[email protected] Paper 9 571-272-7822 Entered: January 17, 2014
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________
GROUPON, INC. Petitioner,
v.
BLUE CALYPSO, LLC Patent Owner. ____________
Case CBM2013-00046
Patent 8,438,055 ____________
Before JONI Y. CHANG, MICHAEL W. KIM, and BARBARA A. BENOIT, Administrative Patent Judges.
KIM, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION Institution of Covered Business Method Patent Review
37 C.F.R. § 42.208
Case CBM2013-00046 Patent 8,438,055
2
I. INTRODUCTION
Groupon, Inc. (“Petitioner”) filed a petition (“Pet.”) requesting a
review under the transitional program for covered business method patents
of U.S. Patent No. 8,438,055 (Ex. 1001, “the ’055 patent”). Paper 1. Blue
Calypso, LLC (“Patent Owner”), filed a preliminary response (“Prelim.
Resp.”). Paper 8. The Board has jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 324.1
The standard for instituting a covered business method patent review
is set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 324(a), which provides as follows:
THRESHOLD—The Director may not authorize a post-grant review to be instituted unless the Director determines that the information presented in the petition filed under section 321, if such information is not rebutted, would demonstrate that it is more likely than not that at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition is unpatentable.
Petitioner challenges the patentability of claims 1-14 of the ’055
patent under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103. Taking into account Patent Owner’s
preliminary response, we determine that the information presented in the
petition demonstrates that it is more likely than not that the challenged
claims are unpatentable. Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 324, we authorize a
covered business method patent review to be instituted as to claims 1, 4-11,
and 14 of the ’055 patent.
1 See section 18(a) of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284, 329 (2011) (“AIA”).
CasePaten
adve
Figu
an en
desti
endo
an ad
comm
e CBM201nt 8,438,05
The ’055
ertisements
ure 1 of the
As show
ndorsemen
ination com
orsement ta
dvertiseme
munication
3-00046 55
5 patent di
s between c
e ’055 paten
Figure 1 ibetween p
wn above in
nt tag betw
mmunicatio
ag includes
ent to be se
n device. E
A. T
scloses sys
communic
nt is set fo
s a diagrampeer-to-pee
n Figure 1,
ween a sour
on device o
s a serializ
ent from a
Ex. 1001,
3
The ’055 Pa
stems and
cation devic
orth below:
m for provier commun
, the ’055 p
rce commu
over a netw
ed URL lin
third-party
1:58-62. A
atent
methods fo
ces. Ex. 1
iding advenications de
patent disc
unication d
work. Ex.
nk that, wh
y intermedi
According
for distribu
001, Abstr
ertising evices.
closes trans
evice and
1001, 1:56
hen activat
iary to the
to the ’055
ution of
ract.
smission of
a
6-58. The
ted causes
destination
5 patent,
f
n
Case CBM2013-00046 Patent 8,438,055
4
the intermediary functions, among other things, to identify which
advertisement to send by virtue of decoding a serialized URL link and
associating that link with a stored advertisement. Ex. 1001, 1:62-65.
The ’055 patent discloses a “bi-directional” selection process between
a subscriber and an advertiser. Ex. 1001, 1:66-67. The bi-directional
selection process allows subscribers to choose or “endorse” certain
advertisers with which they wish to associate. Ex. 1001, 1:67-2:3. The
bi-directional selection process also allows advertisers to choose which
subscribers to use by virtue of a review of related demographic information
of each subscriber and pre-qualification of acceptable candidates. Ex. 1001,
2:3-6. Pre-qualification of one subscriber allows the advertiser to target
advertisements to a related group of potential customers because a qualified
subscriber’s contacts presumably share some or all of the same demographic
features. Ex. 1001, 2:9-13.
The ’055 patent discloses enabling advertisers to reach targeted
audiences by contact with mobile communications devices. Ex. 1001,
2:21-22. Specifically, qualified subscribers are encouraged to send
communications to their contacts, and the contacts who receive the
communication are encouraged to accept the communication and related
advertisements, because the communication is identified as being initiated
by a known contact. Ex. 1001, 2:23-25. Subscribers and recipients are
provided incentives to participate, such as cash incentives provided on debit
cards or cash distributions. Ex. 1001, 2:27-29.
Case CBM2013-00046 Patent 8,438,055
5
B. Related Matters
Petitioner and Patent Owner identify the following related district
court proceedings involving the ’055 Patent: Blue Calypso, Inc. v. Groupon,
Inc., Case No. 6:12-cv-486 (E.D. Tex); Blue Calypso, Inc. v. IZEA, Inc.,
Case No. 6:12-cv-786 (E.D. Tex); Blue Calypso, Inc. v. Yelp, Inc., Case
No. 6:12-cv-788 (E.D. Tex); Blue Calypso, Inc. v. FourSquare Labs, Inc.,
Case No. 6:12-cv-837 (E.D. Tex); BlueCalypso, Inc. v. MyLikes Inc., Case
No. 6:12-cv-838 (E.D. Tex); and Blue Calypso, Inc. v. Livingsocial, Inc.,
Case No. 2:12-cv-518 (E.D. Tex). Pet. 4; Paper 6 at 2.
Petitioner also has requested review of the following patents related to
the ’055 patent—namely, U.S. Patent 8,155,679 (“the ’679 patent”)
(Case No. CBM2013-00033), U.S. Patent 8,457,670 (“the ’670 patent”)
(Case No. CBM2013-00034), U.S. Patent 7,664,516 (the ’516 patent)
(Case No. CBM2013-00035), and U.S. Patent 8,453,646 (the ’646 patent)
(Case No. CBM2013-00044). Pet. 4.
C. Illustrative Claim
Claim 1, the only independent claim, is illustrative of the claims at
issue and reads as follows:
1. In a system comprising a network, a source communication device, a first destination communication device and an intermediary connected to the network, a method for providing advertising content to a first recipient associated with the first destination communication device and for incentivizing a subscriber associated with the source communication device comprising:
Case CBM2013-00046 Patent 8,438,055
6
receiving a first profile, at the intermediary, including a set of demographic requirements related to at least one advertiser of a group of advertisers;
receiving a second profile, at the intermediary, including a set of demographic data related to the subscriber;
deriving a match condition, by the intermediary, between the first profile and the second profile;
determining, at the intermediary, if the subscriber is a first qualified subscriber based on the match condition;
conditioning, at the intermediary, a set of endorsement opportunities on the match condition;
transmitting a[n] incentive program to the first qualified subscriber, at the source communication device, for each endorsement opportunity of the set of endorsement opportunities;
communicating the set of endorsement opportunities to the qualified subscriber at the source communication device;
receiving, at the intermediary, a selection of at least one endorsement opportunity from the set of endorsement opportunities from the qualified subscriber;
transmitting, from the intermediary, a first endorsement tag related to the at least one advertiser of the group of advertisers and linked with the advertising content;
transmitting a first content communication between the first source communication device and the first destination communication device;
transmitting the first endorsement tag from the source communication device to the destination communication device;
Case CBM2013-00046 Patent 8,438,055
7
receiving, at the intermediary, a signal from the destination communication device, through execution of the first endorsement tag, to transmit the advertising content;
transmitting the advertising content to the destination communication device; and,
incentivizing the first qualified subscriber according to the incentive program.
D. The Alleged Grounds of Unpatentability
The information presented in the Petition sets forth Petitioner’s
contentions of unpatentability of claims 1-14 of the ’055 patent under 35
U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 based on the following specific grounds (Pet. 15-74):
Reference(s) Basis Challenged Claims
Ratsimor2 § 102(b) 1, 4-7, and 14
Paul3 § 102(b) 1, 4-6, 10, and 14
Ratsimor and Paul § 103 1, 4-7, 10, and 14
Ratsimor, Paul, and Atazky4
§ 103 2, 3, 8, and 11-13
2 Olga Ratsimor, et al., TECHNICAL REPORT TR-CS-03-27, INTELLIGENT AD
HOC MARKETING WITHIN HOTSPOT NETWORKS (Ex. 1006) (“Ratsimor”). 3 U.S. Patent Application Publication 2002/0169835, published Nov. 14, 2002 (Ex. 1007) (“Paul”). 4 U.S. Patent Application Publication 2007/0121843, published May 31, 2007 (Ex. 1010) (“Atazky”).
Case CBM2013-00046 Patent 8,438,055
8
Reference(s) Basis Challenged Claims
Ratsimor, McLean,5 and Atazky
§ 103 1-9, and 11-14
II. ANALYSIS
We turn now to Petitioner’s asserted grounds of unpatentability and
Patent Owner’s arguments in its preliminary response to determine whether
Petitioner has met the threshold of 35 U.S.C. § 324(a).
A. Claim Construction
As a step in our analysis for determining whether to institute a review,
we determine the meaning of the claims for purposes of this decision. In a
covered business method patent review, a claim in an unexpired patent shall
be given its broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of
the patent in which it appears. 37 C.F.R. § 42.300(b). Under the broadest
reasonable construction standard, claim terms are given their ordinary and
customary meaning, as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the
art in the context of the entire disclosure. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504
F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Any special definition for a claim term
must be set forth in the specification with reasonable clarity, deliberateness,
and precision. In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994). We must
be careful not to read a particular embodiment appearing in the written
5 U.S. Patent Application Publication 2007/0207780, published Sep. 6, 2007 (Ex. 1009) (“McLean”).
Case CBM2013-00046 Patent 8,438,055
9
description into the claim if the claim language is broader than the
embodiment. In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993). We
construe the terms below in accordance with these principles.
“incentive” and “incentive program”
Independent claim 1 recites “incentivizing the first qualified
subscriber according to the incentive program.” Petitioner contends that the
express definitions of terms set forth in the “Definitions” section of the ’055
patent are the proper constructions of those terms. As made clear by Patent
Owner’s analysis, Patent Owner contends the ’055 patent expressly defines
“incentive” as “a reward provided to a subscriber based on an endorsement,”
and “incentive program” as “a set of rules governing an incentive
distribution.” Patent Owner further contends that neither term suggests or
requires a financial product or service. We agree with both Petitioner and
Patent Owner that the ’055 patent sets forth express definitions of
“incentive” and “incentive program.” Accordingly, we accept those
definitions as proper constructions of “incentive” and “incentive program.”
We disagree with Patent Owner, however, that neither “incentive” nor
“incentive program,” when read in light of the specification, suggests a
financial product or service. To the contrary, the ’055 patent repeatedly and
almost exclusively discloses “incentive” and “incentive program” in a
financial context. For example, the ’055 patent discloses that cash
incentives are provided on debit cards or cash distributions. Ex. 1001, 2:28-
29. In another example, incentives are disclosed as “payments,” “payouts,”
and “distributions.” Ex. 1001, 2:51, 6:34-45, 7:31-34, 8:3-6. In a further
Case CBM2013-00046 Patent 8,438,055
10
example, incentive programs are disclosed as having financial budgets and
accounts that are debited until depletion. Ex. 1001, 6:41-45, 7:18-20, 8:50-
56. Accordingly, we construe “incentive” and “incentive program” as being
financial in nature.
B. Standing
Section 18 of the AIA provides for the creation of a transitional
program for reviewing covered business method patents. Section 18 limits
reviews to persons or their privies who have been sued or charged with
infringement of a “covered business method patent,” which does not include
patents for “technological inventions.” AIA §§ 18(a)(1)(B), 18(d)(1); see
also 37 C.F.R. § 42.302. The parties disagree as to whether the ’055 patent
is a covered business method patent under section 18(d)(1) of the AIA and
37 C.F.R. § 42.301.
1. Financial Product or Service
Petitioner contends that the ’055 patent is a covered business method
patent, because the claimed subject matter is directed to “incentivizing the
first qualified subscriber according to the incentive program,” which is
financial in nature. Pet.7. In response, Patent Owner contends that
Petitioner has not met the burden of demonstrating that the ’055 patent is a
covered business method patent because Petitioner’s analysis of the
aforementioned “incentivizing” step is cursory. Prelim. Resp. 15-27. We
agree with Petitioner.
Our inquiry is controlled by whether the patent “claims a method or
corresponding apparatus for performing data processing or other operations
Case CBM2013-00046 Patent 8,438,055
11
used in the practice, administration, or management of a financial product or
service.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.301(a) (Definition of a covered business method
patent). To that end, independent claim 1 recites “incentivizing the first
qualified subscriber according to the incentive program.” As set forth
above, we construe “incentive” and “incentive program” as being financial
in nature. Accordingly, we agree with Petitioner that the subject matter of
independent claim 1 is financial in nature.
Patent Owner contends a determination that the ’055 patent concerns a
financial product or service because it merely claims one “incentivizing”
step in a multi-step process would be improper. According to Patent Owner,
such a determination would indicate that any patent that even touches on
commerce or business would be a covered business method patent. As
examples, Patent Owner contends that other patents for which the Board has
instituted covered business method patent reviews have stronger ties to
commerce and business. Patent Owner’s argument is misplaced. The
independent claims do more than merely “touch on commerce or business.”
The “incentivizing” step is central to the claims. Indeed, without the
“incentivizing” step, there is no reason for a subscriber to perform the other
steps in the claims.
With respect to the parties’ assertions concerning classification, a
determination of whether a patent is a covered business method patent
eligible for review is bound by 35 U.S.C. § 324(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.301,
not by the classification of the patent.
Case CBM2013-00046 Patent 8,438,055
12
2. Exclusion for Technological Inventions
The definition of “covered business method patent” in Section 18 of
the AIA expressly excludes patents for “technological inventions.” AIA
§ 18(d)(1). To determine whether a patent is for a technological invention,
we consider “whether the claimed subject matter as a whole recites a
technological feature that is novel and unobvious over the prior art; and
solves a technical problem using a technical solution.” 37 C.F.R.
§ 42.301(b). The following claim drafting techniques, for example, typically
do not render a patent a “technological invention”:
(a) Mere recitation of known technologies, such as computer hardware, communication or computer networks, software, memory, computer-readable storage medium, scanners, display devices or databases, or specialized machines, such as an ATM or point of sale device.
(b) Reciting the use of known prior art technology to accomplish a process or method, even if that process or method is novel and non-obvious.
(c) Combining prior art structures to achieve the normal, expected, or predictable result of that combination.
Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,763-64 (Aug.
14, 2012).
Petitioner contends that the ’055 patent is not directed to a
technological invention, because independent claims 1, 2, and 20 recite
known components and are directed toward a business problem, not a
technical solution. Pet. 7-8. We agree.
Case CBM2013-00046 Patent 8,438,055
13
Patent Owner contends that the novel and nonobvious technological
nature of the claimed subject matter is shown by the following reasons for
allowance:
[The applied prior art reference] does not teach a second party (subscriber party) which forwards advertisement obtained from advertisers through an intermediary to a recipient.” Id. at 3.
Prelim. Resp. 28. We disagree. The Examiner may have identified an
allegedly novel and nonobvious process: forwarding an advertisement in a
particular manner. However, these reasons for allowance include
advertisers, intermediaries, and advertisements, which are features that are
not technological, and the balance of the reasons, forwarding
advertisements, are directed to using known technologies.
C. Claims 1, 4-7, and 14 – Anticipated By Ratsimor
Petitioner contends that claims 1, 4-7, and 14 of the ’055 patent are
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Ratsimor.
Pet. 15-27. In support, Petitioner provides detailed explanations as to how
each claim limitation is disclosed by Ratsimor.
1. Whether Ratsimor is Prior Art
Patent Owner contends that Petitioner has failed to establish that
Ratsimor is prior art, because Petitioner has not set forth sufficient evidence
to indicate that (1) Ratsimor is a printed publication and (2) Ratsimor was
published in November 2003. Prelim. Resp. 35-40. We are not persuaded.
Petitioner presents the Declaration of Dr. Anupam Joshi to
corroborate that Ratsimor is prior art. In the Declaration, Dr. Joshi indicates
Case CBM2013-00046 Patent 8,438,055
14
that he co-authored Ratsimor, that Ratsimor was presented in September of
2003 and publicly available around November 2003, and that Ratsimor was
available from a web site of the Department of Computer Science and
Electrical Engineering (CSEE) at the University of Maryland, Baltimore
County (UMBC). Ex. 1008 ¶ 16. Petitioner also presents a copy of a web
page from UMBC’s web site, which lists the publication date of Ratsimor as
November 2003. Ex. 1006 at i.6 Based on this evidence, we are persuaded
that Petitioner has shown that Ratsimor is a printed publication that was
published in November 2003.
Patent Owner contends that Dr. Joshi’s Declaration is inadequate to
establish Ratsimor as prior art because, as a co-author of the reference and
an expert testifying for Petitioner, Dr. Joshi is an interested witness whose
testimony requires corroboration. We disagree. The fact that Dr. Joshi is a
co-author of Ratsimor and Petitioner’s expert witness is not, by itself,
sufficient to discredit Dr. Joshi’s testimony, especially when Patent Owner
has not presented sufficient arguments to cast doubt on any of Dr. Joshi’s
statements in the Declaration. In any case, this contention is premature.
6 Ex. 1006 includes Ratsimor’s Intelligent Ad Hoc Marketing Within Hotspot Networks reference (id. at 1-14) as well as a two-page list of publications (id. at i-ii) and a cover page for the reference (id. at iii). Ex. 1006 also uses two numbering schemes. We cite to the page numbers that number consecutively each page of the reference beginning with page i and that appear at the center of the last line on each page of the exhibit. We do not cite the page numbers that include the Exhibit number and the total number of pages—that is, for example, “Ex. 1006 1/17.”
Case CBM2013-00046 Patent 8,438,055
15
Patent Owner will have the opportunity to depose Dr. Joshi and present
evidence to establish facts that will support Patent Owner’s positions.
2. Overview of Ratsimor (Ex. 1006)
Ratsimor describes a framework for a peer-to-peer marketing system
that disseminates promotional information using wireless mobile computing
networks. Ex. 1006, 1. Ratsimor’s framework enables mobile device users
to collect sales promotions available from local merchants, and to propagate
sales promotions to other mobile device users in close proximity.
Ex. 1006, 1.
In general, a local merchant wirelessly broadcasts promotions, and as
a mobile device user passes by or visits the merchant, the mobile device
collects the promotions, which can be redeemed later with the local
merchant. Ex. 1006, 3. The mobile device user then can distribute the
received promotion to other mobile device users. Ex. 1006, 3-4. Every
promotion contains a list of mobile device users that ever distributed it.
Ex. 1006, 3. When the mobile device user decides to redeem the promotion
and presents it to the local merchant, the local merchant, after honoring the
coupon, stores the list of the mobile device users for future reference.
Ex. 1006, 3. Every participating local merchant then can choose to reward
the mobile device users who are its most effective distributors with
additional discounts or other rewards. Ex. 1006, 3.
3. Analysis
We are persuaded by Petitioner’s contentions and supporting evidence
that claims 1, 4-7, and 14 of the ’055 patent are, more likely than not,
Case CBM2013-00046 Patent 8,438,055
16
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Ratsimor. Pet. 15-
27. For example, independent claim 1 recites a method for providing an
advertisement from an advertiser to a first recipient associated with a first
destination communication device, and also incentivizing the first recipient.
Ratsimor discloses local merchants broadcasting promotions to mobile users,
who then distribute the promotions to other mobile users. Ex. 1006, 3.
Ratismor further discloses that participating local merchants can choose to
reward the mobile users who are its most effective distributors with
additional discounts or other rewards. Ex. 1006 at 3.
Patent Owner contends that Ratsimor does not disclose “receiving, at
an intermediary, a selection of at least one endorsement opportunity from the
set of endorsement opportunities from the qualified subscriber,” as recited in
independent claim 1. In particular, Patent Owner contends the following:
Ratsimor does not disclose that a user can “choose a variety of subsidy programs” such as by “choos[ing] to forward a promotion or advertisement to others.” Rather, Ratsimor describes “actively advertising promotions” by automatically relaying all information through the user devices without any mention of an intermediary receiving an affirmative selection by the user of the advertisement or advertiser.
Prelim. Resp. 43-44. We disagree. By distributing received promotions to
other mobile device users, each mobile device user in Ratsimor is making an
“affirmative selection” of that particular promotion from that particular local
merchant. Ex. 1006 at 3. And when the mobile device user in Ratsimor
decides to redeem the promotion and presents it to the local merchant, the
local merchant, after honoring the coupon, stores the list of the mobile
Case CBM2013-00046 Patent 8,438,055
17
device users for future reference. Ex. 1006 at 3. Thus, the peer-to-peer
marketing system of Ratsimor (intermediary) receives the list of the mobile
device users who “affirmatively selected” the particular promotion from the
particular local merchant.
Patent Owner further contends that in Ratsimor’s “actively
advertising” system, a mobile device user does not select anything, because
the user’s mobile device automatically distributes the promotions without
action or input from the mobile device user. Patent Owner’s contention is
misplaced. The aforementioned “receiving” step does not distinguish
between active input and passive input. Thus, by agreeing to participate in
the peer-to-peer marketing system of Ratismor, the mobile device user is
making an affirmative selection of all local merchants that participate in the
peer-to-peer marketing system. Moreover, Ratsimor discloses that “it is in
Bob’s interests to distribute targeted promotions rather than generic
promotions since targeted promotions promise a more generous reward for
the distribution.” Ex. 1006, 7. Accordingly, by providing a choice to the
mobile device users to distribute promotions from local merchants that
utilize targeted promotions as opposed to generic promotions, Ratsimor
discloses “receiving, at an intermediary, a selection of at least one
endorsement opportunity from the set of endorsement opportunities from the
qualified subscriber,” as recited in independent claim 1.
Patent Owner further contends that Dr. Joshi’s Declaration is
defective because for the aforementioned claim limitation of independent
claim 1, Dr. Joshi cites three full pages of Ratsimor, which do not disclose
Case CBM2013-00046 Patent 8,438,055
18
the underlying claim limitation. Patent Owner’s contentions are misplaced,
as the proper focus is on the petition. Even if Dr. Joshi’s Declaration does
not provide precise pinpoint cites to Ratsimor in certain instances, we are
persuaded that the petition and Dr. Joshi’s testimony as a whole have
adequately shown that Ratsimor discloses the aforementioned claim
limitation for the reasons set forth above.
4. Conclusion
Petitioner has shown that it is more likely than not that claims 1, 4-7,
and 14 are anticipated by Ratsimor.
D. Claims 1, 4-6, 10, and 14 – Anticipated by Paul
Petitioner contends that claims 1, 4-6, 10, and 14 of the ’055 patent
are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Paul. Pet.
28-40. In support, Petitioner provides detailed explanations as to how each
claim limitation is disclosed by Paul.
1. Overview of Paul (Ex. 1007)
Paul discloses an Internet-based method of communicating via e-mail
and a multi-modal method of communicating via e-mail and other
communications devices. Ex. 1007 ¶ 1. The Internet-based e-mail
communications system is used to develop and manage an e-mail direct
marketing campaign that sends personalized e-mail messages to members
whose member records match parameters identified for the campaign.
Ex. 1007 ¶ 51. The personalized e-mail message includes an advertisement
for a particular business, and a hyperlink to a web site of a business that,
when activated, transfers the member to the web site. Ex. 1007 ¶ 95. Paul
Case CBM2013-00046 Patent 8,438,055
19
also discloses a “refer a friend” advertising campaign that provides a coupon
to a member who is successful in referring a friend to the web site. Ex. 1007
¶¶ 101-102. Specifically, the member sends the e-mail message (with the
embedded hyperlink and referral data) to one or more friends. Ex. 1007
¶ 102. The “refer a friend” advertising campaign can increase member
activity “by offering an economic incentive.” Ex. 1007 ¶ 102.
2. Analysis
We are persuaded by Petitioner’s contentions and supporting evidence
that claims 1, 4-6, 10, and 14 of the ’055 patent are, more likely than not,
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Paul. Pet. 28-40.
For example, independent claim 1 recites a method for providing an
advertisement from an advertiser to a first recipient associated with a first
destination communication device, and also incentivizing the first recipient.
Paul discloses an Internet-based e-mail communications system that sends
personalized e-mail messages to members. Ex. 1007 ¶ 51. The personalized
e-mail message includes an advertisement for a particular business, and a
hyperlink to a web site of a business. Ex. 1007 ¶ 95. The member then
sends the received e-mail message (with the embedded hyperlink and
referral data packets) to one or more friends, as a part of a “refer a friend”
advertising campaign. Ex. 1007 ¶ 102. The “refer a friend” campaign
provides a coupon to the member if the member is successful in generating
or referring a friend to the sponsor. Ex. 1007 ¶ 101. Paul discloses the
“refer a friend” advertising campaign can increase member activity “by
offering an economic incentive.” Ex. 1007 ¶ 102. Such coupons and
Case CBM2013-00046 Patent 8,438,055
20
incentives are tracked using referral data packets, which not only identify
which member is actively recruiting friends or new members, but also
identifies the e-mail campaign for “refer a friend.” Ex. 1007 ¶ 102.
Patent Owner contends that Paul does not disclose “receiving, at an
intermediary, a selection of at least one endorsement opportunity from the
set of endorsement opportunities from the qualified subscriber,” as recited in
independent claim 1. Specifically, Patent Owner contends the following:
Merely sending an email to a friend, without more, is not receiving an affirmative selection at the intermediary from the qualified subscriber of an endorsement opportunity from the set of endorsement opportunities. This is so for at least two reasons. First, the process described in Paul is not limited in any way to qualified subscribers—rather the refer a friend email is sent to “[a]ll the members.” And, second, Paul discloses only sending an e-mail directly to a friend, without any participation by the intermediary in receiving a selection of an endorsement opportunity.
Prelim. Resp. 47. We disagree. Paul discloses that the Internet-based e-mail
communications system is used to develop and manage an e-mail direct
marketing campaign that sends personalized e-mail messages to members
whose member records match parameters identified for the campaign.
Ex. 1007 ¶ 51. Thus, the “refer a friend” e-mail is not sent to “all members,”
as asserted by Patent Owner. Moreover, the Internet-based e-mail
communications system (intermediary) tracks which members are actively
recruiting friends or new members by using referral data packets. Ex. 1007
¶ 102.
Case CBM2013-00046 Patent 8,438,055
21
3. Conclusion
Petitioner has shown that it is more likely than not that claims 1, 4-6,
10, and 14 are anticipated by Paul.
E. Claims 1, 4-7, 10, and 14 – Obvious over Ratsimor and Paul
Petitioner contends that claims 1, 4-7, 10, and 14 of the ’055 patent
are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious based on Ratsimor and
Paul. Pet. 40-47. Petitioner presents claim charts and supporting evidence
by Dr. Joshi to explain how the combination of Ratsimor and Paul renders
obvious claims 1, 4-7, 10, and 14. For example, Petitioner presents a claim
chart identifying what specific portions of one or more of Ratsimor and Paul
discloses or suggests every element in independent claim 1. Petitioner
provides the following rationale to combine Ratsimor and Paul:
Both Ratsimor and Paul are directed to advertising methods and systems wherein advertisers are able to be matched with potential consumers based on certain demographics or preferences and wherein incentives are offered for the potential customer to refer the advertising to other potential customers. Thus, the methods of systems of both Ratsimor and Paul are comparable to one another as being directed to peer-to-peer advertising systems. One of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the features of Paul with the features of Ratsimor to extend and improve the methods and systems disclosed in Ratsimor.
Pet. 40-41. We are persuaded that Petitioner has put forth sufficient
evidence to support the aforementioned rationale to combine Ratsimor and
Paul. For example, both references teach advertising systems that provide
incentives for passing along advertisements to other potential customers, and
Case CBM2013-00046 Patent 8,438,055
22
do so using similar systems and methods. See Ex. 1006 at 1; Ex. 1007
¶¶ 101-102; see also Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 131-132. In another example, both
references use electronic forms of messaging, track referrals, and have time
limits. It would have been obvious to mix and match the teachings of
systems as similar as Ratsimor and Paul to arrive at the claimed invention,
because the claims predictably use known elements according to their
establishment functions. See KSR v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 938, 416 (2006)
(stating “[t]he combination of familiar elements according to known
methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable
results”).
Patent Owner contends that the combination of Ratsimor and Paul
fails to disclose or suggest “receiving, at an intermediary, a selection of at
least one endorsement opportunity from the set of endorsement opportunities
from the qualified subscriber,” as recited in independent claim 1. Prelim.
Resp. 48-49. We already have addressed this contention above.
Petitioner has demonstrated that it is more likely than not that claims
1, 4-7, 10, and 14 would have been obvious over the combination Ratsimor
and Paul.
F. Claims 2, 3, 8, and 11-13 – Obvious over Ratsimor, Paul, and Atazky
Petitioner contends that claims 2, 3, 8, and 11-13 of the ’055 patent
are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious based on Ratsimor, Paul,
and Atazky. Pet. 48-54. Claims 2, 3, 8, and 11-13 all ultimately depend
from independent claim 1. Petitioner presents claim charts and supporting
Case CBM2013-00046 Patent 8,438,055
23
evidence by Dr. Joshi to explain how the combination of Ratsimor, Paul, and
Atazky renders obvious claims 2, 3, 8, and 11-13.
The ’055 patent issued from U.S. Patent Application 12/803,635 (“the
’635 application”), which was filed on July 1, 2010. The ’635 application
claims priority to U.S. Patent Application No. 11/318,144 (“the ’144
application”) (filed December 23, 2005) and U.S. Provisional No.
60/639,267 (“the ’267 provisional application”) (filed December 27, 2004).
1. Whether Atazky and McLean are Prior Art7
Independent claim 1 recites “endorsement tag.” Petitioner contends
that the ’144 application does not provide sufficient written description
support for “endorsement tag.” Accordingly, Petitioner contends that claims
1-14 are not entitled to the benefit of the ’144 application’s filing date.
Without such benefit, neither Atazky nor McLean is prior art to claims 1-14.
Patent Owner disagrees that the ’144 application does not provide adequate
written description support for “endorsement tag.”
In a covered business method patent review, the burden is on
Petitioner to show it is more likely than not that at least one challenged
claim is unpatentable. With respect to entitlement to earlier effective filing
dates, the Patent Owner is not presumed to be entitled to the earlier filing
dates of ancestral applications that do not share the same disclosure. But,
the issue first has to be raised by Petitioner in its petition, by identifying,
7 McLean is cited by Petitioner in another asserted ground of unpatentability. See Section II.G.
Case CBM2013-00046 Patent 8,438,055
24
specifically, the features, claims, and ancestral applications allegedly lacking
written description and enabling disclosure support under § 112, first
paragraph, for the claims based on the identified features. Then, the Patent
Owner has to make a sufficient showing of entitlement to earlier an filing
date or dates, in a manner that is commensurate in scope with the specific
points and contentions raised by Petitioner.
Based on the record before us, as explained below, we find Patent
Owner has not made a sufficient showing to support a finding that
“endorsement tag” is entitled to the filing date of the ’144 application.
Petitioner contends that the ’055 patent defines “endorsement tag” as
“an active link including a unique identifier to allow viewing of
advertisements and track an advertisement, source communication device
and event identification,” and that “endorsement tag” must be related to an
advertiser linked with advertising content, transmitted from a qualified
subscriber to a recipient, and be capable of being executed to produce a
signal, as required by independent claim 1. Petitioner contends that the ’144
application does not disclose any such feature with all the aforementioned
functionalities. Pet. 12-13. Patent Owner disputes Petitioner’s construction,
and disagrees that the ’144 application does not provide adequate written
description support for “endorsement tag.” Prelim. Resp. 32-35. However,
Patent Owner does not cite any specific portions of the ’144 application as
providing written description support for “endorsement tag.”
Petitioner properly raised the issue initially as to whether
“endorsement tag” lacks written description support in the ’144 application.
CasePaten
Upon
writt
prov
poin
persu
desc
Ataz
user
subs
allow
users
¶ 60
of us
Figu
e CBM201nt 8,438,05
n review o
ten descrip
vide any su
nts and con
uaded that
cription sup
zky and Mc
Atazky d
reviews, r
scribers. E
w an adver
s in approp
. Alongsid
ser reviews
ure 7 is sho
Fi
3-00046 55
of the ’144
ption suppo
ubstantive r
tentions ra
the ’144 a
pport for “e
cLean are p
2.
discloses r
ranks the u
x. 1007 ¶
rtiser to del
priate comm
de the adve
s. Ex. 100
own below.
igure 7 is areview
applicatio
ort for “end
response co
aised by Pe
application
endorseme
prior art to
Overview
eviews ma
ser review
111. Spec
liver highly
munities o
ertising me
07 ¶ 62. Fi
.
a block diaw campaig
25
n, we are u
dorsement
ommensur
etitioner. O
n does not p
ent tag,” an
o claims 1-
w of Atazky
anagement
ws, and distr
ifically, At
y focused
of targeted
essage, the
gure 4 disc
agram of angn managem
unable to l
tag.” Pate
rate in scop
On these fa
provide ad
nd, thus, ar
14.
y (Ex. 1010
system 36
tributes the
tazky discl
advertising
social netw
social netw
closes link
n enhancedment syste
ocate adeq
ent Owner
pe with the
acts, we are
dequate wri
re persuade
0)
60 that accu
e new user
loses a sys
g messages
works. Ex
work allow
ks to the us
d product m.
quate
did not
e specific
e
itten
ed that
umulates
reviews to
stem to
s to target
. 1007
ws addition
er reviews
o
n
s.
Case CBM2013-00046 Patent 8,438,055
26
A target user who created the user review is free to advertise their
opinion wherever they wish, for example, in e-mails, forums and personal
blogs, and social network user pages. Ex. 1007 ¶ 242. Anyone interested in
the advertising message can click on an attached coupon hyperlink and print
a coupon. Ex. 1007 ¶ 242. The coupons may be linked to promotional
online resources (e.g., video clips, articles). Ex. 1007 ¶ 243.
Based on the target user’s weighted “importance,” as perceived by all
other target user participants, incentives are distributed to the target user.
Ex. 1007 ¶ 217.
3. Claims 8 and 11
We are persuaded by Petitioner’s contentions and supporting evidence
that claims 8 and 11 of the ’055 patent are, more likely than not,
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Ratsimor, Paul, and
Atazky. Pet. 51-52. Specifically, claim 8 recites “dividing a payment, by
the intermediary, between the first qualified subscriber and the second
qualified subscriber.” Claim 11 recites a similar limitation. Paul discloses
tracking referral data and providing an economic incentive to more active
members. Ex. 1007 ¶ 102. Atazky discloses distributing incentives to users
based on each user’s weighted “importance.” Ex. 1010 ¶ 217. Petitioner
sets forth the following rationale for combining Paul and Atazky:
One skilled in the art, therefore, would find the combination of Paul, Ratsimor, and Atazky obvious to re-enforce advertising messages of Paul and Ratsimor based upon user testimonials. In addition, this is a predictable result under KSR Int’l v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007) from the combination of Paul, Rastimor and Atazky. That is, one of skill in the art
Case CBM2013-00046 Patent 8,438,055
27
would recognize as obvious the result of basing . . . [an incentive] on the influence the recipient has on other individuals. In addition, additional features of Atazky also extend and improve the methods of Paul and Rastimor and lead to predictable results that would be recognized by one of skill in the art. Hence, a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the ’055 Patent would have been aware of these references and there would have been a motivation to combine them as further shown in Chart 3. (Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 130, 132, 140).
Pet. 48-49. We are persuaded by Petitioner’s rationale.
4. Claims 2, 3, 12, and 13
We are not persuaded by Petitioner’s contentions and supporting
evidence that claims 2, 3, 12, and 13 of the ’055 patent are unpatentable
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Ratsimor, Paul, and Atazky. Pet.
48-54. Specifically, claim 2 recites “transmitting the first testimonial tag to
the first destination communication device” and “receiving, at the
intermediary, a request from the first destination communication device,
through execution of the first testimonial tag, to transmit the first
testimonial.” Claim 12 recites similar limitations, and claims 3 and 13
depend respectively from claims 2 and 12.
Petitioner contends that a combination of Atazky and Paul suggests
the aforementioned limitations. We are not persuaded. Petitioner cites
various portions of Atazky as disclosing an advertiser sending an advertising
message to a user (¶ 62), the user adding a user review (first testimonial) to
the advertising message (¶ 62), and distributing new user reviews (¶ 111).
Petitioner further cites Figure 7 of Atazky for disclosing a user review.
Case CBM2013-00046 Patent 8,438,055
28
None of these cited portions disclose an executable first testimonial tag, as
required by the aforementioned limitations. Petitioner additionally cites
paragraph 95 of Paul and paragraphs 242 to 243 of Atazky as disclosing
hyperlinks to referral data and promotional materials, respectively.
Assuming that Petitioner is contending that these hyperlinks correspond to
the recited first testimonial tag, Petitioner has not explained how referral
data and promotional materials are related to the user reviews of Atazky,
which Petitioner cites as corresponding to the recited “first testimonial.”
Petitioner also cites Figure 4 of Atazky as disclosing links (first testimonial
tag) to user reviews (first testimonial). However, Petitioner has not provided
any analysis as to whether these links to user reviews are transmitted, as
required by the aforementioned limitations.
5. Conclusion
Petitioner has shown that it is more likely than not that claims 8 and
11 would have been obvious over the combination Ratsimor, Paul, and
Atazky.
Petitioner has not shown that it is more likely than not that claims 2, 3,
12, and 13 would have been obvious over the combination Ratsimor, Paul,
and Atazky.
G. Claims 1-9, and 11-14 – Obvious over Ratsimor, McLean, and Atazky
Petitioner contends that claims 1-9, and 11-14 of the ’055 patent are
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious based on Ratsimor, McLean,
and Atazky. Pet. 54-74. Patent Owner contends that neither McLean nor
Case CBM2013-00046 Patent 8,438,055
29
Atazky is prior art to claims 1-14. These contentions have been addressed
above, and need not be repeated here.
1. Claims 1, 4-9, 11, and 14
We are persuaded by Petitioner’s contentions and supporting evidence
that claims 1, 4-9, 11, and 14 of the ’055 patent are, more likely than not,
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious based on Ratsimor,
McLean, and Atazky. Pet. 54-60, 62-71, 73-74. For claims 1, 4-8, 11, and
14, we have addressed above already how Ratsimor and Atazky render
obvious these claims, and thus, that analysis need not be repeated here.
For claim 9, Petitioner cites a combination of McLean and Atazky.
We are persuaded by Petitioner’s contentions and supporting evidence.
Claim 9 recites “providing, at the intermediary, a base content associated
with the at least one advertiser.” Atazky discloses a site dedicated to
presenting users with advertiser’s messages and associated incentives.
Ex. 1010 ¶ 123. Claim 9 further recites “modifying the base content, at the
intermediary, by addition of a set of data related to one of the group of
weather data, geographic data, time data, date data, and history data.”
Atazky discloses that based on a geographic context of the user, the base
content is personalized. Ex. 1010 ¶ 124.
2. Claims 2, 3, 12, and 13
Petitioner cites Atazky for disclosing the limitations of claims 2, 3, 12,
and 13. Our analysis as to why Atazky does not disclose certain limitations
of claims 2 and 12 is set forth above, and need not be repeated here. Claims
3 and 13 depend respectively from claims 2 and 12.
Case CBM2013-00046 Patent 8,438,055
30
3. Conclusion
Petitioner has shown that it is more likely than not that claims 1, 4-9,
11, and 14 would have been obvious over the combination Ratsimor,
McLean, and Atazky.
Petitioner has not shown that it is more likely than not that claims 2, 3,
12, and 13 would have been obvious over the combination Ratsimor,
McLean, and Atazky.
III. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, we determine that the information
presented in the petition establishes that it is more likely than not that
claims 1, 4-11, and 14 of the ’055 patent are unpatentable. The Board,
however, has not made a final determination under 35 U.S.C. § 328(a) with
respect to the patentability of the challenged claims.
IV. IV. ORDER
For the foregoing reasons, it is
ORDERED that pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 324(a), a covered business
method patent review is hereby instituted as to claims 1, 4-11, and 14 of the
’055 patent for the following grounds:
A. Claims 1, 4-7, and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being unpatentable
as anticipated by Ratsimor;
B. Claims 1, 4-6, 10, and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
unpatentable as anticipated by Paul;
Case CBM2013-00046 Patent 8,438,055
31
C. Claims 1, 4-7, 10, and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Ratsimor and Paul;
D. Claims 8 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Ratsimor, Paul, and Atazky; and
E. Claims 1, 4-9, 11, and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Ratsimor, McLean, and Atazky.
FURTHER ORDERED that all other grounds raised in the petition are
denied for the reasons discussed above;
FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 324(d) and
37 C.F.R. § 42.4, notice is hereby given of the institution of a trial; the trial
commencing on the entry date of this Order; and
FURTHER ORDERED that an initial conference call with the Board
is scheduled for 2:00 PM Eastern Time on February 4, 2014; the parties are
directed to the Office Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. at 48,765-66, for
guidance in preparing for the initial conference call, and should be prepared
to discuss any proposed changes to the Scheduling Order entered herewith
and any motions the parties anticipate filing during the trial.
Case CBM2013-00046 Patent 8,438,055
32
PETITIONER: Jeanne M. Gills Troy D. Smith [email protected] PATENT OWNER: John Phillips Carl Bruce David Conrad FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]