Trials@uspto.gov
`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`
`Paper 27
`Entered: November 23, 2016
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`
`T-MOBILE US, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`INTELLECTUAL VENTURES II LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`_______________
`
`Case CBM2016-00083
`Patent 6,115,737
`_______________
`
`
`
`Before FRANCES L. IPPOLITO, KEVIN W. CHERRY and
`ROBERT A. POLLOCK, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`POLLOCK, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Denying Institution of Covered Business Method Patent Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.208
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`
`Paper 27
`Entered: November 23, 2016
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`
`T-MOBILE US, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`INTELLECTUAL VENTURES II LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`_______________
`
`Case CBM2016-00083
`Patent 6,115,737
`_______________
`
`
`
`Before FRANCES L. IPPOLITO, KEVIN W. CHERRY and
`ROBERT A. POLLOCK, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`POLLOCK, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Denying Institution of Covered Business Method Patent Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.208
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CBM2016-00083
`Patent 6,115,737
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`T-Mobile US, Inc. (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition (Paper 1, “Pet.”)
`seeking a covered business method patent review of claims 7–9 and 14 of
`U.S. Patent No. 6,115,737 (Ex. 1001, “the ’737 Patent”). Intellectual
`Ventures II LLC (“Patent Owner”) filed a Preliminary Response (Paper 8,
`“Prelim. Resp.”). Both Petitioner (Paper 3) and Patent Owner (Paper 7) filed
`motions requesting a district court-type claim construction pursuant to 37
`C.F.R. § 42.300(b).
`We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 324, which provides that a
`post-grant review may not be instituted “unless . . . the information
`presented in the petition . . . 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 ʼ737 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 7–
`9 and 14 of the ’737 Patent. See 35 U.S.C. § 324(a).
`
`II. BACKGROUND
`
`A. Related Proceedings
`Petitioner asserts that it “has been charged with infringement of the
`’737 Patent in Intellectual Ventures II LLC v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., No. 1:13-
`cv-1633-LPS (D. Del.) and is not estopped from challenging the ’737 Patent
`claims.” Pet. 59. Patent Owner discloses four additional cases that “may
`
` 2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CBM2016-00083
`Patent 6,115,737
`
`affect or be affected by a decision in this proceeding.” Paper 6, 1; see also
`Ex. 1043 (excerpt from Joint Claim Construction Chart in Intellectual
`Ventures I, LLC, and Intellectual Ventures II, LLC v. AT&T et al, Case No.
`12-193-LPS, identifying the ’737 Patent among sixteen patents in suit).
`
`B. The ’737 Patent
`The ’737 Patent, entitled “System and Method for Accessing
`Customer Contact Services over a Network,” describes a system and method
`employing “[a] customer contact services node/Internet gateway (CCSN/IG)
`to connect a user to the services and to information from a provider via the
`Internet. . . . [whereupon] [t]he user can [] get information about the services
`and can initiate service changes and can get user-specific information.”
`Ex. 1001, Abstract. Alternatively, “the CCSN/IG . . . can [] be used in an
`‘intra-net’ or internal Web server used exclusively to service the needs of an
`individual organization.” Id. at 10:65–11:1; cf claims 8, 9. According to the
`Specification, “the CCSN/IG . . . provides a gateway between a provider’s
`WWW home page and its information and services . . . a single platform for
`all customer care access methods . . . . [and] the opportunity to immediately
`offer self-service options on the WWW.” Id. at 4:48–54.
`With respect to the prior art, the Specification discloses that, “call
`center automation systems and services, such as automatic call distributors,
`interactive voice response (IVR) systems, coordinated voice and data
`deliver, and voice mail,” have some limitations and disadvantages. Id. 1:18–
`24. For example,
`callers interacting with an IVR self-service system can only be
`given a limited set of options at any point because of the
`tendency of people to become frustrated by long lists of
`
` 3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CBM2016-00083
`Patent 6,115,737
`
`
`options. Also, effectively communicating large amounts of
`data over the telephone can be difficult. For example,
`providing a customer with a line-by-line billing record over the
`telephone is typically not feasible. Additionally,
`communicating certain types of common data, such as names
`and addresses, or other alphanumeric data, requires specialized
`hardware to perform speech recognition and speech synthesis.
`Id. at 1:25–35.
`In setting forth the objects of the invention, the Specification asserts
`that the use of a CCSN/IG “substantially obviates one or more of the
`problems due to limitations and disadvantages of the related art,” noting
`that:
`
`It is desirable to provide a CCSN/IG by which a user can
`access a provider’s information and services via the Internet.
`It is additionally desirable to enhance a provider’s existing
`Internet and home page capabilities to include more complex
`transactions.
`It is also desirable to provide a common toolset for
`implementing business rules and data access which will
`leverage the equipment and experienced staff already involved
`in service creation via an ECNPL [telephony channel].
`It is further desirable to provide a common toolset for
`tracking and reporting on various aspects of a company’s
`customer care offerings including integrating data across the
`different channels.
`Id. at 3:11–28. Accordingly, the Specification provides that:
`The WWW-based “customer care” channel of the present
`invention is an effective complement to a telephony channel
`and the present invention envisions a set of WWW customer
`contact services similar to today’s AIN [advanced intelligent
`network] customer contact services. In addition to providing a
`complement to a telephone-based self-service channel, such as
`ECNPL, according to the present invention, a customer contact
`
` 4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CBM2016-00083
`Patent 6,115,737
`
`
`service node Internet gateway (CCSN/IG) expands the
`capabilities available through a company’s home page by
`allowing Internet users to not only get customer-specific
`information and information about available services, but to
`access and update customer-specific data.
`Id. at 3:45–56.
`
`Figure 1 of the ’737 Patent (reproduced below) “is a block diagram of
`a customer contact services system in accordance with one embodiment of
`the present invention.” Id. at 5:41–44.
`
`
`
`Figure 1 depicts a customer contact services system that integrates a
`telephonic channel (top branch) with an internet channel (bottom branch).
`With respect to the latter, “a PC user 103 is connected to the internet 100 via
`the HTTP/TCP/TP protocol.” Id. at 6:12–13. “The Internet 100
`communicates with the CCSN/IG 104,” which “provides a gateway interface
`between the PC user 103 and a provider’s customer contact services node
`(CCSN) 108.” Id. at 6:19–22.
`
` 5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CBM2016-00083
`Patent 6,115,737
`
`
`In this embodiment, CCSN 108 is also connected to (1) Bellcore
`SPACE® application 112, which “is used to create business rules for
`interacting with customers,” and generate call processing records (id. at
`6:29–28); (2) line information database (LIDB) 109, which “contains
`information regarding telephone service subscribers,” and is “essential for
`making collect calls, calls billed to third numbers, and calls charged to
`calling cards” (id. at 6:40–52); (3) data reporting system (DRS) 111, “which
`may be used to collect information on customer interactions” as well as
`“information provided by [PC users 103], such as in response to
`questionnaires” (id. at 6:57–64) ; and (4) “corporate database and operations
`system 110, which is used to support the operations and applications of the
`CCSN 108, such as interactions with customers and customer billing” (id. at
`6:53–56).
`As illustrated in Figure 3, corporate database and operations system
`110 may incorporate or address numerous elements such as AP 301, “used to
`activate and or modify services for a user” (id. at 7:51–67); service
`assurance element LMOS 302, for “trouble reporting, testing, and fault
`isolation” (id. at 7:67–8:3); “BOSS 303[,] an operations system used to
`maintain customer billing and payment information” (id. at 8:3–4); PBP 309,
`used for “customer verification and authentication services,” such as
`“personal identification number (PIN) validation” (id. at 8:12–15); and
`PREMIS 308 “to maintain and validate the location of customers” (id. at
`8:15–18).
`According to the Specification CCSN/IG systems allow users to
`“access a company’s home page and get user specific information, order
`
` 6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CBM2016-00083
`Patent 6,115,737
`
`services, update or change existing services, or disconnect from services.”
`Id. at 3:56–57. Concurrently, “the company can get information about its
`customers and the services and information desired by its customers” and,
`thus, “respond to its customers’ needs and offer new and different services
`and information.” Id. at 3:57–64. Moreover, the invention
`allows users to access self-service offerings such as 900/976
`call blocking, custom calling, custom local area signaling
`services (CLASS), inside wire repair plan, and residential
`optional calling plans. Additionally, the CCSN/IG allows for
`easy administration of personal identification number (PIN)
`changes and for the administration of complex services, such as
`Do Not Disturb and Follow Me. Users will also be able to
`access customer-specific information, such as billing data and
`services data. The CCSN/IG allows providers to get
`information about its customers by providing questionnaires
`and profiles and could receive customer complaints and/or
`comments in general.
`Id. at 3:65–4:11.
`
`C. Illustrative Claims
`Petitioner challenges claims 7–9, and 14. Claims 7 and 14 are
`illustrative:
`
`7. A method for customer access to and manipulation of services
`and data of a service provider comprising the steps of:
`accessing a network;
`entering a request;
`displaying the request;
`accepting the request via a customer contact services node
`Internet gateway (CCSN/IG); and
`processing the request remotely to facilitate customer access
`to and manipulation of a plurality of customer-specific
`
` 7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CBM2016-00083
`Patent 6,115,737
`
`
`information and services retained by the service provider.
`
`
`
`14. A method for customer access to customer-specific services
`and data retained by a telecommunications service provider,
`comprising the steps of:
`establishing a connection between a customer end terminal
`and a remote telecommunications service provider's Web server
`over the Internet;
`the customer-specific
`to
`providing customer access
`information and telecommunications services available through
`the telecommunications service provider's Web server;
`allowing customer modification of at least one of customer-
`specific information and telecommunications services available
`through the telecommunications service provider Web server;
`and
`receiving verification from the telecommunications service
`provider Web server of any modifications made to the customer-
`specific information and telecommunication services.
`
`D. Asserted Grounds
`Petitioner challenges claims 7–9, and 14 of the ’737 Patent as
`unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Pet. 59.
`
`
`
`III. ANALYSIS
`
`A. Claim Interpretation
`In a covered business method patent review, the Board generally
`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. 37 C.F.R. § 42.300(b); see Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee,
`
` 8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CBM2016-00083
`Patent 6,115,737
`
`136 S. Ct. 2131, 2144–46 (2016). “Under a broadest reasonable
`interpretation, words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless
`such meaning is inconsistent with the specification and prosecution history.”
`Trivascular, Inc. v. Samuels, 812 F.3d 1056, 1062 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The
`parties request that we, instead, apply a district court-type (Phillips) claim
`construction as provided by 37 C.F.R. § 42.300(b), in particular with respect
`to the term “a customer contact services node Internet gateway (CCSN/IG).”
`Papers 3, 7; Pet. 17. In relevant part, 37 C.F.R. § 42.300(b) states that:
`A party may a request a district court-type claim construction
`approach to be applied if a party certifies that the involved
`patent will expire within 18 months from the entry of the Notice
`of Filing Date Accorded to Petition. The request, accompanied
`by a party’s certification, must be made in the form of a motion
`under § 42.20, within 30 days from the filing of the petition.
`
`The parties disagree as to the meaning of “a customer contact services
`node Internet gateway” or “CCSN/IG,” as recited in claim 7. See Pet. 18–
`32; Prelim. Resp. 13–27. In sum, the parties disagree as to whether a
`CCSN/IG, as claimed, must necessarily be used in conjunction with a
`telephony network. Because we decline to institute a covered business
`method review of the ’737 Patent, and because this Decision is not
`predicated on a disputed construction of “a customer contact services node
`Internet gateway,” we need not construe this term. See, e.g., Wellman, Inc.
`v. Eastman Chem. Co., 642 F.3d 1355, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[C]laim
`terms need only be construed ‘to the extent necessary to resolve the
`controversy.’”) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc.,
`200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).
`
` 9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CBM2016-00083
`Patent 6,115,737
`
`
`In addition, the parties agree that the language of claim 14, “available
`through the telecommunications service provider’s Web server” means,
`“made available by communicating with the CCSN/IG.” Pet. 33; Prelim.
`Resp. 27. For clarity, we adopt this construction as consistent with the
`broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification. In the
`alternative, and granting the parties’ motions to apply a district court-type
`construction, we adopt this construction as consistent with Phillips v. AWH
`Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
`
`B. Covered Business Method Patent
`Under § 18(a)(1)(E) of the AIA, the Board may institute a transitional
`proceeding only for a patent that is a covered business method patent. 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, except that the term does not include patents for technological
`inventions.” AIA § 18(d)(1); 37 C.F.R. § 42.301(a). For the purpose of
`determining 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, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,734, 48,736
`(Aug. 14, 2012). A patent need have only one claim directed to a covered
`business method for all of the patent’s claims to be eligible for review. Id.
`
`1. Financial Product or Service
`In the present case, we focus on the “financial product or service”
`requirement for CBM eligibility, i.e., whether any claim of the ’737 patent
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`CBM2016-00083
`Patent 6,115,737
`
`recites “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.” In addressing this requirement, the Federal
`Circuit has construed covered business method patents as encompassing “a
`wide range of finance-related activities” and “not limited to products and
`services of only the financial industry, or to patents owned by or directly
`affecting the activities of financial institutions such as banks and brokerage
`houses.” Versata Dev. Grp. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1325 (Fed.
`Cir. 2015) (determining that a claim directed to “a method for determining a
`price of a product offered to a purchasing organization” is subject to covered
`business method review). This definition, however, is not without limits.
`As the Court recently emphasized, under AIA § 18(d), “CBM patents are
`limited to those with claims that are directed to methods and apparatuses of
`particular types and with particular uses ‘in the practice administration, or
`management of a financial product or service.’” Unwired Planet, LLC v.
`Google Inc. No.2015-1812 slip op. at 12 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 21, 2016).
`In addressing the financial product or service prong of CBM
`eligibility, Petitioner points to claims 1 and 14 as reciting methods for
`“customer” service, and argues that use of the term “customer” (e.g.,
`“customer access to,” and “customer-” “customer modification” of
`“customer-specific information and services”) coveys the concept of
`payment for a service or commodity. Pet. 39–41. Petitioner further argues
`that, viewed in light of the Specification, the challenged claim encompass
`methods for ordering and discontinuing paid services, and that the practice
`of the claimed methods is designed to facilitate sales and generate revenue.
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`CBM2016-00083
`Patent 6,115,737
`
`Id. at 39–51 (citing Ex. 1001, 2:29–40, 3:56–59, 4:20–25, 8:31–37, 8:51–55,
`10:7–10, and 10:45–50). Petitioner points, for example, to Figures 4A–D
`and 6, as evidence that the ’737 Patent is largely drawn to the ordering and
`canceling of telephone services (“subscriptions”), which require customer
`payment. Id. at 41–48 (further citing Ex. 1001, 5:52–54, 6:42, 8:37–45,
`8:50–58, 8:61–65, 9:15–21, 9:25–44; Ex. 10111 ¶ 126). Petitioner also
`argues that the language of the challenged claims encompasses customer
`access to and manipulation of customer-specific information, including
`“billing and payment data,” “information for making ‘calls billed to third
`numbers’ and ‘calls charged to calling cards.’” Id. at 49–50 (emphasis
`removed) (citing Ex. 1001, 1:18–31, 4:6–7).
`Patent Owner responds that “[n]one of the challenged claims contains
`any finance-related terminology or limitations; nor do any of the challenged
`claims recite or require an activity involving the movement of money or
`extension of credit in exchange for a product or service.” Prelim. Resp. 31
`(citing Par Pharm., Inc. v. Jazz Pharms., Inc., Case CBM2014-00149, slip
`op. at 12 (PTAB Jan. 13, 2015) (Paper 12)). Patent Owner further argues
`that the claims recite methods of general applicability such that neither use
`of the word “customer” in the claims, nor the financially-related aspects of
`the Specification as described by Petitioner, satisfy the financial product or
`service prong of CBM eligibility. Id. at 31–44. In particular, Patent Owner
`argues that “none of the embodiments in the specification is sufficient to
`make the claims eligible for CBM review” because Congress limited CBM
`
`
`1 Declaration of Michael Shamos, Ph.D.
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`CBM2016-00083
`Patent 6,115,737
`
`eligibility to “‘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 used,’ or ‘is capable of being used’ in such a
`manner.” Id. at 29 (citing ServiceNow, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard, Co., Case
`CBM2015-00108, slip op. at 17 (PTAB Oct. 7, 2015) (Paper 10) (illustrative
`embodiment describing online shopping insufficient to render claims to a
`general-purpose “system for managing a conversation in a Web service”
`eligible for CBM review)).
`We agree with Patent Owner that, read in view of the Specification,
`the challenged claims do not satisfy the financial prong of CBM eligibility
`under AIA §18(d)(1). As our reviewing court makes clear, the statute
`expressly “directs us to examine the claims when deciding whether a patent
`is a CBM patent.” Blue Calypso, LLC v. Groupon, Inc., 815 F.3d 1331,
`1340 (Fed. Cir. 2016); see also Par Pharm., Inc. v. Jazz Pharms., Inc., Case
`CBM2014-00149, slip op. at 9 (PTAB Jan. 13, 2015) (Paper 12) (“our focus
`is firmly on the claims”). Although we do not interpret § 18 of the AIA as
`requiring the literal recitation of financial products or services, 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”).
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`
`CBM2016-00083
`Patent 6,115,737
`
`
`Petitioner argues that the term “customer” indicates payment for a
`service or commodity, because the term means “one that purchases a
`commodity or service.” Pet. 39–40 (citing, inter alia, Ex. 10402) (emphasis
`removed). Petitioner’s proposed definitions, however, are general in nature,
`encompassing individuals who may in the future engage in a commercial
`transaction, and do not clearly indicate a financial transaction has, or will
`ever, occur.3 Moreover, “it cannot be the case that a patent covering a
`method an corresponding apparatuses becomes a CBM patent because its
`practice could involve a potential sale of a good or service.” Unwired
`Planet, slip op. at 12. Petitioner’s proposed definitions, therefore, do not
`convince us that the use of “customer” in the claims conveys “an agreement
`between two parties stipulating movements of money or other consideration
`now or in the future.” See 157 Cong. Rec. S5432.
`Further, the word “customer” does not indicate payment for a service
`or commodity as it is used in the context of the claims, but broadly refers to
`a person accessing and manipulating services and data. In particular, claim
`7 is drawn to “customer access to and manipulation of services and data . . .
`via a customer contact services node Internet gateway (CCSN/IG) . . . to
`facilitate customer access to and manipulation of . . . customer-specific
`information and services.” Nothing in the claim indicates that the customer
`is paying for “access to and manipulation of” the recited “customer-specific
`information and services.” Claim 14 similarly recites, “providing customer
`
`
`2 Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary 286 (10th ed. 1988).
`3 Indeed we consider it common parlance to refer to persons entering a
`marketplace as “customers” whether or not a sale is consummated.
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`
`CBM2016-00083
`Patent 6,115,737
`
`access” and “allowing customer modification of” “customer-specific
`information and telecommunication services available through the
`telecommunications service provider Web server.” As with claim 7, nothing
`in the claim language indicates that a “customer” is engaged in the payment
`of a service or commodity.
`Moreover, claim 9, depending from and, thus, incorporating the
`“customer” language of claim 7, recites that the initial step of “accessing a
`network” is performed using an intra-net. As set forth in the Specification,
`“the CCSN/IG [customer contact services node Internet gateway] of the
`present invention can also be used in an ‘intra-net’ or internal Web server
`used exclusively to service the needs of an individual organization.”
`Ex. 1001, 10:65–11:1. We note that Petitioner does not suggest that such
`internal users generally pay their own organization for a service or
`commodity (see Pet. 59), and we interpret “customer” as referring to a user
`of the “customer contact services node Internet gateway (CCSN/IG)” recited
`in independent claim 7. This usage is consistent with that of “customer” in
`claim 7, which expressly states that “customer access” is “via a customer
`contact services node Internet gateway (CCSN/IG).” The same logic applies
`to claim 14, in which customers access and modify customer-specific
`information, “available through the telecommunications service provider’s
`Web server,” defined as, “made available by communicating with the
`CCSN/IG.” See Section III(A), above; Pet. 33; Prelim. Resp. 27.
`Analogous to the use of “customer” in the present claims, the Board
`has previously found the words “licensing” and “licensee” insufficient to
`satisfy the jurisdictional requirements for covered business method patent
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`CBM2016-00083
`Patent 6,115,737
`
`review under § 18. See Sega of Am., Inc. v. Uniloc USA, Inc., CBM2014-
`00183, slip op. at 11–13 (PTAB Mar. 10, 2015) (Paper 11). In Sega, the
`Board determined that claims to “a registration system for licensing
`execution of digital data,” including a dependent claim “wherein the
`information utilized by said licensee unique ID generating means . . .
`include[s] . . . payment details, contact details, and name,” were “on their
`face[,] directed to technology that restricts the use of software,” and not
`eligible for CBM review. Sega at 5–6, 11–13 (stating that payment details,
`contact details, and name “are information associated with a user or licensee
`and are not related to a financial product or service).
`In view of the above, we do not view the term “customer,” either
`standing alone, or as used in the context of the challenged claims, as rooted
`in the financial sector or directed to a financial transaction. See Blue
`Calypso, LLC, 815 F.3d at 1340 (approving of Board decisions that
`declined institution of covered business method reviews where the Board
`found there was “nothing explicitly or inherently financial in the construed
`claim language”).
`Our reviewing court instructs that in accessing the financial prong of
`CBM eligibility, “[i]t is not enough that a sale has occurred or may occur, or
`even that the specification speculates such a potential sale might occur.” Id.
`Consistent with this guidance, and although 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, we do not find covered business method patent
`review available for patents that claim generally useful technologies that
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`
`CBM2016-00083
`Patent 6,115,737
`
`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).
`In Nextel Operations v. Intellectual Ventures II, for example,
`although the patent included “at least one illustrative embodiment directed to
`an application of the claimed method for billing purposes,” the Board
`concluded that claims to “providing directory assistance call completion to a
`wireless communication service subscriber . . . and recording the identity of
`the wireless communication terminal,” failed to satisfy the financial prong of
`AIA § 18(d)(1) because the specification as a whole suggested a broader
`application. Nextel Operations, Inc. v. Intellectual Ventures II LLC,
`CBM2016-00052, slip op. 14–15 (PTAB Oct. 3, 2016) (Paper 9). Rather,
`the Board found 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
`[challenged patent] makes clear that any financial aspect of the invention as
`discussed in the specification is, at most, a non-limiting example.” Id. at 15.
`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); 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
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`
`
`CBM2016-00083
`Patent 6,115,737
`
`systems that have general utility not specific to any application”);
`ServiceNow, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard, Co., CBM2015-00108, slip. op. at 15.
`(PTAB Oct. 7, 2015) (Paper 10) (“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”); Par Pharm. Inc. 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, including the step of
`“mailing the prescription drug to the patient,” did not recite or require an
`activity involving the movement of money, extension of credit, or other
`financial product or service).
`In the present case, we agree with Patent Owner that the claims of
`’737 Patent are of general utility to customer care services. See Prelim.
`Resp. 36–38. As set forth more fully in section II(B), above, the
`Specification discloses a general-purpose customer contact services system,
`including “a gateway between a provider’s WWW home page and its
`information and services” and which, “provides a single platform for all
`customer care access methods.” Ex. 1001, Abstract., 4:48–51, 5:42–44. The
`invention purportedly addresses limitations and disadvantages of prior art
`telephonic systems including, the limited availability of options “because of
`the tendency of people to become frustrated by long lists of options,” the
`difficulty of communicating large amounts of data of the telephone, and the
`communication of certain types of common data that require specialized
`hardware for speech recognition and synthesis. Id. at 1:25–35.
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`
`
`CBM2016-00083
`Patent 6,115,737
`
`
`In accord with these advantages, the Specification identifies general
`objects of the invention including “enhance[ment of] a provider’s existing
`Internet and home page capability to include more complex transactions,”
`and providing common tool set[s] for (1) “implementing business rules and
`data access which will leverage the equipment and experienced staff already
`involved in [telephony-based] service creation,” and (2) “tracking and
`reporting on various aspects of a company's customer care offerings.” Id. at
`3:11–28; see id. at 3:45–56. As noted by Patent Owner, “none of these
`general objects identifies a financial services goal.” Prelim. Resp. 36.
`Further, and in contrast to Petitioner’s focus on ordering and
`discontinuing paid services, facilitating sales, and generating revenue, the
`Specification indicates that the claims encompass a broad range of customer
`contact services and features that are not clearly financial in nature. See
`Prelim. Resp. 38–40. These include the ability of Internet users to “access a
`company’s home page,” “get customer-specific information and information
`about available services,” and “access and update customer-specific data.”
`Ex. 1001, 3:52–59. Users may also “access self-service offerings such as
`900/976 call blocking,” have “easy administration of personal identification
`number (PIN) changes,” and, as indicated in the Petition, engage in self-
`service modification of telephone routing services such as “Follow Me” and
`“Do Not Disturb.” Ex. 1001 3:48–4:7; Pet. 24 n.3. In addition, using
`customer questionnaires and profiles obtained via the CCSN/IG, “the
`company can get information about its customers and the services and
`information desired by its customers” including “customer complaints
`and/or comments in general.” Ex. 1001, 3:59–64, 4:8–11.
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`
`
`CBM2016-00083
`Patent 6,115,737
`
`
`In view of the above, the financial applications of the claimed
`invention set forth in the Specification are insufficient to impart CBM
`eligibility to the invention as claimed in the ’737 Patent. 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 p
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
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.
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.
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
