Match Group, LLC v. Bumble Trading Inc.

Western District of Texas, txwd-6:2018-cv-00080

Exhibit 5

Interested in this case?

Current View

Full Text

6 EXHIBIT 5 Apple, Inc.Case 6:18-cv-00080-ADA-JCM v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229 (2016) Document 34-5 Filed 11/08/18 Page 2 of 16 120 U.S.P.Q.2d 1844 842 F.3d 1229 Holdings: The Court of Appeals, Reyna, Circuit Judge, United States Court of Appeals, held that: Federal Circuit. [1] "menu" meant a list of options available to a user APPLE, INC., Domino's Pizza, Inc., Domino's Pizza, displayable on a computer; LLC, Fandango, LLC, Opentable, Inc., Appellants v. [2] claim preambles reciting "synchronous AMERANTH, INC., Cross–Appellant communications system" were not limiting so as to Ameranth, Inc., Appellant require central back-office server that communicated data v. updates to and from multiple client devices; Agilysys, Inc., Expedia, Inc., Fandango, LLC, Hotel Tonight, Inc., Hotwire, Inc., Hotels.com, L.P., Kayak [3] "central processing unit" meant computational and control unit of a computer; Software Corporation, Live Nation Entertainment, Inc., Oracle Corporation, Orbitz, LLC, Opentable, [4] Board's determinations that patents were covered Inc., Papa John's USA, Inc., Stubhub, Inc., business method patents were supported by substantial Ticketmaster, LLC, Travelocity.com Llp, evidence and were neither arbitrary nor capricious; Wanderspot LLC, Domino's Pizza, Inc., Domino's Pizza, LLC, Mobo Systems, Inc., Eventbrite, [5] patent claims were directed to abstract idea of Inc., Best Western International, Inc., Hyatt generating menus with certain features, and thus claims Corporation, Marriott International, Inc., Starwood were patent-ineligible absent additional transformative Hotels & Resorts Worldwide Inc., Usablenet, elements; Inc., Apple, Inc., Hilton Resorts Corp., Hilton Worldwide, Inc., Hilton International Co., Appellees [6] claims lacked transformative elements, and thus were patent-ineligible; and 2015-1703 | [7] requirement that modified menu be linked to a 2015-1704 specific customer at a specific table was not sufficiently | transformative to render claims patentable. 2015-1792 | Affirmed in part and reversed in part. 2015-1793 | Decided: November 29, 2016 West Headnotes (19) Synopsis Background: Petitioners sought covered business method review of patents for information management and [1] Patents synchronous communications system for generating and Scope of Review transmitting menus. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board, Court of Appeals reviews Patent Trial and 2015 WL 1324399, 2015 WL 1324400, and 2015 WL Appeal Board's legal conclusions de novo and 1324401, determined that patents were unpatentable its factual findings for substantial evidence, on in part. Petitioners and patentee appealed. Director appeal from Board's decision on petition for of Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) intervened, covered business method review of patents. 28 challenging court's jurisdiction. U.S.C.A. § 1295(a)(4)(A). Cases that cite this headnote © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 1 Apple, Inc.Case 6:18-cv-00080-ADA-JCM v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229 (2016) Document 34-5 Filed 11/08/18 Page 3 of 16 120 U.S.P.Q.2d 1844 [2] Patents Cases that cite this headnote Scope of Review Patents [6] Patents Questions of law or fact Business methods; Internet applications Patent Trial and Appeal Board's ultimate "Menu," in patents for information interpretation of a patent claim term is a management and synchronous legal conclusion reviewed de novo by Court communications system for generating and of Appeals on appeal Board's decision on transmitting menus, meant a list of options petition for covered business method review of available to a user displayable on a computer, patents. 28 U.S.C.A. § 1295(a)(4)(A). contrary to patentee's contention that "menu" should be construed as computer data Cases that cite this headnote representing collections of linked levels of choices or options intended for display in a [3] Patents graphical user interface; patentee's proposed Scope of Review construction included features of menus that If the Patent Trial and Appeal Board makes were already expressly recited in claims and subsidiary factual findings about extrinsic would make those expressly recited features evidence that underlie its construction of a redundant. patent that is the subject of a petition for 2 Cases that cite this headnote covered business method review, Court of Appeals reviews those factual findings for substantial evidence. 28 U.S.C.A. § 1295(a)(4) [7] Patents (A). Construction to give validity and effect to patent and claims Cases that cite this headnote Ideally, patent claim constructions give meaning to all of a claim's terms. [4] Patents Scope of Review 7 Cases that cite this headnote Court of Appeals reviews the Patent Trial and Appeal Board's reasoning that patents are [8] Patents covered business method patents under the Business methods; Internet applications arbitrary and capricious standard, on appeal Claim preambles reciting "synchronous from Board's decision on petition for covered communications system," in patents for business method review. 28 U.S.C.A. § 1295(a) information management and synchronous (4)(A). communications system for generating and transmitting menus, were not limiting so Cases that cite this headnote as to require central back-office server that communicated data updates to and from [5] Patents multiple client devices; nothing in patents' Scope of Review specifications indicated that synchronous Court of Appeals reviews patent eligibility communication system was required to de novo, on appeal from Patent Trial and include central back-office server that Appeal Board's decision on petition for communicated data updates with client covered business method review of patent. 28 devices, and person of ordinary skill in the U.S.C.A. § 1295(a)(4)(A); 35 U.S.C.A. § 101. art would not have understood the broad term "synchronous communications systems" © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 2 Apple, Inc.Case 6:18-cv-00080-ADA-JCM v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229 (2016) Document 34-5 Filed 11/08/18 Page 4 of 16 120 U.S.P.Q.2d 1844 to include only such system of back-office problem using technical solution, as they did server and client devices. not include recitations for addressing problem of how display or synchronize menus, but Cases that cite this headnote instead included descriptions about menu generation, while problem of restaurant [9] Patents ordering when customers wanted something Business methods; Internet applications unusual and unanticipated was more business problem than technical problem. 37 C.F.R. § "Central processing unit," in patents for 42.301(b). information management and synchronous communications system for generating and Cases that cite this headnote transmitting menus, meant computational and control unit of a computer; patentee contended that term should be construed [12] Patents to mean a central server, but such Exceptions to Eligibility; Ineligible construction would include features that Subject Matter were already recited and would make those Patents expressly recited features redundant, and Use or operation of machine or patentee's construction was not necessary to apparatus as affecting process; 'machine or differentiate from another claim that recited transformation' test "microprocessor," as claims were not identical To determine whether a claim is patent in scope and could use different terms that had eligible, court must first determine whether same meaning. the claims at issue are directed to a patent- ineligible concept, and if they are, court then 3 Cases that cite this headnote considers the elements of each claim both individually and as an ordered combination [10] Patents to determine whether the additional elements Decisions reviewable; finality transform the nature of the claim into a Court of Appeals has jurisdiction to review patent-eligible application. 35 U.S.C.A. § 101. Patent Trial and Appeal Board's decision that 3 Cases that cite this headnote patents are covered business method patents and thus subject to Board's review as such. 28 U.S.C.A. § 1295(a)(4)(A); 37 C.F.R. § [13] Patents 42.301(b). Laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas; fundamental principles Cases that cite this headnote In determining whether patent claim at issue is directed to a judicial exception to patent [11] Patents eligibility, such as an abstract idea, court Post-grant review determines whether the claim focuses on a Patent Trial and Appeal Board's specific means or method that improves the determinations, that patents, for relevant technology or is directed to a result or information management and synchronous effect that itself is the abstract idea and merely communications system for generating and invokes generic processes and machinery. 35 transmitting menus, were covered business U.S.C.A. § 101. method patents because they were not patents 19 Cases that cite this headnote for technological inventions, were supported by substantial evidence and were neither arbitrary nor capricious; Board found that [14] Patents claimed inventions did not solve technical Business methods; Internet applications © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 3 Apple, Inc.Case 6:18-cv-00080-ADA-JCM v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229 (2016) Document 34-5 Filed 11/08/18 Page 5 of 16 120 U.S.P.Q.2d 1844 Claims, in patents for information programming steps were commonly known, management and synchronous and merely stated that user interface could communications system for generating and permit linking of orders with customers transmitting menus, were directed to abstract with no disclosure of how this would be idea of generating menus with certain technologically implemented. 35 U.S.C.A. § features, and thus claims were patent- 101. ineligible absent additional transformative elements; patents did not recite a particular Cases that cite this headnote way of programming or designing software to create menus with the desired features, but [17] Patents instead merely claimed the resulting systems, Eligible Subject Matter and the claims were not directed to a specific Generally, a claim that merely describes an improvement in the way computers operated. effect or result dissociated from any method 35 U.S.C.A. § 101. by which it is accomplished is not directed to 11 Cases that cite this headnote patent-eligible subject matter. 35 U.S.C.A. § 101. [15] Patents 3 Cases that cite this headnote Business methods; Internet applications Claims directed to abstract idea of [18] Patents generating menus, in patents for Business methods; Internet applications information management and synchronous Requirements that menu be modified by communications system for generating and handwriting capture or voice capture were transmitting menus, lacked transformative not sufficiently transformative to render elements, and thus claims were patent- patentable those claims, in patent for ineligible; patents merely added conventional information management and synchronous computer components, such as central communications system for generating and processing unit, data storage device, and transmitting menus, which were directed operating system, along with common to abstract idea of generating menus with software programming, to well-known certain features; patent referred to existing business practices such as modification, handwriting- and voice-capture technologies downloading, and printing of menus. 35 without providing how these elements were to U.S.C.A. § 101. be technologically implemented. 35 U.S.C.A. 9 Cases that cite this headnote § 101. 1 Cases that cite this headnote [16] Patents Business methods; Internet applications [19] Patents Requirement that modified menu be linked In general; utility to a specific customer at a specific table US Patent 6,384,850, US Patent 6,871,325, was not sufficiently transformative to render US Patent 6,982,733. Construed and patentable those claims, in patents for Unpatentable. information management and synchronous communications system for generating and Cases that cite this headnote transmitting menus, which were directed to abstract idea of generating menus with certain features; patent specification recited that hardware needed was typical and that © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 4 Apple, Inc.Case 6:18-cv-00080-ADA-JCM v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229 (2016) Document 34-5 Filed 11/08/18 Page 6 of 16 120 U.S.P.Q.2d 1844 *1233 Appeals from the United States Patent and LOWELL D. MEAD, Cooley LLP, Palo Alto, CA, for Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board, appellee Mobo Systems, Inc. in 2015–1792, –1793. in Nos. CBM2014–00013, CBM2014–00015, CBM2014– 00016. JOSEPH RICK TACHE, Greenberg Traurig LLP, Irvine, CA, for appellee Best Western International, Inc. in 2015– Attorneys and Law Firms 1792, –1793. STANLEY JOSEPH PANIKOWSKI III, DLA Piper LAURA BETH MILLER, Brinks Gilson & Lione, LLP (US), San Diego, CA, argued for all appellants in Chicago, IL, for appellee Hyatt Corporation in 2015– 2015–1703, –1704 and all appellees in 2015–1792, –1793. 1792, –1793. Also represented by DAVID LINDNER. Apple, Inc., Eventbrite, Inc. also represented by ERIN GIBSON, ROBERT CHEN WILLIAMS; MARK D. NICK G. SAROS, Jenner & Block LLP, Los Angeles, FOWLER, East Palo Alto, CA; JAMES M. HEINTZ, CA, for appellee Marriott International, Inc. in 2015– Reston, VA. 1792, –1793. Also represented by MICHAEL GLENN BABBITT, Chicago, IL. JONATHAN S. FRANKLIN, Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP, Washington, DC, argued for all appellants JOHN GUARAGNA, DLA Piper LLP (US), Austin, in 2015–1703, –1704 and all appellees in 2015–1792, TX, for appellee Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide –1793. Fandango, LLC, OpenTable, Inc., Expedia, Inc. in 2015–1792, –1793. Also represented by JAMES Inc., Hotel Tonight, Inc., Hotwire, Inc., Hotels.com, M. HEINTZ, Reston, VA; STANLEY JOSEPH L.P., Kayak Software Corporation, Live Nation PANIKOWSKI III, ROBERT CHEN WILLIAMS, San Entertainment, Inc., Orbitz, LLC, Papa John's USA, Diego, CA. Inc., Stubhub, Inc., Ticketmaster, LLC, Travelocity.com ANDREW PETER ZAPPIA, LeClairRyan, A LLP, Wanderspot LLC also represented by STEPHANIE Professional Corporation, Rochester, NY, for appellee DEBROW, GILBERT ANDREW GREENE, Austin, USABLENET, Inc. in 2015–1792, –1793. TX; RICHARD STEPHEN ZEMBEK, Houston, TX. DAVID M. STEIN, Alston & Bird LLP, Los Angeles, JOHN WILLIAM OSBORNE, Osborne Law LLC, CA, for appellees Hilton Resorts Corp., Hilton Cortlandt Manor, NY, argued for Ameranth, Inc. Also Worldwide, Inc., Hilton International Co. in 2015–1792, represented by MICHAEL D. FABIANO, Fabiano Law –1793. Firm, P.C., San Diego, CA. Before Reyna, Chen, and Stoll, Circuit Judges. JOSEPH MATAL, Office of the Solicitor, United States Patent and Trademark Office, Alexandria, VA, argued Opinion for intervenor Michelle K. Lee. Also represented by THOMAS W. KRAUSE, SCOTT WEIDENFELLER. *1234 Reyna, Circuit Judge. FRANK A. ANGILERI, Brooks Kushman PC, In this appeal, we review Patent Trial and Appeal Board Southfield, MI, for Domino's Pizza, Inc., Domino's decisions in three Covered Business Method ("CBM") Pizza, LLC. Also represented by THOMAS W. reviews. The decisions addressed the subject matter CUNNINGHAM. eligibility of certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,384,850 ("'850 patent"), U.S. Patent No. 6,871,325 ("'325 patent"), ANTHONY NIMMO, Ice Miller LLP, Chicago, IL, and U.S. Patent No. 6,982,733 ("'733 patent"). For the for appellee Agilysys, Inc. in 2015–1792, –1793. Also reasons explained below, we affirm-in-part and reverse-in- represented by NICHOLAS R. MERKER. part. JARED BOBROW, Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP, Redwood Shores, CA, for appellee Oracle Corporation in 2015–1792, –1793. Also represented by BRIAN CHANG. BACKGROUND © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 5 Apple, Inc.Case 6:18-cv-00080-ADA-JCM v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229 (2016) Document 34-5 Filed 11/08/18 Page 7 of 16 120 U.S.P.Q.2d 1844 1 The '325 patent and '850 patent have the same I. Patents specifications. The '325 patent issued from an Ameranth, Inc. ("Ameranth") owns the patents, which application which was a continuation of the application that issued as the '850 patent. The '733 disclose computer systems with hardware and software. 1 patent issued from an application which was a The patent specifications disclose a first menu that has continuation-in-part of the application that issued categories and items, and software that can generate a as the '850 patent. The '733 patent's specification is second menu from that first menu by allowing categories largely the same as the other patents, containing two and items to be selected. Claim 1 in the '850 patent recites: additional figures and some additional description. 1. An information management and synchronous Claim 1 of the '325 patent and claim 1 of the '733 patent are communications system for generating and nearly identical to claim 1 of the '850 patent. They differ transmitting menus comprising: only in that short phrases are added to the end of the claim: claim 1 of the '325 patent additionally recites "wherein said a. a central processing unit, second menu to [sic] applicable to a predetermined type of ordering" and claim 1 of the '733 patent additionally b. a data storage device connected to said central recites "wherein said second menu is manually modified processing unit, after generation." '325 patent col. 15 ll. 23–24; '733 patent c. an operating system including a graphical user col. 15 l. 60–col. 16 l. 25. interface, *1235 The patents describe a preferred embodiment d. a first menu consisting of menu categories, said of the invention for use in the restaurant industry. In menu categories consisting of menu items, said that embodiment, a menu consists of categories such as first menu stored on said data storage device and appetizers and entrees, items such as chicken Caesar salad, displayable in a window of said graphical user modifiers such as dressing, and sub-modifiers such as interface in a hierarchical tree format, Italian and blue cheese. See, e.g., '850 patent col. 6 ll. 9–21. e. a modifier menu stored on said data storage device The menu can be configured on a desktop computer and and displayable in a window of said graphical user then downloaded onto a handheld device. Id. at col. 6 interface, ll. 22–24. The menu may be displayed to a user and then another menu may be generated "in response to and f. a sub-modifier menu stored on said data storage comprised of the selections made." Id. at col. 13 ll. 52–61. device and displayable in a window of said graphical user interface, and g. application software for generating a second menu from said first menu and transmitting said second menu to a wireless handheld computing device or Web page, wherein the application software facilitates the generation of the second menu by allowing selection of catagories [sic] and items from the first menu, addition of menu categories to the second menu, addition of menu items to the second menu and assignment of parameters to items in the second menu using the graphical user interface of said operating system, said parameters being selected from the modifier and sub-modifier menus. '850 patent col. 14 l. 48–col. 15 l. 11. © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 6 Apple, Inc.Case 6:18-cv-00080-ADA-JCM v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229 (2016) Document 34-5 Filed 11/08/18 Page 8 of 16 120 U.S.P.Q.2d 1844 petitioners and Agilysys petitioners are together referred to as "petitioners." The Patent Trial and Appeal Board ("Board") construed the claims, found that each patent met the statutory definition of "covered business method patent," and instituted CBM reviews. In its final decisions, the Board found certain claims in *1236 each of the patents unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 101. 2 Ameranth appeals these findings, making three arguments. Ameranth argues that the Board misconstrued the claims, that the patents are not CBM patents, and that the Board erred in its § 101 analysis for these claims. 2 Specifically, the Board found that claims 1–11 of the '850 patent, claims 1–10 of the '325 patent, and claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 10, and 12 of the '733 patent were all unpatentable under § 101. The Board also found that the Apple petitioners had not met their burden of showing that claims 3, 6–9, 11, and 13– 16 of the '733 patent were unpatentable under § 101. The Apple petitioners appeal these findings. They argue that these dependent claims cover well-known, conventional Figure 7, shown above, represents a point of sale interface concepts that do not confer patent eligibility. for use in displaying the claimed menus in a preferred embodiment. Id. at col. 4 ll. 52–55. The Director of the United States Patent and Trademark The specifications note that "ordering prepared foods has Office ("Patent Office") has intervened. She argues that historically been done verbally, either directly to a waiter this court lacks jurisdiction to review the Board's decision or over the telephone, whereupon the placed order is that the patents are CBM patents, and that all of the recorded on paper by the recipient or instantly filled." '850 Board's determinations were correct. We have jurisdiction patent col. 1 ll. 23–27; '733 patent col. 1 ll. 31–34. They under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(4)(A). explain that the "unavailability of any simple technique for creating restaurant menus and the like for use in a limited display area wireless handheld device or that is DISCUSSION compatible with ordering over the internet ha[d] prevented widespread adoption of computerization in the hospitality [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] We review the Board's legal industry." '850 patent col. 2 ll. 40–45; '733 patent col. 2 ll. conclusions de novo and its factual findings for substantial 48–53. evidence. In re Roslin Inst. (Edinburgh), 750 F.3d 1333, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2014). The "ultimate interpretation" of a claim term is a legal conclusion reviewed de novo. Teva Pharm. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., ––– U.S. ––––, 135 S.Ct. II. Procedural History 831, 841, –––L.Ed.2d –––– (2015). If the Board makes Appellees in the 2015–1792 and 2015–1793 appeals subsidiary factual findings about extrinsic evidence that ("Agilysys petitioners") petitioned for CBM review of underlie its construction, we review those factual findings the '325 patent and the '850 patent. Appellants in the for substantial evidence. Microsoft Corp. v. Proxyconn, 2015–1703 and 2015–1704 appeals ("Apple petitioners") Inc., 789 F.3d 1292, 1297 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (citing Teva, petitioned for CBM review of the '733 patent. The Apple 135 S.Ct. at 841–42). We review the Board's reasoning that the patents are CBM patents under the arbitrary © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 7 Apple, Inc.Case 6:18-cv-00080-ADA-JCM v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229 (2016) Document 34-5 Filed 11/08/18 Page 9 of 16 120 U.S.P.Q.2d 1844 and capricious standard. SightSound Techs., LLC v. Apple [7] The Board was correct to not include in its Inc., 809 F.3d 1307, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2015). We review § 101 construction of "menu" features of menus that are patent eligibility de novo. Roslin Inst., 750 F.3d at 1335. expressly recited in the claims. Ideally, claim constructions give meaning to all of a claim's terms. Merck & Co. v. Teva Pharm. USA, Inc., 395 F.3d 1364, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Construing a claim term to include features of that term I. Claim Constructions already recited in the claims would make those expressly Ameranth appeals the Board's claim constructions, recited features redundant. arguing that the Board's CBM and § 101 determinations were "based on a misapprehension of the actually claimed subject matter." –1792 Appellant's Br. 5; –1703 Cross– B. Synchronous Communications System Appellant's Br. 8. [8] Before the Board, Ameranth argued that certain During CBM review, the Board construes claims in an claim preambles reciting "synchronous communications unexpired patent according to their broadest reasonable system" were limiting. 3 It argued that "a synchronous construction in light of the patent's specification. 37 communication system requires a central back-office C.F.R. § 42.300(b); cf. Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, server that communicates data updates to and from ––– U.S. ––––, 136 S.Ct. 2131, 2142, 195 L.Ed.2d 423 multiple client devices." '850 Fin. Dec. at *6; '325 Fin. Dec. (2016) (upholding the Patent Office regulation requiring at *7; '733 Fin. Dec. at *7. In its final decisions, the Board the use of the broadest reasonable construction in the declined to find these preambles limiting. 4 analogous context of inter partes review). 3 The preambles of claim 1 of the '850 patent, claims 1 and 7–9 of the '325 patent, and claim 1 of the A. Menu '733 patent recite "[a]n information management and synchronous communications system for generating [6] Before the Board, Ameranth argued that the and transmitting menus." The preambles of claims 4, term "menu" should be construed as "computer data 5, and 12 of the '733 patent include similar language. representing collections of linked levels of choices or 4 The Board later noted that the patent specifications options intended for display in a graphical user interface." Agilysys, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., CBM2014–00015, 2015 disclose that Windows CE® was a "common GUI operating system" and included "built in WL 1324400, at *7–8 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 20, 2015) ("'850 Fin. synchronization between handheld devices, internet Dec."); Agilysys, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., CBM2014–00016, and desktop infrastructure." '733 Fin. Dec. at *16, 18, 2015 WL 1324401, at *9 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 20, 2015) ("'325 20. Fin. Dec."); Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., CBM2014– 00013, 2015 WL 1324399, at *8–9 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 20, Ameranth argues that the Board erred when it declined 2015) ("'733 Fin. Dec."). to find these claim preambles limiting. We agree with the Board that nothing in the patents' specifications indicates *1237 The Board construed the term "menu" to be "a list that a synchronous communication system is required to of options available to a user displayable on a computer." include a central back-office server that communicates '850 Fin. Dec. at *8; '325 Fin. Dec. at *9; '733 Fin. Dec. data updates to and from multiple client devices. A person at *9. of ordinary skill in the art would not have understood the broad term "synchronous communications systems" Ameranth argues that the Board's construction is wrong to include only such systems. See Phillips v. AWH Corp., because it does not include language stating that the 415 F.3d 1303, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). The Board claimed menus are hierarchical. Ameranth argues that the was correct in determining that the preamble recitations of construction is inconsistent with language in the claims "synchronous communications system" are not limiting. expressly reciting a hierarchical menu. © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 8 Case Apple, Inc. 6:18-cv-00080-ADA-JCM v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229 (2016) Document 34-5 Filed 11/08/18 Page 10 of 16 120 U.S.P.Q.2d 1844 from a definition of central processing unit from the Microsoft Computer Dictionary, 115 (4th Ed. 1999) ("the C. Central Processing Unit computational and control unit of a computer"). See, [9] Ameranth argued before the Board that the term e.g., '850 Fin. Dec. at *7. The Board's construction was "central processing unit" should be construed as "central consistent with the use of the term "central processing server." '850 Fin. Dec. at *6–7; '325 Fin. Dec. at *8–9; '733 unit" in the specifications. The patent specifications Fin. Dec. at *7–8. The Board instead construed the term explain that "a typical workstation platform includes as "the computational and control unit of a computer." Id. hardware such as a central processing unit ('CPU'), e.g., a Pentium® microprocessor." See '850 patent col. 5 ll. 37– On appeal, Ameranth argues that the Board erred in 39; '733 patent col. 6 ll. 52–54; see also '850 patent col. 5 ll. its construction. In support, Ameranth makes two main 48–50 and '733 patent col. 6 ll. 63–65. arguments. First, Ameranth argues that the recited central processing II. CBM Patents unit is not a generic central processing unit, but is instead a particular processing unit which, with application The Board decided that the patents are CBM patents. software, provides synchronized second menus across The Board first found that the patents meet the "financial different devices in the system. It urges that the term product or service" component of the definition of "central processing unit" must be construed to include CBM patents. See, e.g., Agilysys, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., the functions ascribed to that unit in the claims, and that CBM2014–00015, 2014 WL 1440416, at *7–8 (P.T.A.B. the central processing *1238 unit cannot be a generic Mar. 26, 2014) ("'850 Inst. Dec."). The Board then found processor. But, as noted above, construing a claim term that the patents did not fall within the "technological to include features of that term that are already recited invention" exception of the definition. Id. at *6–7. in the claims would make those expressly recited features redundant. Merck, 395 F.3d at 1372. [10] Ameranth appeals the Board's decision that the patents are CBM patents. 5 Ameranth does not appeal Second, Ameranth argues that the Board's construction the Board's "financial product or service" determination, is precluded by claim differentiation, as claim 5 of but it argues that the patents fall within the exception for the '733 patent expressly recites "microprocessor." We technological inventions. disagree. This court has declined to apply the doctrine of claim differentiation where "the claims are not otherwise 5 The Patent Office argues that this Court lacks identical in scope." Indacon, Inc. v. Facebook, Inc., 824 jurisdiction to review this issue under In re Hiniker F.3d 1352, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Claim 5 of the '733 Co., 150 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1998) and In re Cuozzo patent is an independent claim, and Ameranth is correct Speed Techs., LLC, 793 F.3d 1268, 1271 (Fed. Cir. that it recites "microprocessor" where other claims recite 2015), aff'd sub nom. Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. "central processing unit." But claim 5 also differs from the Lee, ––– U.S. ––––, 136 S.Ct. 2131, 195 L.Ed.2d 423 other independent claims in many other ways, and so the (2016). We disagree. In Versata DevelopmentGroup, claims "are not otherwise identical in scope." In addition, Inc. v. SAP America, Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1323 (Fed. "two claims with different terminology can define the Cir. 2015), we held that we have jurisdiction to review exact same subject matter." Curtiss–Wright Flow Control this issue. This court's Versata decision noted several Corp. v. Velan, Inc., 438 F.3d 1374, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2006). reasons why this court's holding in Cuozzo was not In other words, although claim 5 recites "microprocessor" inconsistent with Versata. 793 F.3d at 1322. To the extent that 35 U.S.C. § 314(d) is analogous to 35 and others recite "central processing unit," this does not U.S.C. 324(e), the Supreme Court in Cuozzo stated necessarily mean that the two terms must have a different that § 314(d) does not permit the Patent Office to "act meaning. outside its statutory limits." 136 S.Ct. at 2141. The Board was correct in not construing the term "central The term "covered business method patent" means "a processing unit" to refer only to particular processors with patent that claims a method or corresponding apparatus certain features. The Board's construction used language for performing data processing or other operations used © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 9 Case Apple, Inc. 6:18-cv-00080-ADA-JCM v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229 (2016) Document 34-5 Filed 11/08/18 Page 11 of 16 120 U.S.P.Q.2d 1844 *1239 in the practice, administration, or management 2014 WL 1440408, at *8 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 26, 2014) ("of a financial product or service, except that the term '733 Inst. Dec."). does not include patents for technological inventions." Second, the Board found that the claimed inventions Leahy–Smith America Invents Act, Pub. L. No. 112–29, did not solve a technical problem using a technical § 18(d)(1), 125 Stat. 284, 331 (2011) (emphasis added). solution. Ameranth argued that its patents were solutions The Patent Office promulgated the following regulation for various problems, and the Board determined that defining technological inventions: neither the solutions nor the problems were technical. For example, Ameranth had argued that the '850 and In determining whether a patent is '325 patents "solv[ed] the problem of how to display for a technological invention solely and synchronize computerized menus on non-standard for purposes of the Transitional devices/interfaces." '325 Inst. Dec. at *8; '850 Inst. Dec. at Program for Covered Business *8. The Board explained that the claims did not recite a Methods (section 42.301(a)), the solution to this problem, as they do not include recitations following will be considered on about how to display or synchronize the menus, but a case-by-case basis: whether the instead include descriptions about menu generation. Id. claimed subject matter as a whole Similarly, Ameranth had argued that the '733 patent was recites a technological feature that is intended to solve a problem in restaurant ordering when novel and unobvious over the prior customers wanted something unusual and unanticipated. art; and solves a technical problem '733 Inst. Dec. at *9. The Board found that this was "more using a technical solution. of a business problem than a technical problem." Id. 37 C.F.R. § 42.301(b). On appeal, Ameranth argues that the patents fall within This court has noted that this regulation offers the "technological inventions" exception because they little towards understanding the meaning of the term recite technological features, including specific software "technological invention." Versata, 793 F.3d at 1326. But which was distinctive over the prior art, and because determining whether these patents are a technological the petitioners made no showing that these features were invention does not require this court to determine "the full known or conventional. sweep of the term." Id. at 1327. [11] We affirm the Board's determinations that these are The Board found that neither prong of 37 C.F.R. § not patents for technological inventions. The Board's 42.301(b) was satisfied. First, the Board found that the determinations were supported by substantial evidence patents did not claim a technological feature that is and are neither arbitrary *1240 nor capricious. We agree novel and unobvious over the prior art. Agilysys, Inc. v. with the Board's determination that these claims do not Ameranth Inc., CBM2014–00016, 2014 WL 1440421, at *7 solve technical problems using technical solutions. (P.T.A.B. Mar. 26, 2014) ("'325 Inst. Dec.") at *7. The Board explained that the specifications disclosed that the Ameranth also contends that the Board's analysis on this hardware used in the claimed systems was "typical," and issue did not address Ameranth's objective evidence of that the programming steps were "commonly known." non-obviousness. It argues that "[f]ailure to consider such evidence was error given that the PTO Regulations require See, e.g., '325 Inst. Dec. at *7–8. 6 analysis of whether the claims recite a technological feature that is 'unobvious over the prior art.' " –1792 6 In the institution decisions, the Board stated that a Appellant's Br. 20 (quoting 37 C.F.R. § 42.301); –1703 patent need have only one claim directed to a covered Cross–Appellant's Br. 29 (same). business method to be eligible for CBM review. See, e.g., '325 Inst. Dec. at *5. On that basis, it analyzed We need not address this argument regarding whether only one claim from each patent: claim 1 of the '325 the first prong of 37 C.F.R. § 42.301(b) was met, as we patent, claim 1 of the '850 patent, and claim 12 of the '733 patent. '325 Inst. Dec. at *6–8; '850 Inst. Dec. at affirm the Board's determination on the second prong *7–8; Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., CBM2014–00013, of the regulation—that the claimed subject matter as a © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 10 Case Apple, Inc. 6:18-cv-00080-ADA-JCM v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229 (2016) Document 34-5 Filed 11/08/18 Page 12 of 16 120 U.S.P.Q.2d 1844 whole does not solve a technical problem using a technical at *14; '733 Inst. Dec. at *9. In the final decisions, the solution. Board added to this description, finding the patent claims are directed to the abstract idea of generating a second menu from a first menu and sending the second menu to another location. '850 Fin. Dec. at *11; '325 Fin. Dec. at III. Section 101 Determinations *18; '733 Fin. Dec. at *12. A. Claims the Board Found Unpatentable An abstract idea can generally be described at different levels of abstraction. As the Board has done, the claimed The Board found certain claims unpatentable under § 101. abstract idea could be described as generating menus Ameranth appeals these determinations. 7 on a computer, or generating a second menu from a first menu and sending the second menu to another 7 Ameranth's arguments on appeal are primarily location. It could be described in other ways, including, directed to "the claims" or "claim 1" of the '325 and *1241 as indicated in the specification, taking orders '850 patents and "the claims" or "claim 1" of the '733 from restaurant customers on a computer. patent. Given this, and the fact that all three patents have nearly identical claims as their first claim, we The Board's slight revision of its abstract idea analysis address all the claims the Board found invalid under § does not impact the patentability analysis. The Supreme 101 together. This is consistent with the Board's § 101 Court has recognized that "all inventions ... embody, analysis, which is quite similar for all three patents. use, reflect, rest upon, or apply laws of nature, natural Ameranth raised only a few arguments that apply to phenomena, or abstract ideas." Alice, 134 S.Ct. at 2354 a subset of claims or patents, and those are addressed (quoting Mayo, 132 S.Ct. at 1293). But not all claims separately. are directed to an abstract idea. See, e.g., Enfish, LLC v. [12] To determine whether a claim is eligible under § Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1334–36 (Fed. Cir. 2016); 101, we must "first determine whether the claims at issue McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d are directed to a patent-ineligible concept." Alice Corp. 1299, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2016). v. CLS Bank Int'l, ––– U.S. ––––, 134 S.Ct. 2347, 2355, 189 L.Ed.2d 296 (2014). If they are, we then "consider [13] The step one inquiry focuses on determining the elements of each claim both individually and 'as an "whether the claim at issue is 'directed to' a judicial ordered combination' to determine whether the additional exception, such as an abstract idea." McRO, Inc., 837 elements 'transform the nature of the claim' into a patent- F.3d at 1312. We determine whether the claims "focus eligible application." Id. (quoting Mayo Collaborative on a specific means or method that improves the relevant Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., ––– U.S. ––––, 132 S.Ct. technology" or are "directed to a result or effect that itself 1289, 1297–98, 182 L.Ed.2d 321 (2012)). is the abstract idea and merely invoke generic processes and machinery." Id. at 1314. i. Step One [14] We affirm the Board's conclusion that the claims in these patents are directed to an abstract idea. The patents At the first step, the Board determined that the claims claim systems including menus with particular features. in all three patents are directed to the abstract idea of They do not claim a particular way of programming or "generating a second menu from a first menu and sending designing the software to create menus that have these the second menu to another location." '850 Fin. Dec. at features, but instead merely claim the resulting systems. Id. *11; '325 Fin. Dec. at *18; '733 Fin. Dec. at *12. Essentially, the claims are directed to certain functionality —here, the ability to generate menus with certain features. Ameranth argues that the Board's § 101 analysis changed Alternatively, the claims are not directed to a specific slightly between the Board's institution decisions and its improvement in the way computers operate. Cf. Enfish, final decisions. In the institution decisions, the Board 822 F.3d at 1335–36. described the patent claims as directed to generating a menu on a computer. '325 Inst. Dec. at *14; '850 Inst. Dec. © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 11 Case Apple, Inc. 6:18-cv-00080-ADA-JCM v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229 (2016) Document 34-5 Filed 11/08/18 Page 13 of 16 120 U.S.P.Q.2d 1844 desktop infrastructure." '733 Fin. Dec. at *16 (quoting '733 patent col. 12 ll. 15–18). ii. Step Two In the second step, the Board found that the recited central Third, Ameranth points to dependent claims 2 and 10 processing unit, data storage device, and operating system of the '733 patent, which recite printing features. For components were "typical" hardware elements. '850 Fin. example, claim 2 recites that "the modified second menu Dec. at *12; '325 Fin. Dec. at *18; '733 Fin. Dec. at can be selectively printed on any printer directly from the *13. It found aspects of the recited menus were described graphical user interface of a hand-held device." Ameranth as conventional in the specifications. '850 Fin. Dec. at claims that these printing limitations are tied to physical, *12; '325 Fin. Dec. at *19; '733 Fin. Dec. at *13. The real-world locations of printers, and thus are not abstract. Board quoted language from the specifications stating The Board explained that the '733 patent specification that "the discrete programming steps are commonly disclosed that menus commonly are printed on paper. '733 known." Id. The Board also stated that "[e]ven when the Fin. Dec. at *21. claim elements are considered as a combination, they add nothing that is not already present when the elements are Fourth, Ameranth points to the recitation of types of considered separately." '850 Fin. Dec. at *13; '325 Fin. ordering in claims 1 to 6 of the '325 patent. Claim 1 Dec. at *20; '733 Fin. Dec. at *14. of the '325 patent includes a limitation that "wherein said second menu to [sic] applicable to a predetermined With regard to step two, Ameranth argues broadly that type of ordering." '325 patent col. 15 ll. 23–24. Claims 2 none of the claims are directed to something conventional through 5 depend from claim 1 and recite specific types of or routine. In addition, Ameranth identifies certain ordering. For example, claim 2 recites "wherein the type aspects of certain claims that it argues make those claims of ordering is table-based customer ordering." Claim 3 directed to patent-eligible subject matter. recites "wherein the type of ordering in [sic] drive-through customer ordering." Specifically, first it points to the term "second menu is manually modified after generation" in claim 1 of the [15] The Board found that all four of these features '733 patent. One example the '733 patent's specification were insignificant post-solution activity. '733 Fin. Dec. at provides for this limitation is a restaurant server writing *14, 21; '325 Fin. Dec. at *19, 21. We agree that these "with lemon" on a screen of an electronic device, after limitations are insignificant post-solution activities that selecting "Iced Tea" from the screen. Col. 4 ll. 6–10. The do not support the invention having an "an inventive Board explained that manual modification of a menu concept." See, e.g., Mayo, 132 S.Ct. at 1294 ("[T]he could also include printing the second menu and then prohibition against patenting abstract ideas cannot be writing on it with a pen. '733 Fin. Dec. at *14. Citing circumvented by ... adding insignificant postsolution specification support, the Board noted that menus were activity.") (quoting Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 610–11, commonly printed on paper, and that it was known to use 130 S.Ct. 3218, 177 L.Ed.2d 792 (2010) (quotation marks pens in the hospitality industry. '733 Fin. Dec. at *14. omitted)). Second, Ameranth points to the synchronization The preferred embodiment of the claimed invention limitation in independent claims 4, 5, and 12 of the '733 described in the specifications is a restaurant preparing patent. For example, claim 4 recites in part that "data a device that can be used by a server taking orders comprising the second menu is synchronized between from a customer. The claimed invention replaces a *1242 the data storage device connected to the central server's notepad or mental list with an electronic device processing unit and at least one other computing device." programmed to allow menu items to be selected as '733 patent col. 16 ll. 48–51. The Board explained that a customer places an order. As noted above, the testimony from Ameranth during trial indicated that mere specifications describe the hardware elements of the downloading could satisfy the synchronization limitation, invention as "typical" and the software programming and that the '733 patent's specification disclosed that needed as "commonly known." The invention merely the Windows CE® operating system included "built in claims the addition of conventional computer components synchronization between handheld devices, internet and to well-known business practices. © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 12 Case Apple, Inc. 6:18-cv-00080-ADA-JCM v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229 (2016) Document 34-5 Filed 11/08/18 Page 14 of 16 120 U.S.P.Q.2d 1844 [16] The Apple petitioners appeal the Board's Finally, Ameranth argued in its briefing and at oral determination that dependent claims 3 and 11 in the '733 argument that programming the software to perform patent were not unpatentable. These claims require that various parts of the claimed systems' functionality was the second menu, after being modified, can be linked to difficult, and that this difficulty indicates that the claims a specific customer at a specific table. Claim 3 recites were not directed to an abstract idea. We disagree. The "wherein the modified second menu can be linked to difficulty of the programming details for this functionality a specific customer at a specific table directly from the is immaterial because these details are not recited in the graphical user interface of a hand-held device." '733 patent actual claims. The degree of difficulty in implementing an col. 16 ll. 28–31. Claim 11 is similar. Id. at col. 17 ll. 27– abstract idea in this circumstance does not itself render an 30. The '733 patent's specification describes this feature in abstract idea patentable. the restaurant embodiment as linking orders to specific customer positions at specific tables. Id. at col. 4 ll. 38–46. We affirm the Board's conclusion in step two that the elements of the patents' claims—both individually Ameranth argued to the Board that these claims were and when combined—do not transform the claimed patentable because they recited "limitations that were abstract idea into a patent-eligible application of the unconventional or unique 'in 2001 because the very abstract idea. The patents can readily be understood capability of ... linking a particular order to a particular as adding conventional computer components to well- customer at a table was novel then and unique to mobility known business practices. *1243 Enfish, 822 F.3d at and wireless handhelds.' " '733 Fin. Dec. at *21 (quoting 1338. The Supreme Court and this court have repeatedly Ameranth Response at 75). Ameranth argued "that determined that such claims are invalid under § 101. Id.; Petitioner has not provided any evidence that establishes see also Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, otherwise." Id. 717 (Fed. Cir. 2014), cert. denied sub nom. Ultramercial, LLC v. WildTangent, Inc., ––– U.S. ––––, 135 S.Ct. 2907, The Board found that, while the Apple petitioners had 192 L.Ed.2d 929 (2015). It is not enough to point to argued that the claimed linking is a "classic example[ ] conventional applications and say "do it on a computer." of manual tasks that cannot be rendered patent eligible Cf. Alice, 134 S.Ct. at 2358 ("Stating an abstract idea merely by performing them with a computer," that the while adding the words 'apply it with a computer' " is not Apple petitioners had not "provide[d] sufficient evidence enough for patent eligibility) (quoting Mayo, 132 S.Ct. at to support [that] statement." Id. (citations omitted). The 1294). Board found that the Apple petitioners had "provide[d] insufficient evidence to establish that a menu having the We affirm the Board's determinations that claims 1–11 of functionality to perform the claimed linking from a GUI the '850 patent, claims 1–10 of the '325 patent, and claims on a hand-held device, was well-known or conventional 1, 2, 4, 5, 10, and 12 of the '733 patent are unpatentable and merely require[d] a general purpose computer." Id. under § 101. On appeal, the Apple petitioners again argue that these linking limitations are routine and conventional. It directs this court to the specification language which explains B. Claims the Board Found Patentable that the hardware needed was typical and that the The Board found certain dependent claims were programming steps were commonly known. not unpatentable. The Apple petitioners appeal these determinations. We address first the dependent claims Ameranth argues that the Apple petitioners have not that involve linking orders to specific customers, and shown that the linking limitations were conventional. It then those that involve handwriting and voice capture contends that the Board made a factual finding when technologies. it determined that the Apple petitioners had provided insufficient evidence to establish this. Ameranth argues that linking orders to specific customers at specific tables was an inventive feature. i. Linked Orders © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 13 Case Apple, Inc. 6:18-cv-00080-ADA-JCM v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229 (2016) Document 34-5 Filed 11/08/18 Page 15 of 16 120 U.S.P.Q.2d 1844 *1244 Ameranth's arguments are further belied by is a classic example of manual tasks that cannot be the '733 patent's specification. In addition to expressly rendered patent eligible merely by performing them with reciting that the hardware needed was typical and a computer. that the programming steps were commonly known, the specification merely states that the user interface These claims depend from independent claims which were could permit linking of orders with customers, with found to be directed to unpatentable subject matter, no disclosure of how this would be technologically as discussed above. Merely appending this preexisting implemented: practice to those independent claims does not make them patentable. It is an insignificant post-solution activity. We [H]and-held devices can link the reverse the Board's finding confirming the patentability of above innovations to individual these claims. customers at specific tables through a graphical user interface on the handheld screen that assigns each customer a number within a table. ii. Handwriting and Voice Capture For example, table 20 might have 6 [18] The Apple petitioners also appeal the Board's customers (1–6) and each customer determination that dependent claims 6–9 and 13–16 in the has a different order, [sic] By '733 patent were not unpatentable. These claims depend enabling the linkage of the orders from claims that recite either that the "said second menu to specific customer positions within is manually modified after generation," or "wherein said the table and accessible from the second menu is manually modified by handwriting or hand-held screen, the servers can voice recording." '733 patent, claims 1, 4, 5, and 12. As easily track and link the specific noted above, the Board found such recitation of general orders to the specific customers. manual modification to be insignificant post-solution '733 patent col. 4 ll. 38–46. After reviewing this disclosure, activity. we find no inventive method for implementing the claimed order linking. Some of the dependent claims upheld by the Board specify that the manual modification involves handwriting or [17] Generally, a claim that merely describes an "effect voice capture. For example, claim 6 recites "wherein or result dissociated from any method by which [it] is the manual modification involves handwriting capture." accomplished" is not directed to patent-eligible subject The other claims depend from these claims and require matter. Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 that the captured inputs be recognized and converted to F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Here, the linked orders text. For example, claim 7 depends from claim 6 and claim limitation calls for the desired result of associating a recites "wherein *1245 the handwriting capture involves customer's order with said customer, and does not attempt handwriting recognition and conversion to text." to claim any method for achieving that result. McRO, Inc., 837 F.3d at 1314. The Apple petitioners argued before the Board that "manual modification of a menu is a classic example of This analysis is confirmed by Ameranth's concession a manual task which cannot be rendered patent eligible at oral argument that, prior to its filing of the '733 merely by performing it with a computer." '733 Fin. Dec. patent, restaurants were able to keep track of which at *22 (quoting Reply at 11). They also argued that none customer at what table ordered what meal, to make sure of the claims were directed to any specific software for that the right customer got their order of food. Oral accomplishing manual modification. Id. Arg. at 23:35–24:06, http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/oral- argumentrecordings. These claims cover the process of The Board found that the Apple petitioners had a restaurant server taking an order from a customer "fail[ed] to provide sufficient evidence that menus having and keeping track of what customer placed that order, handwriting capture or voice capture functionality were when done using a computer. We agree with the Apple well-known or conventional at the time of the '733 patent petitioners that the claimed linking of orders to customers or require merely a general purpose computer." Id. © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 14 Case Apple, Inc. 6:18-cv-00080-ADA-JCM v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229 (2016) Document 34-5 Filed 11/08/18 Page 16 of 16 120 U.S.P.Q.2d 1844 These claims depend from independent claims found to On appeal, the Apple petitioners argue that these be directed to unpatentable subject matter, as is discussed limitations recite insignificant post-solution activity. We above. Appending these preexisting technologies onto agree that these limitations do not serve to provide an those independent claims does not make them inventive concept. patentable. We reverse the Board's finding confirming the patentability of these claims. The '733 patent refers to the use of handwriting and voice capture technologies without providing how these elements were to be technologically implemented. Col. 3 l. 48–col. 4. l. 9; col. 4 ll. 18–22; id. at ll. 27–37. CONCLUSION At oral argument, Ameranth conceded that it had not invented voice or handwriting capture technology, and For the reasons explained above, we affirm the Board's that it was known at the time it filed its applications to use decisions finding certain claims unpatentable under § those technologies as ways of entering data into computer 101, and we reverse the Board's decisions confirming the systems. Oral Arg. at 16:26–52. patentability of certain claims under § 101. Claims 1–11 of the '850 patent, claims 1–10 of the '325 patent, and claims In any event, in Content Extraction, we found that a 1–16 of the '733 patent are all unpatentable under § 101. recitation of the use of "existing scanning and processing technology to recognize and store data from specific data AFFIRMED IN PART AND REVERSED IN PART fields such as amounts, addresses, and dates" did not amount to significantly more than the "abstract idea of recognizing and storing information from hard copy COSTS documents using a scanner and a computer." Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, No Costs. Nat'l Ass'n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2014), cert. denied, ––– U.S. ––––, 136 S.Ct. 119, 193 L.Ed.2d 208 (2015). Here, Ameranth claims no more than the use of All Citations existing handwriting and voice capture technologies using 842 F.3d 1229, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d 1844 a computer system. End of Document © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 15