” is a product or service that “relates to
`
`monetary matters,” and the Board has acknowledged that the legislative history of
`
`Section 18 of the AIA indicates that “the definition was intended to encompass
`
`patents claiming activities incidental and complementary to a financial activity.”
`
`SAP Am., Inc. v. Versata Dev. Grp., Inc, CBM2012-00001, Paper No. 36 at 21-22
`
`(PTAB, Jan. 9, 2013). “The AIA’s legislative history further indicates that the
`
`language ‘practice, administration and management’ of a financial product or
`
`service ‘is intended to cover any ancillary activities related to a financial product or
`
`service, including, without limitation, marketing, customer interfaces, Web site
`
`management and functionality, transmission and management of data, servicing,
`
`underwriting, customer communications, and back office operations – e.g.,
`
`payment processing, stock clearing.” PNC Bank v. Secure Axcess, LLC,
`
`CBM2015-00039, Paper No. 9, 7-8 (PTAB July 10, 2015). With this guidance, the
`
`ʼ715 Patent unquestionably qualifies as a CBM patent.1
`
`
`1 A patent need only have one claim directed to a CBM to be eligible for review.
`
`Versata Development Group, Inc. v. SAP America, Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1326-27
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2015); Google Inc. v. SimpleAir Inc., CBM2014-00170, Paper 13 at 6
`
`(Jan. 22, 2015). Therefore, while all claims of the ’715 Patent are directed to a
`
`CBM, Petitioners’ CBM analysis focuses on representative claim 14.
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`
`The ’715 Patent’s claims are directed to systems and methods for performing
`
`data processing or other operations that are at least incidental or complementary to
`
`the practice, administration, or management of a financial product or service.
`
`Independent claim 1 reads on processes that involve the processing of “public
`
`data” and “private data.” The types of public data and private data described in the
`
`’715 Patent (referenced in the specification as “public information” and “private
`
`information”) relate specifically to financial data. For example, the ’715 Patent
`
`discloses that “[p]ublic information includes, for example, the weather in Tokyo as
`
`offered by a weather information website, the price of airfares from New York to
`
`London as provided by a travel related site, and other such information. Private
`
`information
`
`includes, for example, bank account records, 401k account
`
`information, and credit card balance information. Such information is typically
`
`accessible via an appropriate financial institution, bank and/or credit card website.”
`
`Ex. 1001 at 1:47-55; see also FIG. 6.
`
`While independent claim 1 generally relates to financial products and
`
`services, dependent claim 14 expressly covers financial transactions or services.
`
`Claim 14 depends upon claim 11, which depends upon claim 9. Claim 9 ultimately
`
`depends upon claim 1. While claim 9 simply adds a limitation regarding the host
`
`computer components, claim 11 includes “a transactional aggregation utility
`
`configured to receive and aggregate transactional data.” (emphasis added).
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`
`Similarly, subject claim 14 recites “wherein said transactional aggregation utility
`
`receives and aggregates company transactional data and business partner
`
`transactional data.” Claims 17, 19, 33, 33, and 46 include similar limitations.
`
`The ’715 Patent’s specification makes clear that the recited “transactional
`
`data” relates to financial transactions. Specifically, “transactional data” is
`
`discussed in detail in the specification with regard to FIG. 3:
`
`Referring again to FIG. 3, when a network user inputs registration or
`authentication data 318, application server 110 suitably allows user
`system 126 to access both transactional assets 302 and content assets
`304. Transactional assets 302 comprise both company transactions
`306 and business partner transactions 308. Company transactions
`306 are transactions provided by internal content provider 120.
`Examples of company transactions 306 may include transactions
`provided by a credit card company, such as checking a credit card
`bill, 401K plan balance or brokerage account on line. Business
`partner transactions 308 are similar transactions provided by
`external content providers 116, which are business partners of
`internal content provider 120. Examples may include buying airline
`tickets or stocks on line. Content assets 304 comprise company
`content 310 and business partner content 312. Company content 310
`is provided by internal content provider 120 and may include
`investment advice or savings advice from a credit card company.
`
`Ex. 1001 at 10:57-11:7. The “transactional data” of claim 14 is thus precisely the
`
`type of management and processing of financial data that the Board acknowledged
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`
`in PNC to subject a clam to CBM review. PNC Bank, CBM2015-00039, Paper No.
`
`9 at 7-8; see also Informatica Corp. v. Protegrity Corp., CBM2015-0010, Paper
`
`13, 11-12 (PTAB May 11, 2015). For at least the foregoing reasons, the subject
`
`matter recited in claim 14 of the ’715 Patent satisfies the “financial product or
`
`service” prong of Section 18(d)(1) of the AIA.
`
`B.
`
`
`
`The ’715 Patent Is Not Directed to a “Technological Invention”
`
`The AIA excludes “patents for technological inventions” from the definition
`
`of CBM patents. AIA § 18(d)(1). A patent does not claim a “technological
`
`invention” unless the claims are directed to “subject matter [that] 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.” See 37 C.F.R. § 42.301(b).
`
`Petitioners need only demonstrate the absence of one of these prongs in at least one
`
`claim to establish that the subject claim does not claim a technological invention,
`
`i.e., Petitioners must show that either (1) the subject matter of at least one claim as
`
`a whole does not recite a technological feature that is novel and unobvious over the
`
`prior art, or (2) at least one claim does not solve a technical problem using a
`
`technical solution. See Google Inc. v. SimpleAir Inc., CBM2014-00170, Paper 13,
`
`CBM2014-00170, Paper 13 at 7 (PTAB Jan. 22, 2015). When analyzing these
`
`prongs, the “presence of a general purpose computer to facilitate operations
`
`through uninventive steps does not change the fundamental character of an
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`
`invention.” Versata, 793 F.3d at 1327 (citation omitted). Representative claim 14
`
`of the ’715 Patent does not satisfy either prong, and therefore does not claim a
`
`“technological invention.”
`
`1.
`
`Claim 14 Does Not Recite a Novel or Non-Obvious
`Technological Feature
`
`Claim 14 as a whole is directed to a system for integrating and delivering
`
`public and private data over a website, whereby “company transactional data and
`
`business partner transaction data” is received and aggregated. Ex. 1001, claims 1,
`
`9, 11, and 14. The system of claim 14 is comprised of generic computer
`
`functionality, including host computer components, networks, user systems,
`
`databases/data stores, web servers, and application servers. Id. Each of the
`
`foregoing elements was a generic, well-known technological component when the
`
`‘715 Patent application was filed, and each is used in a normal, expected, and
`
`predictable fashion in the ʼ715 Patent. Ex. 1005 at ¶59, 62, and 65. Thus, nothing
`
`in claim 14 can remotely be considered a technological feature, much less one that
`
`is novel or nonobvious. See 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,764 (Aug. 14, 2012) (the
`
`generic recitation of known technologies will “not typically render a patent a
`
`technological invention.”); see also Versata, 793 F.3d at 1327; SAP Am., Inc.,
`
`CBM2012-00001, Paper 36 at 25-26; Google, CBM2014-00170, Paper 13 at 7.
`
`The file history further supports the conclusion that claim 14 is not directed
`
`to a technological invention. During prosecution of the underlying application for
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`
`the ʼ715 Patent, claim 14 (among others) was rejected as anticipated by U.S. Pat.
`
`No. 6,668,353 to Yurkovic (“Yurkovic”), which disclosed a system for facilitating
`
`the integration and delivery of data available over a network. Ex. 1004 at p103-105
`
`(Office Action dated June 30, 2004, p2-4). To overcome this rejection, the
`
`applicants argued that “Yurkovic does not disclose, teach or suggest, the limitation
`
`of “said public data [being] determined by private data,” and specifically cited the
`
`following passage from the application:
`
`Internal 120 and external 116 content providers may use
`information from personal profile data store 124 for many
`purposes. For example, information may be used for directing
`marketing efforts
`towards specific user systems 126. To
`accomplish that end, user information may be retrieved from
`personal profile data store 124 and special promotional messages,
`offers and any other suitable marketing materials are presented to
`user systems 126, based on that information.
`
`Id. at p65 (Response dated Sept. 27, 2004, p7. Claim 14 was thereafter allowed. Id.
`
`at p43 (Office Action dated January 11, 2005, p1). The applicants made similar
`
`arguments to overcome a rejection based on Yurkovic during prosecution of the
`
`reissue application that ultimately issued as the ʼ715 Patent. Ex. 1003 at p79-80
`
`(Response dated July 7, 2011, pp8-9). Thus, applicants characterized the point of
`
`novelty over the cited prior art as the determination of public data based on private
`
`data. This limitation, however, does not amount to a technological invention.
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`
`Moreover, using a computer to integrate public and private data was not novel at
`
`the time that the subject application was filed, and the foregoing limitation
`
`therefore does amount to a “technological invention.” Infra. at 11.
`
`2.
`
`Claim 14 Does Not Solve a Technical Problem with a
`Technical Solution
`
`The alleged invention recited in claim 14 likewise does not solve a technical
`
`problem with a technical solution. To the extent claim 14 solves any problem, it is
`
`the prior art’s alleged inability to “sufficiently allow an individual to access and
`
`view both public and private data simultaneously.” Ex. 1001 at 2:6-8. This,
`
`however, is not a technical problem. Public and private data have been integrated
`
`and simultaneously displayed for decades prior to the ʼ715 Patent’s priority date.
`
`For example, a brokerage statement mailed as a part of an investor’s monthly
`
`statement may have indicated private data related the investor’s holdings (e.g., the
`
`date shares were purchased, and the number of shares held) along with public data
`
`determined by the private data (e.g., a spot quote or per share value indicating the
`
`market value of each held share). See, e.g., Ex. 1005 at ¶36; see also Ex. 1016.
`
`Public and private data were also integrated and simultaneously displayed on
`
`computers well before the’715 Patent’s priority date. See, e.g., Ex. 1007 at FIG. 4.
`
`Simultaneously presenting public and private data is not a technical problem,
`
`and the ’715 Patent does not solve the stated problem with a technical solution.
`
`Instead, the ’715 Patent merely recites using well-known technology (computers,
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`
`data stores, servers) to perform the well-known functions of acquiring public data
`
`and private data, integrating public data and private data to form integrated data,
`
`and delivering the integrated data to a user via a computer, which does not amount
`
`to a technical solution. Ex. 1005 at ¶59 and 63; see also 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756,
`
`48,764 (Aug. 14, 2012) (The generic recitation of known technologies will “not
`
`typically render a patent a technological invention.”); Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v.
`
`Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., CBM2013-00001, Paper No. 13, 8 (PTAB, Feb. 27,
`
`2013) (“The specification ... does not describe any faster computer, more efficient
`
`interface, or a visual output with higher resolution. Instead, the specification . . .
`
`generally discusses simply what is to be accomplished. That is an ind