`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`
`FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF ATLANTA, FEDERAL RESERVE
`BANK OF BOSTON, FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF CHICAGO,
`FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF CLEVELAND, FEDERAL RESERVE
`BANK OF DALLAS, FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF KANSAS CITY,
`FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF MINNEAPOLIS, FEDERAL RESERVE
`BANK OF NEW YORK, FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF
`PHILADELPHIA, FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF RICHMOND,
`FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF SAN FRANCISCO, and
`FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF ST. LOUIS,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`BOZEMAN FINANCIAL LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`_______________
`
`Case CBM2017-00035 (Patent 6,754,640 B2)
`Case CBM2017-00036 (Patent 8,768,840 B2)1
`_______________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held: April 5, 2018,
`________________
`
`
`
`
`Before MICHAEL W. KIM, WILLIAM V. SAINDON, and KEVIN W.
`CHERRY, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`1 The Board is entering this Hearing Transcript in each proceeding. The parties
`are not authorized to use a caption identifying multiple proceedings.
`
`
`
`Case CBM2017-00035 (Patent 6,754,640 B2)
`Case CBM2017-00036 (Patent 8,768,840 B2)
`
`
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`
`
`NATASHA H. MOFFITT, ESQUIRE
`LORI GORDON, ESQUIRE
`King & Spalding LLP
`1180 Peachtree Street, NE
`Atlanta, Georgia 30309
`
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER:
`
`
`JOHN W. GOLDSCHMIDT, JR., ESQUIRE
`Ference & Associates LLC
`409 Broad Street
`Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15143
`
`and
`
`THOMAS J. MAIORINO, ESQUIRE
`Maiorino Law Group LLC
`224 Amberfield Drive
`Mount Laurel, New Jersey 08054
`
`
`
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Thursday, April 5,
`
`2018, commencing at 1:30 p.m., at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office,
`600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia.
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`Case CBM2017-00035 (Patent 6,754,640 B2)
`Case CBM2017-00036 (Patent 8,768,840 B2)
`
`
`P R O C E E D I N G S
`- - - - -
`JUDGE CHERRY: Good afternoon. This is the hearing in
`CBM2017-00035 and 36. Will the parties -- I'm Judge Cherry. This is
`Judge Kim and Judge Saindon.
`Will the parties please identify themselves?
`MS. MOFFITT: Good afternoon, Your Honor. This is Natasha Moffitt.
`I'm with King & Spalding. I'm counsel for the 12 Petitioners and I have with
`me today Lori Gordon, also from King & Spalding.
`MR. GOLDSCHMIDT: Yes, Your Honor. It's John Goldschmidt. I'm
`from Ference & Associates and representing the Patent Owner and today --
`MR. MAIORINO: Good afternoon. Thomas Maiorino, also for the
`Patent Owner.
`JUDGE CHERRY: Great.
`As an initial matter, we were reviewing the docket and, Mr. Maiorino, it
`appears you're appearing pro hac vice; is that correct?
`MR. MAIORINO: I believe so.
`JUDGE CHERRY: Did you file a motion for pro hac vice?
`MR. MAIORINO: I mean, I believe we did. We dealt with that a long
`time ago.
`JUDGE CHERRY: Because it doesn't appear to be in the file.
`MR. MAIORINO: Yeah, again, I think we had some issues with the
`filing system. John?
`JUDGE CHERRY: So I guess to the extent you're -- are you planning on
`talking today?
`MR. MAIORINO: We were, yes.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`Case CBM2017-00035 (Patent 6,754,640 B2)
`Case CBM2017-00036 (Patent 8,768,840 B2)
`
`
`JUDGE CHERRY: Well, I don't know how we can have you talk if you
`haven't been properly admitted.
`MR. MAIORINO: Yeah, I mean, it's hard to believe that this is just
`coming up on hearing date, but, you know, I guess we -- you know, it was
`our burden.
`JUDGE CHERRY: Yeah. I mean, it's your obligation to keep abreast of
`the docket.
`MR. MAIORINO: Yeah, I know there's a motion. Like we had a motion
`to seal, that didn't show up. We had a motion and that didn't show up. Now
`I'm hearing it didn't show up. I don't have access to the docket right now.
`JUDGE CHERRY: Okay. Let me -- all right. We can go through -- we
`can try to -- we can admit you here on the record, but we have to go through
`the requirements.
`Does the Petitioner object to this?
`MS. MOFFITT: Your Honor, if they want to make an oral motion to
`have Mr. Maiorino admitted pro hac, we don't have any objection.
`JUDGE CHERRY: Thank you. All right. So we'll -- are you willing to
`do that, Mr. Maiorino?
`MR. MAIORINO: Yes, Your Honor.
`JUDGE CHERRY: All right. So Mr. Goldschmidt will be the lead
`counsel?
`MR. GOLDSCHMIDT: Yes, Your Honor.
`JUDGE CHERRY: Okay. And you're a registered practitioner?
`MR. GOLDSCHMIDT: I am.
`JUDGE CHERRY: And I guess what is your familiarity, Mr. Maiorino,
`with this matter that would warrant and make you pro hac vice?
`4
`
`
`
`
`Case CBM2017-00035 (Patent 6,754,640 B2)
`Case CBM2017-00036 (Patent 8,768,840 B2)
`
`
`MR. MAIORINO: I've been representing the Patent Owner on this
`matter as co-counsel since approximately 2007 or that time frame. So I've
`been intimately involved with it since that time frame through today.
`JUDGE CHERRY: And what bars do you belong to?
`MR. MAIORINO: I'm admitted to Pennsylvania, New Jersey. I'm active
`in the State of New Jersey in good standing.
`JUDGE CHERRY: And are you in good standing in Pennsylvania, too?
`MR. MAIORINO: No. I'm inactive in Pennsylvania.
`JUDGE CHERRY: Oh, inactive in Pennsylvania, but you're active and
`in good standing in New Jersey.
`MR. MAIORINO: Yes.
`JUDGE CHERRY: And are you -- have you ever been suspended or
`disbarred from practice before any court or administrative body?
`MR. MAIORINO: No, sir.
`JUDGE CHERRY: Have you ever been -- have you ever had a court or
`administrative body deny your application for admission to practice?
`MR. MAIORINO: No, sir.
`JUDGE CHERRY: And have you ever had a court or administrative
`body impose sanctions or contempt citations against you?
`MR. MAIORINO: No, sir.
`JUDGE CHERRY: And have you read and agreed to comply to
`the -- with the Office of Patent Trial -- excuse me, have you read and
`agreed to comply with the Office Patent Trial Guide and the Board's Rules
`for Practice for Trials as set forth in 37 CFR Part 42?
`MR. MAIORINO: Yes, I have.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`Case CBM2017-00035 (Patent 6,754,640 B2)
`Case CBM2017-00036 (Patent 8,768,840 B2)
`
`
`JUDGE CHERRY: And have you -- and do you agree to be subject to
`the USPTO Rules of Professional Conduct set forth in 37 CFR Sections
`11.01, et sequence?
`MR. MAIORINO: I do.
`JUDGE CHERRY: And do you agree to the disciplinary jurisdiction of
`the Office under 37 CFR Section 11.19?
`MR. MAIORINO: I do.
`JUDGE CHERRY: That's good. Great. All right. With the agreement
`of the panel, we grant your request for pro hac vice and you can appear in
`these cases.
`MR. MAIORINO: Thank you, Judge.
`JUDGE CHERRY: And the second thing we wanted to bring to the
`Patent Owner's attention is you have filed a power of attorney in the 35 case
`and I think we brought this to your attention earlier, but there's still no power
`of attorney in the 36 case on the record and so if -- when you get back to
`your office, sometime this week if you can file the power of attorney for the
`36 case as well. Does Patent Owner understand that?
`MR. GOLDSCHMIDT: Yes, Your Honor.
`JUDGE CHERRY: Thank you. And make sure that there's -- and just to
`make sure, make sure that the power of attorney is up to date in the 35 case,
`too.
`MR. MAIORINO: Okay.
`JUDGE CHERRY: Great. All right. So we have given each side 90
`minutes. Petitioner, would you like to reserve any time?
`MS. MOFFITT: Yes, Your Honor, 30 minutes if I may.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`Case CBM2017-00035 (Patent 6,754,640 B2)
`Case CBM2017-00036 (Patent 8,768,840 B2)
`
`
`JUDGE CHERRY: And, Petitioner, since you have the burden of proof
`in the cases, you go first, and whenever you're ready.
`MS. MOFFITT: Thank you, Your Honor.
`Your Honors, may it please the Board. Again, my name is Natasha
`Moffitt. I'm lead counsel for the 12 Federal Reserve Bank Petitioners in
`these two related CBM proceedings. I have with me today, again, sitting at
`counsel's table Lori Gordon with King & Spalding.
`On August 29, 2017, the Board instituted CBM review of two related
`Bozeman Financial patents, the '640 patent and the '840 patent. In instituting
`trial, the Board correctly found that it is more likely than not that Claims 1
`through 26 of the '640 patent and Claims 1 through 20 of the '840 patent are
`unpatentable under Section 101.
`The Board also correctly found in the 0035 proceeding that it is more
`likely than not that Claims 1 through 20, 25 and 26 of the '640 patent are
`invalid under Section 112, paragraph 2. There is nothing in the record that
`would compel or that should compel the Board to reach a different
`conclusion at this final stage of the proceeding.
`In essence, these proceedings really boil down to two primary areas of
`dispute. First, whether the patents are unpatentable under Section 101 and,
`second, whether the Patent Owner should be permitted to amend the '840
`patent claims in this case.
`We intend to focus our time on these two primary issues, but we are
`prepared to address the other issues in the parties' papers if the Board has
`questions as to those issues and, in particular, the 112, paragraph 6 issues
`and the standing issues. Otherwise, we will likely rest on our briefs.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`Case CBM2017-00035 (Patent 6,754,640 B2)
`Case CBM2017-00036 (Patent 8,768,840 B2)
`
`
`I'd like to turn now to provide a brief overview of the patents and then I
`will address why the original claims of the patents are unpatentable under
`Section 101 and then I will turn to why the Patent Owner should not be
`permitted to amend the claims in the '840 patent in these proceedings.
`The Bozeman patents are expressly directed to reducing financial
`transaction fraud in the financial services industry by verifying checks and
`other financial instruments against information stored in a database. The
`focus of the patents is evident from the field of invention sections, from the
`abstract and elsewhere throughout the patents.
`The patents acknowledge that there were several prior art systems that
`were similarly aimed at verifying transactions to combat check fraud or
`transaction fraud. One such prior art system that's discussed in the patents is
`a prior art Positive Pay system that banks offered prior to the filing of these
`patents.
`Using Positive Pay, a customer would upload a file to the bank
`containing information associated with the checks that the customer had
`written. When checks were drawn on the customer's account or presented to
`the banks, the database would be queried. And if the query revealed that an
`unauthorized check number or that the transaction record somehow had been
`tampered with, the transaction could be rejected or the customer could be
`asked how to handle that check.
`The Bozeman patents criticize this prior art Positive Pay system because
`they were allegedly bank specific, meaning that only the bank's customers
`could access the system. So the Bozeman patents suggest that they
`overcome this perceived problem in the prior art by offering a universal
`system that could be used by members and nonmembers of the banks, but
`8
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`Case CBM2017-00035 (Patent 6,754,640 B2)
`Case CBM2017-00036 (Patent 8,768,840 B2)
`
`could also be accessed by every participant in the transaction clearing
`process at every point along the check-clearing process.
`JUDGE CHERRY: Ms. Moffitt, I have one question.
`MS. MOFFITT: Yes.
`JUDGE CHERRY: Is Positive Pay a trademarked system or is that just
`how the bank industry refers to this kind of category generally?
`MS. MOFFITT: Your Honor, I'm not aware of whether or not it's a
`trademark. The patents refer to it generally as Positive Pay services as if
`that's an accepted term.
`JUDGE CHERRY: Yeah, I just wasn't sure because it was capitalized,
`but I wasn't sure if that was some other thing that -- but I just -- but thank
`you. That's fine. That's a good enough answer.
`MS. MOFFITT: So the patents distinguish themselves from these
`Positive Pay services basically on the grounds that -- of the patents' ability to
`provide access to every participant at every step along the transaction
`clearing process.
`Turning to slide 6. This concept is clearly illustrated in Figure 5A which
`shows every participant in the check-clearing process, the payer, the payee,
`the payee bank, the regional Fed or the clearing bank or the payer bank
`having access to this "universal" database. So the claims of the '640 patent
`and the '840 patent are similar. Indeed, the patents are related patents.
`Turning to slide 9. The '640 patent has two independent claims, Claim 1
`and Claim 21. Slide 9 is Claim 21 and it's representative of what I’ve just
`been briefly talking about these claims. So Claim 21 is generally directed to
`a computerized method for allowing check-clearing process participants to
`access stored check register information at every point along the
`9
`
`
`
`
`Case CBM2017-00035 (Patent 6,754,640 B2)
`Case CBM2017-00036 (Patent 8,768,840 B2)
`
`check-clearing process in order to determine whether or not a check has
`been tampered with or altered.
`And so I'm looking at these limitations. Claim 1 talks about providing a
`database, storing check register information in the database, providing a
`website that the participants can access and then enabling the participants to
`access the database at every point along the check-clearing process in order
`to determine correspondence between the stored check register information
`and an executed check that has been presented for payment, and then in the
`final step enabling the participants to determine whether tampering or
`altering has occurred.
`Turning to slide 8. The only real distinction between Claim 21 of the
`'640 patent and Claim 1 is that Claim 1 recites some additional computer
`hardware and software and, in particular, a server computer having various
`components, but also a data communications device and then web-based
`computer program code stored in the storage device which sits on the server,
`which comprises several instruction means that are claimed in
`means-plus-function format.
`With respect to the '840 patent, turning to slide 11, there are three
`independent claims, Claims 1, 8 and 15, where Claim 1 is a representative
`claim. And Claim 1 of the '840 patent is similarly directed to a
`computer-implemented method that allows participants to the payment
`clearing process to have access to stored transaction information at every
`step, but the claim also includes steps directed to receiving that information
`and also sending a notification when there is a match or a mismatch between
`the received information and the stored information.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`Case CBM2017-00035 (Patent 6,754,640 B2)
`Case CBM2017-00036 (Patent 8,768,840 B2)
`
`
`And I'm turning to slide 12. Claims 8 and 15 are similar to Claim 1.
`Claims 8 and 15 add this step of providing a computer having a database and
`it also includes a step of providing a network interface to the database.
`In the interest of time and for the sake of efficiency, we're going to focus
`our argument today on the '840 patent, but this is obviously without waiver
`of any of the arguments we've presented in our briefing. We think this is
`particularly appropriate here given that the Patent Owner did not present in
`the 0035 proceeding any Section 101 arguments that were specifically
`tailored to the '640 patent and, instead, improperly incorporated by reference
`the arguments it presented in the 0036 proceeding on the '840 patent. As
`we've pointed out in our papers, this incorporation violates the Board's rules
`on incorporation by reference and we would urge the Board not to consider
`those arguments on the '640 patent.
`So turning now to Section 101. At their most basic level, the claims are
`directed to reconciling financial information against a ledger to detect fraud
`or errors in a financial transaction. This is a fundamental economic practice
`that is well-known in the art prior to the time the provisional applications
`were filed, and this fact is evidenced by the patent itself. Throughout the
`description of the prior art section, it articulates or describes prior art
`systems that were capable of performing this abstract idea.
`In turning to the Alice two-part test that we all have to look at in
`determining whether or not claims are patentable under Section 101, as I
`know the Board is very aware, step 1 we must first look at the claims to see
`if they are directed to an abstract idea and then, of course, under step 2 we
`must then evaluate the claimed elements individually and as an ordered
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`Case CBM2017-00035 (Patent 6,754,640 B2)
`Case CBM2017-00036 (Patent 8,768,840 B2)
`
`combination to determine whether those elements transform the claims into
`something more beyond that abstract idea.
`So under step 1 we ask what is the focus of these claims. And these
`claims covered nothing more than the abstract idea of collecting and
`analyzing information and then presenting the results.
`If we turn back to slide 11, which is Claim 1 of the '840 patent, for
`example, the '840 patent recites steps directed to collecting and storing
`financial information which, in essence, are steps directed to collecting
`information, comparing received financial transaction information against
`the stored information, which is a step of analyzing, determining if there's a
`match or mismatch between the received information and the stored
`information, which is a step of analyzing, and then notifying the interested
`parties if there's a match or a mismatch, which is a step of presenting.
`Courts have repeatedly rejected claims, just like these as being directed to
`the abstract idea of collecting and analyzing information and presenting the
`results, and we've cited a litany of those cases in our briefing including, for
`example, Electric Power Group which is directly on point.
`The conventional computer components that are cited in these claims are
`just that. They're conventional, a computer, a database and network
`interface, and it's well settled under the law that those conventional
`components aren't enough to convert a claim directed to an abstract idea to
`one that is not abstract.
`JUDGE CHERRY: Is there evidence in the record that the databases are
`conventional?
`MS. MOFFITT: Yes, Your Honor. We have submitted with our Petition
`the declaration of Tom Conte who analyzes the claims and talks about each
`12
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`Case CBM2017-00035 (Patent 6,754,640 B2)
`Case CBM2017-00036 (Patent 8,768,840 B2)
`
`of the limitations and why they're conventional. That declaration is
`supported by additional citations to the prior art and in our briefing itself
`we've cited to exhibits that support the notion that these devices that are
`recited in the claims are conventional.
`Under step 2 the Board must consider the claim elements individually
`and then as an ordered combination to determine whether the elements
`transform the nature of the claim into something more. The claims'
`recitation, as I just mentioned, of these various computer components and
`devices do not add anything inventive to the general abstract idea of
`collecting and analyzing information and presenting the results.
`As demonstrated through the Conte declaration and in our papers and the
`citations to the record and the exhibits, they're all conventional computer
`technologies that were well-known in the art at the time of the filing of the
`patents. And in reading through the specification when the specification
`refers to these devices, they're referred to in the most ordinary general sense.
`There are no technical details that are provided about these devices that
`would lead one to believe that they're directed to any kind of improvement
`in these underlying devices themselves.
`And then when you consider even the ordered combination of these steps,
`that, too, does not present any inventive concept. The claims are directed to
`the most ordinary logical sequence of steps, collecting information, storing
`that information, analyzing the information and then presenting the results.
`There's nothing inventive about that ordered sequence of events.
`JUDGE CHERRY: Does the patent identify what the impediment to
`having a system that could be accessed by anyone is, or was it a technical
`impediment, or was it just a business impediment?
`13
`
`
`
`
`Case CBM2017-00035 (Patent 6,754,640 B2)
`Case CBM2017-00036 (Patent 8,768,840 B2)
`
`
`MS. MOFFITT: The patent doesn't explain what the impediment was. It
`certainly focuses in the spec on the fact that what it believed to be novel was
`providing access to all different members of the transaction clearing process
`access to this database, but that's precisely what databases do. Databases are
`used to store information to provide access to that information to a plurality
`of people.
`JUDGE CHERRY: Does the specification have any novel way that it
`does the access?
`MS. MOFFITT: With respect to access, in particular, Your Honor, there
`is no discussion about how that access is provided. There are no details that
`would explain what the technical problem was associated with providing
`access to members of the transaction clearing process and how this particular
`system is configured to provide that access to overcome that problem.
`There's absolutely no discussion in that regard in the patent and, therefore,
`it's just recited in the spec at a very high level of generality as it is in the
`claims.
`So with respect to the Patent Owner's position on 101, in its Response it
`doesn't even address any of the cases that we've cited that establish that
`claims directed to collecting, analyzing and presenting information are
`abstract, even though the Board on institution noted that they were
`indistinguishable from this particular case. Instead, the Patent Owner recites
`a litany of other cases that it uses to argue that the claims are directed to
`improvements in computer functionality as to the timing, speed and accuracy
`of the matching of the data, of the authentication of the data and of the
`notification mechanisms that are used and recited in the claims.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`Case CBM2017-00035 (Patent 6,754,640 B2)
`Case CBM2017-00036 (Patent 8,768,840 B2)
`
`
`But the claims aren't directed to any kind of improvement in computer
`functionality, much less improvements dealing with the timing or the
`accuracy or the speed associated with collecting, analyzing and presenting
`information. The claims don't focus on any improvements and the
`specification doesn't describe any improvements to the underlying
`technologies.
`The Patent Owner also claims that the patent is unique over prior art
`systems because it uses disparate databases and computerized systems with
`multifactor authentication, but, again, those aspects or those concepts or
`those technologies are not recited anywhere in the claims and, therefore, the
`claims cannot possibly be directed to improvements in that type of
`technology.
`Again, the only claimed advance in the patent is providing every
`participant in the payment-clearing process access to the database at every
`point along the check-clearing process or the payment clearing process, and
`there is simply nothing in the specification that describes any novel way or
`improved way of providing that access.
`JUDGE SAINDON: Counsel, I have a question. So sometimes when
`thinking about 101, I like to ask myself, well, you're saying that this doesn't
`meet 101, what in your mind what is enough, what is enough to not be an
`abstract idea or what's enough to be -- you know, to be -- to add substantially
`more than just a generic computer component? We don't want to have an
`impossible standard to meet here, so is there any examples you have?
`MS. MOFFITT: Certainly I think you have to look to the cases
`themselves where patents and claims were deemed to be valid under Section
`101 or patentable under 101. An example would be, for example, Enfish.
`15
`
`
`
`
`Case CBM2017-00035 (Patent 6,754,640 B2)
`Case CBM2017-00036 (Patent 8,768,840 B2)
`
`The Enfish case which was directed to an unconventional self-referential
`database where the technology itself was an improvement over the prior art
`or the conventional databases, and the patent was directed to a very specific
`new unconventional way about structuring a database in a self-referential
`way which led to improvements in the way a computer might store
`information or retrieve information. That claim was directed to an
`improvement in the underlying computer technology.
`Here, we simply have claims that are directed to these abstract concepts
`of collecting information and analyzing information and presenting the
`results using computer technology, where that technology is simply
`implemented as a tool to carry out the process rather than the focus of the
`claims being on the improvement to the underlying technology itself.
`JUDGE SAINDON: So improving technology is not an improvement to
`a process because of technology. It's the technology actually functions
`that way.
`MS. MOFFITT: It could be an improvement to the underlying
`technology itself. In the case of DDR Holdings, for example, in that case it
`was -- there was a problem within the internet space that was presented in an
`internet context where the improvement was a hybrid web page that was
`being presented. And in that case, which is a slightly different analysis I
`think, the Court found that the invention was rooted in computer technology
`in a way that overcame a problem that's specific to the problems that were
`being presented in computer networks and so it's an improvement in the
`underlying technology or the way that you're implementing the technology
`perhaps in an unconventional way to solve a problem in the technical arts.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`Case CBM2017-00035 (Patent 6,754,640 B2)
`Case CBM2017-00036 (Patent 8,768,840 B2)
`
`
`JUDGE CHERRY: And how do you respond to Patent Owner's point,
`which I think they make that this is rooted in computer technology because it
`is a computer-implemented method?
`MS. MOFFITT: That would be based on a misunderstanding of the law,
`Your Honor. The mere fact that a claim recites technology is not enough for
`the claim to be rooted in computer technology under the analysis provided in
`DDR Holdings. There is plenty of cases out there that make the point that
`simply reciting conventional computer technology to carry out a process in a
`very conventional way according to the functions of the way the technology
`works is not enough to make the claims patentable.
`[INTERRUPTION]
`JUDGE CHERRY: Sorry, we periodically get drills, safety drills.
`MS. MOFFITT: I've been getting them all morning, Your Honor.
`The dependent claims of the '840 patent are also directed to the abstract
`idea of collecting and analyzing information and presenting the results, and
`we provide our analysis of the dependent claims in our briefing. We've
`categorized the dependent claims in groups, a first group, a second group
`and a third group.
`For example, the first group of claims, Claims 2, 4, 10 and 17, they
`simply specify what known financial information could be stored in a
`database and what sources from which such data could be received. Those
`limitations do not transform the claims into any patent eligible subject
`matter. You know, it's well settled that simply specifying what content or
`what source you're pulling information from, that's not enough to make the
`claims not abstract.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`17
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`Case CBM2017-00035 (Patent 6,754,640 B2)
`Case CBM2017-00036 (Patent 8,768,840 B2)
`
`
`As to the second grouping of Dependent Claims 3, 9 and 16, those
`specify just different types of financial transactions that were well-known in
`the art at the time that the patents were filed, but, again, that's also
`insufficient to confer patentability. Limiting the claims to a particular
`technological environment isn't enough to make the claims not abstract.
`And then, finally, the third group which is Claims 5 through 7, 11
`through 14 and 18 through 20, those are simply directed to additional
`abstract data processing steps. It's more of the same of what we're seeing in
`claim -- in the independent claims, you know, for example claims directed to
`archiving information, storing information, matching data, variance of what
`we see in the independent claims. And under the cases we cited in our
`papers, those are similarly abstract data processing steps.
`The Patent Owner's proposed amended claims fare no better under
`Section 101. The Patent Owner has proposed a series of amended claims,
`Claims 21, 20 and 35, in the event the independent claims are found to be
`unpatentable. These claims are similarly directed to detecting fraud in a
`financial transaction by collecting and analyzing information and presenting
`the results. So, for example, Claim 21 is representative. Those appear on
`slides 15 through 17 of our demonstratives.
`JUDGE CHERRY: What is Petitioner's position on what the Universal
`Positive Pay Database limitation adds to the claim, if anything?
`MS. MOFFITT: Thank you, Your Honor. The Patent Owner in its
`motion does not address how the claims are amended to address the 101
`issues that we've raised in our Petition. And, in fact, in our briefing we've
`argued that the Patent Owner has failed to demonstrate how its amendments
`respond to the Section 101 issues presented in the Petition. It doesn't even
`18
`
`
`
`
`Case CBM2017-00035 (Patent 6,754,640 B2)
`Case CBM2017-00036 (Patent 8,768,840 B2)
`
`attempt to address that issue, in fact. The sole mention of Section 101 in the
`Patent Owner's motion is simply to acknowledge that the Board instituted on
`those grounds. And while the Patent Owner argues that the amended claims
`are novel and nonobvious, we haven't challenged the claims in this
`proceeding on that basis.
`The sole issue in the 0036 proceeding is Section 101 and the Patent
`Owner has failed to address that requirement and on those grounds the
`motion should be denied. It hasn't overcome the procedural threshold that's
`required to even have the motion granted in the first instance.
`So with respect to Claim 21, this claim is directed to a
`computer-implemented method for detecting fraud in electronic transactions.
`It recites several steps, including receiving a first record of a financial
`transaction in "Positive Pay File Format", storing in a Universal Positive Pay
`Database the first record in Issue File Format which is converted from and
`coincides with the Positive Pay File Format, receiving a second record in
`Issue File Format, automatically determining if there is a match between the
`first and second records which appears on slide 16. Sorry about that.
`And then on slide 17, dynamically sending a notification when there is a
`match or a mismatch, and th
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
