Paper No. __
`Filed: August 19, 2016
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`____________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________________
`
`SONY MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS (USA) INC.
`
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`CONTENT AGGREGATION SOLUTIONS LLC
`
`Patent Owner
`
`____________________
`
`Patent No. 8,756,155
`____________________
`
`PETITION FOR COVERED BUSINESS METHOD REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,756,155
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Petition for Covered Business Method Review
`Patent No. 8,756,155
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`
`
`I.
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8 ................................... 1
`
`III. PAYMENT OF FEES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.15(b) .................................... 3
`
`IV. GROUNDS FOR STANDING ........................................................................ 3
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`The ’155 Patent Is a Covered Business Method Patent ........................ 3
`
`The ’155 Patent Is Not Directed to a Technological Invention ............ 9
`
`Petitioner Has Been Sued for Infringement ........................................14
`
`V.
`
`PETITIONER IS NOT ESTOPPED .............................................................14
`
`VI. PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED ................................................................15
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Proposed Grounds and Prior Art .........................................................15
`
`The Proposed Grounds are Not Redundant .........................................16
`
`VII. THE ’155 PATENT .......................................................................................16
`
`A. Overview of the ’155 Patent ................................................................16
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`The Prosecution History of the ’155 Patent ........................................17
`
`The Priority Date of the ’155 Patent ...................................................17
`
`VIII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ..........................................................................18
`
`A.
`
`“indicator” ...........................................................................................19
`
`IX. DETAILED EXPLANATION OF GROUNDS FOR INSTITUTION.........21
`
`A. Ground 1: Claims 1, 15, and 16 Are Directed to Patent-
`Ineligible Subject Matter .....................................................................21
`
`1.
`
`Legal Standard ..........................................................................23
`
`i
`
`

`
`Petition for Covered Business Method Review
`Patent No. 8,756,155
`
`
`Step One: Claims 1, 15, and 16 Are Directed to An
`Abstract Idea .............................................................................27
`
`Step Two: The Limitations of Claims 1, 15 and 16
`Provide No Inventive Concept ..................................................37
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`B. Ground 2: Choi and Brown I Render Claims 1, 15, and 16
`Obvious................................................................................................50
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`Summary of Choi ......................................................................50
`
`Summary of Brown I .................................................................52
`
`Claim 1 ......................................................................................54
`
`Claim 15 ....................................................................................70
`
`Claim 16 ....................................................................................71
`
`C. Ground 3: AvantGo Manual and Brown II Render Claims 1, 15,
`and 16 Obvious ....................................................................................73
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`Summary of the AvantGo Manual ............................................73
`
`Summary of Brown II ...............................................................76
`
`Claim 1 ......................................................................................77
`
`Claim 15 ....................................................................................90
`
`Claim 16 ....................................................................................93
`
`X.
`
`CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................94
`
`CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`
`Petition for Covered Business Method Review
`Patent No. 8,756,155
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Cases
`Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC v. Amazon.Com, Inc.,
`2015 WL 3757497 (W.D. Tex. June 12, 2015) ...................................... 39, 40, 46
`
`Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l,
`134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014) .................................................................................passim
`
`Apple Inc. v. Sightsound Techs., LLC,
`CBM2013-00021, Paper No. 13 (Oct. 8, 2013) .................................................... 3
`
`Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada,
`687 F.3d 1266, (Fed. Cir. 2012) ......................................................................... 44
`
`Bascom Global Internet Servs., Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC,
`2016 WL 3514158 (Fed. Cir. June 27, 2016) ................................... 25, 46, 47, 48
`
`buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc.,
`765 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2014) .............................................................. 25, 45, 46
`
`Cal. Inst. of Tech. v. Hughes Comms. Inc.,
`59 F. Supp. 3d 974 (C.D. Cal. 2014) .................................................................. 27
`
`Certain Activity Tracking Devices, Sys., & Components Thereof,
`Inv. No. 337-TA-963, Order No. 54, 2016 WL 2770226 (Apr. 27,
`2016) ............................................................................................................. 37, 40
`
`Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.,
`776 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ........................................................ 24, 26, 31, 36
`
`CRS Advanced Techs., Inc. v. Frontline Techs., Inc.,
`CBM2012-00005, Paper No. 17 (Jan. 23, 2013) .................................................. 4
`
`Cyberfone Sys., LLC v. CNN Interactive Grp., Inc.,
`558 Fed. Appx. 988 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ...................................................... 23, 27, 31
`
`DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P.,
`773 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2014) .............................................................. 46, 47, 48
`
`iii
`
`

`
`Petition for Covered Business Method Review
`Patent No. 8,756,155
`
`Dealertrack, Inc. v. Huber,
`674 F.3d 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .......................................................................... 25
`
`Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Elecs. for Imaging, Inc.,
`758 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2014) .......................................................................... 31
`
`eBay, Inc. v. Advanced Auctions LLC,
`CBM2014-00047, Paper No. 15 (June 25, 2014) ........................................... 5, 36
`
`Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A.,
`No. 2015-1778, 2016 WL 4073318 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 1, 2016) .....................passim
`
`Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp.,
`822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .............................................................. 24, 32, 34
`
`Epicor Software Corp. v. Protegrity Corp.,
`CBM2015-00006, Paper No. 54 (Apr. 18, 2016) ................................................. 5
`
`Google Inc. v. SimpleAir, Inc.,
`CBM2014-00170, Paper No. 13 (Jan. 22, 2015) .................................................. 5
`
`Informatica Corp. v. Protegrity Corp.,
`CBM2015-00010, Paper No. 13 (May 11, 2015) ................................................. 7
`
`Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA),
`792 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ...................................................................passim
`
`Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indem. Co.,
`134 F. Supp. 3d 877 (W.D. Pa. 2015)................................................................. 31
`
`Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp.,
`100 F. Supp. 3d 371 (D. Del. Apr. 22, 2015) ..................................................... 31
`
`Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc.,
`790 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2015) .........................................................passim
`
`J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. v. Intellectual Ventures II LLC,
`CBM2014-00157, Paper No. 8 (Jan. 14, 2015) ............................................ 37, 40
`
`Joao Bock Transaction Sys., LLC v. Jack Henry & Associates, Inc.,
`76 F. Supp. 3d 513 (D. Del. 2014), aff’d, 803 F.3d 667 (Fed. Cir.
`2015), cert. denied, 136 S. Ct. 1468 (2016) ....................................................... 26
`
`iv
`
`

`
`Petition for Covered Business Method Review
`Patent No. 8,756,155
`
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) .....................................................................................passim
`
`Motorola Mobility LLC v. Intellectual Ventures I LLC,
`CBM2015-00005, Paper No. 10 (Mar. 27, 2015) ................................................. 7
`
`OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc.,
`788 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2015) .......................................................................... 26
`
`Potter Voice Techs., LLC v. Apple Inc.,
`2015 WL 5672598 (N.D. Cal. June 11, 2015) .................................................... 31
`
`SAP Am., Inc. v. Versata Dev. Group, Inc.,
`CBM2012-00001, Paper No. 36 (Jan. 9, 2013) .......................................... 3, 8, 10
`
`Securus Techs., Inc. v. Glob. Tel*Link Corp.,
`2015 WL 6703221 (N.D. Tex. Nov. 2, 2015) .................................................... 25
`
`Square, Inc. v. Protegrity Corp.,
`CBM2014-00182, Paper No. 16 (Sept. 18, 2014) ................................................ 9
`
`Stored Value Solutions, Inc. v. Card Activation Techs., Inc.,
`499 Fed. Appx. 5 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ...................................................................... 74
`
`Tenon & Groove, LLC v. Plusgrade S.E.C.,
`2015 WL 82531 (D. Del. Jan. 6, 2015) .............................................................. 35
`
`Tenon & Groove, LLC v. Plusgrade S.E.C.,
`No. CV12–1118–GMS–SRF, 2015 WL 1133213 (D. Del. Mar. 11,
`2015) ................................................................................................................... 35
`
`In re TLI Comms. LLC Patent Litig.,
`823 F.3d 607 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .....................................................................passim
`
`TradeStation Group, Inc. v. Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc.,
`CBM2015-00161, Paper No. 29 (Jan. 27, 2016) .................................................. 4
`
`Tranxition, Inc. v. Lenovo (U.S.) Inc.,
`2015 WL 4203469 (D. Or. July 9, 2015) ............................................................ 25
`
`Tranxition, Inc. v. Novell, Inc.,
`2015 WL 4960023 (D. Or. Aug. 19, 2015) ........................................................ 25
`
`v
`
`

`
`Petition for Covered Business Method Review
`Patent No. 8,756,155
`
`Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC,
`772 F.3d 709 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ...................................................................... 26, 42
`
`Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc.,
`793 F.3d 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ............................................................................ 4
`
`Walker Digital, LLC v. Google, Inc.,
`66 F. Supp. 3d 501 (D. Del. 2014) ...................................................................... 40
`
`In re West View Research,
`Case No. 14-cv-02675, Doc. 60 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 10, 2015) ................................ 36
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C.
`§ 101 .............................................................................................................passim
`§ 102(a) ............................................................................................................... 15
`§ 102(b) ............................................................................................................... 15
`§ 103 .............................................................................................................. 15, 16
`
`AIA § 18(d)(1) ........................................................................................................... 3
`
`Other Authorities
`
`37 C.F.R.
`§ 1.83(a) ................................................................................................................ 7
`§ 42.8(b)(1) ........................................................................................................... 1
`§ 42.15(b) .............................................................................................................. 3
`§ 42.300(b) .......................................................................................................... 18
`§ 42.301 ................................................................................................................. 3
`§ 42.301(b) ................................................................................................ 9, 10, 12
`
`157 Cong. Rec. S1365 (daily ed. March 8, 2011) ..................................................... 3
`
`House Report of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission Act of
`1974 ..................................................................................................................... 28
`
`Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 157 (Aug. 14, 2012) ................................. 3, 8, 10
`
`vi
`
`
`
`

`
`1001
`
`1002
`
`1003
`
`1004
`
`1005
`
`1006
`
`1007
`
`1008
`
`1009
`
`1010
`
`1011
`
`1012
`
`1013
`
`1014
`
`1015
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Covered Business Method Review
`Patent No. 8,756,155
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,756,155 (“the ’155 patent”)
`
`File History of U.S. Patent No. 8,756,155 (U.S. Application No.
`10/065,327)
`
`File History of U.S. Application No. 09/682,853
`
`Complaint filed in Content Aggregation Solutions LLC v. Sony
`Mobile Communications Inc. et al., Case No. 3:16-cv-00531
`
`“Internet In Hand,” New York Post, June 25, 2000
`
`“IPO of Wireless Internet Software Provider AvantGo Makes
`Solid Debut,” Dow Jones Business News, Sept. 27, 2000
`
`PCT Publication No. WO 01/18686 to Choi (“Choi”)
`
`B. Brown et al., “A Pocketful of PC,” PC Magazine, June 6,
`2000 (“Brown I”)
`
`“AvantGo Palm OS Help Documentation” dated November
`2000 (“AvantGo Manual”)
`
`B. Brown et al., “Hand-helds and phones,” PC Magazine,
`August 2000 (“Brown II”)
`
`Declaration of Dr. Joseph Konstan
`
`Declaration of David Moore
`
`Mem. of Recent Subj. Mat. Elig. Dec’ns. (Enfish, LLC v.
`Microsoft Corp. and TLI Communications LLC v. A. V.
`Automotive, LLC) *1 (May 19, 2016)
`
`Census Housing Questionnaire for the 1950 Census of the
`United States (1950), available at
`https://www.census.gov/history/www/through_the_decades/
`questionnaires/1950_1.html
`
`Excerpts from the Enumerator’s Reference Manual for the 1950
`Census of the United States, pp. 1-463 – 1-486 (1950),
`
`vii
`
`

`
`Petition for Covered Business Method Review
`Patent No. 8,756,155
`
`available at
`https://www.census.gov/history/www/through_the_decades/
`census_instructions/1950_instructions.html
`
`Tsang, Raymond, “Open outcry and electronic trading in
`futures exchanges,” Bank of Canada Review, Spring 1999, pp.
`21-39 (1999)
`
`H.R. REP. NO. 93-975 (1974)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,903,201
`
`B. Brown et al., “Wireless Services & Applications,” PC
`Magazine, August 2000
`
`C. Metz., “Top 100 Web Sites,” PC Magazine, Mar. 6, 2001
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1016
`
`1017
`
`1018
`
`1019
`
`1020
`
`
`
`viii
`
`

`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Petition for Covered Business Method Review
`Patent No. 8,756,155
`
`
`Sony Mobile Communications (USA) Inc. (“Petitioner”) requests Covered
`
`Business Method (“CBM”) review under Section 18 of the America Invents Act of
`
`claims 1, 15, and 16 of U.S. Patent No. 8,756,155 (“the ’155 patent”) (Ex. 1001),
`
`which is allegedly assigned to Content Aggregation Solutions LLC (“Patent
`
`Owner”).1 This Petition shows it is more likely than not that claims 1, 15, and 16
`
`of the ’155 patent are directed toward non-statutory subject matter and are not
`
`patentable based on prior art that was not before the U.S. Patent and Trademark
`
`Office (“PTO”) during prosecution. For these and other reasons set forth below,
`
`claims 1, 15, and 16 of the ’155 patent should be cancelled.
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8
`Real Parties-in-Interest: Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1), Petitioner
`
`identifies Sony Mobile Communications Inc., Sony Mobile Communications
`
`(USA) Inc., Sony Mobile Communications AB, LG Electronics, Inc., LG
`
`
`1 The PTO’s records do not show an assignment from Harris Technology, LLC, the
`
`assignee listed on the cover of the ’155 patent. However, Content Aggregation
`
`Solutions LLC has represented to a federal district court that it is the owner of the
`
`’155 patent. Ex. 1004, 2.
`
`1
`
`

`
`Electronics USA, Inc., Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd., Huawei Technologies
`
`Petition for Covered Business Method Review
`Patent No. 8,756,155
`
`
`(USA), Co. Ltd., and Google Inc. as the real parties-in-interest.
`
`Related Matters: Patent Owner has asserted the ’155 patent in the actions
`
`captioned Content Aggregation Solutions LLC v. BLU Products, Inc., Case No.
`
`3:16-cv-00527 (S.D. Cal.), Content Aggregation Solutions LLC v. Huawei
`
`Technologies Co., Ltd. et al., Case No. 3:16-cv-00528 (S.D. Cal.), Content
`
`Aggregation Solutions LLC v. LG Electronics, Inc. et al., Case No. 3:16-cv-00529
`
`(S.D. Cal.), Content Aggregation Solutions LLC v. Sharp Corp. et al., Case No.
`
`3:16-cv-00530 (S.D. Cal.), Content Aggregation Solutions LLC v. Sony Mobile
`
`Communications Inc. et al., Case No. 3:16-cv-00531, and Content Aggregation
`
`Solutions LLC v. ZTE Corp. et al., Case No. 3:16-cv-00533 (S.D. Cal.).
`
`Counsel and Service Information: Lead counsel is Naveen Modi (Reg. No.
`
`46,224), and backup counsel are Michael C. Hendershot (pro hac vice admission to
`
`be requested), Daniel Zeilberger (Reg. No. 65,349), and Arvind Jairam (Reg. No.
`
`62,759). The address for all PTAB correspondence is Paul Hastings LLP, 875 15th
`
`St. N.W., Washington, D.C., 20005, Tel.: 202.551.1700, Fax: 202.551.1705, E-
`
`mail: PH-Sony-CAS-CBM@paulhastings.com.
`
`2
`
`

`
`Petition for Covered Business Method Review
`Patent No. 8,756,155
`
`
`III. PAYMENT OF FEES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.15(b)
`The required fees are submitted herewith. The PTO is authorized to charge
`
`any additional fees due at any time during this proceeding to Deposit Account No.
`
`50-2613.
`
`IV. GROUNDS FOR STANDING
`A. The ’155 Patent Is a Covered Business Method Patent
`The AIA defines a covered business method (“CBM”) patent to be one that
`
`“claims a method or corresponding apparatus for performing data processing or
`
`other operations used in the practice, administration, or management of a financial
`
`product or service.” AIA § 18(d)(1); see also 37 C.F.R. § 42.301. The AIA’s
`
`definition of CBM patents is “broadly interpreted and encompass[es] patents
`
`claiming activities that are financial in nature, incidental to a financial activity or
`
`complementary to a financial activity.” SAP Am., Inc. v. Versata Dev. Group, Inc.,
`
`CBM2012-00001, Paper No. 36 at 21-22 (Jan. 9, 2013) (citing Trial Practice
`
`Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 157 at 48734-35); Apple Inc. v. Sightsound Techs., LLC,
`
`CBM2013-00021, Paper No. 13 at 11 (Oct. 8, 2013). In addition, “practice,
`
`administration, or management” is “intended to cover any ancillary activities
`
`related to a financial product or service, including . . . marketing, customer
`
`interfaces, Web site management and functionality, [and] transmission or
`
`management of data.” 157 Cong. Rec. S1365 (daily ed. March 8, 2011) (Sen.
`
`3
`
`

`
`Schumer). A CBM patent “is not limited to products and services of only the
`
`Petition for Covered Business Method Review
`Patent No. 8,756,155
`
`
`financial industry, or to patents owned by or directly affecting the activities of
`
`financial institutions such as banks and brokerage houses.” Versata Dev. Group,
`
`Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2015); see also CRS
`
`Advanced Techs., Inc. v. Frontline Techs., Inc., CBM2012-00005, Paper No. 17 at
`
`8 (Jan. 23, 2013) (finding that claim elements do not need to map directly to
`
`financial products or services). The ’155 patent meets the AIA’s definition of a
`
`CBM patent.
`
`
`
`A patent need only have one claim directed to a covered business method to
`
`be eligible for CBM review. See, e.g., TradeStation Group, Inc. v. Trading Techs.
`
`Int’l, Inc., CBM2015-00161, Paper No. 29 at 10 (Jan. 27, 2016). As set forth
`
`below, several claims of the ’155 patent are directed to a covered business method,
`
`including claims 1, 3, 7, 9, 10, 15, and 16.
`
`
`
`For example, Claim 1 recites “selecting execution of a prestored sequence of
`
`actions based on said single actuation that interface with a remote internet site,
`
`takes some action on the remote internet site, and returns information from the
`
`internet site.” Claim 3 further recites that “said remote Internet site [i.e., the
`
`remote Internet site of claim 1] includes a bank, and said information includes a
`
`balance from said bank.” The specification of the ’155 patent explains that claim 3
`
`is directed to obtaining a bank balance over the Internet, which is unquestionably
`
`4
`
`

`
`an activity that is financial in nature. Ex. 1001, 5:66-6:40. Similarly, claim 7
`
`Petition for Covered Business Method Review
`Patent No. 8,756,155
`
`
`recites “said Internet site enables bids to be placed on items, and said entry of
`
`variable information is an area where a bid amount can be input,” and claim 9
`
`recites “obtaining a first bill amount from said first Internet site which represents
`
`an Internet site holding bills” and “paying the bill amount obtained from the first
`
`Internet site using said second Internet site, which is a bank’s web site.”
`
`The foregoing claim limitations regarding a “bank,” “balance from said
`
`bank,” “bids,” “bid amount,” “Internet site holding bills,” and “paying the bill
`
`amount” make clear that the claims are directed to activities that are used in the
`
`practice, administration, and management of a financial product or service. See
`
`Epicor Software Corp. v. Protegrity Corp., CBM2015-00006, Paper No. 54 at 20
`
`(Apr. 18, 2016) (“Banking is a financial activity”); eBay, Inc. v. Advanced
`
`Auctions LLC, CBM2014-00047, Paper No. 15 at 6 (June 25, 2014) (finding patent
`
`CBM-eligible when the patent recited a “webpage [that] shows bid amounts and
`
`accepts bids” and was “directed to a sales methodology”).
`
`The specification of the ’155 patent further confirms that the “information
`
`from the internet site” recited in claim 1 is financial in nature, incidental to a
`
`financial activity, or complementary to a financial activity. For example, the
`
`Abstract describes such information as relating to “bank balances,” “bidding
`
`systems,” and “stocks.” See, e.g., Ex. 1001, Abstract; see also Google Inc. v.
`
`5
`
`

`
`SimpleAir, Inc., CBM2014-00170, Paper No. 13 at 6 (Jan. 22, 2015) (finding a
`
`Petition for Covered Business Method Review
`Patent No. 8,756,155
`
`
`patent to be CBM eligible where the specification taught that the data recited in the
`
`claims encompassed “stock quotes” and “lotto results”).
`
`In addition, the specification reveals that the limitation of “validating a
`
`secured transaction” recited in claim 10 refers to credit card transactions. Ex.
`
`1001, 12:9-10 (“high security transactions such as a credit card”), 13:5
`
`(“validation”).
`
`The prosecution history of the ’155 patent also confirms that claims 1, 3, 7,
`
`9, 10, 15, and 16 are directed to covered business methods. In the “Summary of
`
`Claimed Subject Matter” section of the Appeal Brief filed July 5, 2006, (Ex. 1002,
`
`238-39), the Applicant pointed to a paragraph of the specification as support for
`
`claim 1 that pertains entirely to financial activities. Id., 354 (citing ¶ [0071]’s
`
`discussion of auctions). Indeed, the focus of the specification is on financial
`
`activities relating to bid placements, auctions, banks, stocks, electronic shopping,
`
`bill payment, and credit cards. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 3:11 (“place an electronic bid”),
`
`3:26 (“specified banks, stocks”), 5:48-49 (“buying virtually any product on the
`
`Internet”), 5:50 (“check on stock prices”), 5:67 (“obtain a bank balance over the
`
`Internet”), 6:62-63 (“electronic shopping such as with a shopping basket on a
`
`site”), 9:47-48 (“stock portfolios site 632, and online auction sites such as ebay
`
`634”), 10:22-23 (“Site 636 represents one of the user bills, for example a credit
`
`6
`
`

`
`card”), 10:50 (“bank account site”), 10:58-59 (“transferring between accounts,
`
`Petition for Covered Business Method Review
`Patent No. 8,756,155
`
`
`obtaining bank balance, paying bills”), 13:3-5 (“the user can be authorized for
`
`payment without requiring that the user seek verification of their credit or credit
`
`card from the remote source”). See also Motorola Mobility LLC v. Intellectual
`
`Ventures I LLC, CBM2015-00005, Paper No. 10 at 3-4, 7-8 (Mar. 27, 2015)
`
`(finding a claim directed to a method in which software updates are sent from a
`
`“remote computer system” to a “user station” to be financial in nature because the
`
`“[s]pecification describes the use of the claimed methods in financial planning and
`
`portfolio systems to place orders and obtain statistics”); Informatica Corp. v.
`
`Protegrity Corp., CBM2015-00010, Paper No. 13 at 11 (May 11, 2015) (finding a
`
`claim directed to “data processing rules” to be CBM-eligible because “banking is a
`
`field where protection against unauthorized access to databases . . . is desired”).
`
`The drawings further confirm the financial nature of the ’155 patent. Cf. 37
`
`C.F.R. § 1.83(a) (drawings “must show every feature of the invention specified in
`
`the claims”). Indeed, every drawing explicitly discloses or is related to financially
`
`related subject matter. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, FIG. 2 (showing operation of the
`
`system of FIG. 1, see id., 3:4-5, and disclosing “bid info”), FIG. 3 (“Bank
`
`Balances,” “Access Bank Info,” “Bank Website,” “Bank Stocks”), FIG. 4
`
`(flowchart of use with a general e-commerce site, see id., 2:26-27, and disclosing
`
`“Shopping Cart”), FIG. 5 (variable 511 may “include[] information such as a bank
`
`7
`
`

`
`balance,” see id., 7:58), FIG. 6 (items labeled 630-634 and 636), FIG. 7A
`
`Petition for Covered Business Method Review
`Patent No. 8,756,155
`
`
`(“stock”), FIG. 7B (contents of bank account site, see id., 10:50), FIG. 7C
`
`(“balance”), FIG. 7D (“Bank Balance”), FIG. 7E ( “Params 747” may include “the
`
`amount of the bill to be paid,” see id., 11:8-9), FIG. 7F (“Pay Amount”), FIG. 8
`
`(check for out-of-date parameters, referring to parameters 747 of FIG. 7E), FIG. 9
`
`(related to credit card transactions, see id., 12:8-10), FIG. 10 (pay parts 1010 may
`
`include a link to today’s specials or sales, or promotional coupons 1016, see id.,
`
`14:24-32).
`
`Here, as discussed above, claims 1, 3, 7, 9 and 10 of the ’155 patent pertain
`
`to activities that are financial in nature, incidental to a financial activity, or
`
`complementary to a financial activity, especially when read in light of the
`
`specification, drawings, and prosecution history.2 SAP, CBM2012-00001, Paper
`
`No. 36 at 21-22; 77 Fed. Reg. 157 at 48734-35. Claims 15 and 16 are financially
`
`oriented because they depend from claim 1 and include all of its limitations.
`
`
`2 The ’155 patent is also classified in Class 705, which further confirms that the
`
`’155 patent is a CBM-eligible patent. (See Ex. 1001, Field of Classification
`
`Search.) According to the PTO, “patents subject to covered business method
`
`patent review are anticipated to be typically classifiable in Class 705.” 77 Fed.
`
`Reg. 157 at 48,734, 48,739.
`
`8
`
`

`
`Therefore, the ’155 patent is CBM-eligible at least because claims 1, 3, 7, 9, 10,
`
`Petition for Covered Business Method Review
`Patent No. 8,756,155
`
`
`15, and 16 claim a device for performing data processing or other operations used
`
`in the practice, administration, or management of a financial service.
`
`The ’155 Patent Is Not Directed to a Technological Invention
`
`B.
`A patent does not claim a “technological invention” if at least one claim
`
`either (1) is not directed to “subject matter as a whole [that] recites a technological
`
`feature that is novel and unobvious over the prior art[]” or (2) does not “solve[] a
`
`technical problem using a technical solution.” See 37 C.F.R. § 42.301(b); Square,
`
`Inc. v. Protegrity Corp., CBM2014-00182, Paper No. 16 at 11 (Sept. 18, 2014). A
`
`Petitioner need only show that one prong does not exist in at least one claim to
`
`confirm CBM eligibility. Id.
`
`As demonstrated below, the ’155 patent does not claim a “technological
`
`invention” at least because claims 1, 3, 7, 9, 10, 15, and 16 do not satisfy either
`
`prong—let alone both. Instead, they merely implement the abstract idea of
`
`retrieving information from multiple sources based on a single action (see infra
`
`Part IX.A) using generic computer components.
`
`Claims 1 and 10 are each directed to a “computing device” employing
`
`known technologies, including a generic “handheld housing,” “processor” and
`
`“display displaying a plurality of different indicators.” See Ex. 1001, claims 1, 10.
`
`Nothing in the ’155 patent suggests that the housing, processor, and display
`
`9
`
`

`
`(recited in claims 1 and 10) are anything other than conventional components.
`
`Petition for Covered Business Method Review
`Patent No. 8,756,155
`
`
`Similarly, nothing in the ’155 patent suggests that the processor and display housed
`
`by the housing (recited in claim 15), or battery driven processor and display
`
`(recited in claim 16) are anything other than conventional components.
`
`Handheld computing devices were known in the prior art, as admitted in the
`
`Background section of the ’155 patent. See id., 1:33-37, 1:46-49. Indeed, the ’155
`
`patent states that the disclosed techniques “can be used in any type of personal
`
`computer, including a hand-held personal computer, e.g., a personal digital
`
`assistant (PDA) or cell phone.” Id., 8:45-47. Claims 3, 7, and 9 do not introduce
`
`any additional components pertaining to new and nonobvious technologies, instead
`
`merely reciting limitations regarding known financial practices, as described
`
`below.
`
`According to the PTO, “[m]ere recitation of known technologies,” or
`
`“[r]eciting the use of known prior art technology to accomplish a process or
`
`method, even if that process or method is novel and non-obvious” will “not
`
`typically render a patent a technological invention.” See, e.g., 77 Fed. Reg. 157 at
`
`48764; SAP, CBM2012-00001, Paper No. 36 at 25-26 (citing 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.301(b)). The known technological features recited in the claims of the ’155
`
`patent do not add anything inventive to the claims. Infra Parts IX.B-C. Rather,
`
`each of claims 1, 3, 7, 9, 10, 15, and 16, when read by its individual elements or as
`
`10
`
`

`
`Petition for Covered Business Method Review
`Patent No. 8,756,155
`
`a whole, is anticipated or rendered obvious by the prior art, as discussed in detail in
`
`Parts IX.B-C.
`
`
`
`Indeed, Choi and the AvantGo Manual each provide examples of computing
`
`devices that select execution of a pre-stored sequence of actions that interface with
`
`a remote Internet site, take some action on the remote Internet site, and return
`
`information form the Internet site, all based on the single actuation, as recited in
`
`claim 1 (and similarly recited in claim 10). Infra Parts IX.B-C. Accessing a
`
`plurality of different Internet sites as in claim 1 was known, too, as evidenced by
`
`Choi and the AvantGo Manual. Infra Parts IX.B-C. There is nothing in the ’155
`
`patent to suggest that the financial limitations of claims 3, 7, and 9 (e.g., regarding
`
`a bank balance, bid entry, and bill payment) involve new and nonobvious
`
`technologies, either. To the contrary, the ’155 patent itself discusses such features
`
`as being just some of “[m]any new applications [that] have become available since
`
`the Internet’s advent.” Ex. 1001, 1:15-20. Regarding the housing and battery
`
`limitations of claims 15 and 16, Brown I and Brown II each provide examples of
`
`such well-known components and, as discussed below, it would have been obvious
`
`to include these well-known components in PDAs or Palm devices like those
`
`described in Choi and the AvantGo Manual. Infra Parts IX.B-C.
`
`Since each of claims 1, 3, 7, 9, 10, 15, and 16, when read as a whole, does
`
`not recite “a technological feature that is novel and unobviou