Netflix, Inc. v. Blockbuster, Inc.
Filing
211
Attachment 3
Declaration of Eugene M. Paige in Support of
210 Memorandum in Opposition
To Motion For Protective Order filed byNetflix, Inc.. (Attachments: #
1 Exhibit A-1#
2 Exhibit A-2#
3 Exhibit B#
4 Exhibit C#
5 Exhibit D#
6 Exhibit E#
7 Exhibit F#
8 Exhibit G#
9 Exhibit H#
10 Exhibit I#
11 Exhibit J)(Related document(s)
210) (Durie, Daralyn) (Filed on 5/18/2007)
Netflix, Inc. v. Blockbuster, Inc.
Doc. 211 Att. 3
Case 3:06-cv-02361-WHA
Document 211-4
Filed 05/18/2007
Page 1 of 32
EXHIBIT B
Dockets.Justia.com
Case 3:06-cv-02361-WHA
Document 211-4
Filed 05/18/2007
Page 2 of 32
BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR,&ZAFMA
A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING LAW CORPORATIONS
TEl (40) 720-83
FACMILE (40) 720-83
INTEllECTUAL PROPERTY LAW
SILICON VALLEY
OrER OFFICES
Los ANElS, CA
ORAGE. CoNT/COSTA MESA. CA
DENVER. CO
BS_MALO BS.CO
WW.BSTZCO
1279 OAKMEAD PARKWAY SUNNYVAL, CALIFORNIA 94085-40
PORD/BEAVERT. OR
SEATT, WA
March 29,2007
Shane Evangelist
Senior V.P. and General Manager Blockbuster Online
1201 Elm Street Dallas, TX 75275
Attorney-Client Privileged Communication
RE: U.S. Patent No. 7,024,381 entitled" Approach for Rentig Items to Customers;"
Dear Shane:
In response to your request, we conducted an analysis on the validity of U.S.
Patent No. 7,024,381 (hereinafter "the '381 patent"). For the reasons set forth below, it is
our opinion that all claims of the '381 patent are invalid.
We reached ths conclusion after reviewing the '381 patent, the prosecution
history of the '381 patent, the Claim Constrction Order from the ongoing litigation
1 on
the '381 patent and prior art, including prior art not considered by the U.S. Patent and
Trademark Office ("PTO") during the prosecution of the '381 patent. A summary of the
'381 patent and the prior art is provided below. For your reference, a copy of the '381
1 Netfix Inc. v. Blockbuster Inc., No. C 06 2361 (N.D. Calif.).
8801309443
Case 3:06-cv-02361-WHA
Document 211-4
Filed 05/18/2007
Page 3 of 32
BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR,&ZAFMA
A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING LAW CORPORATIONS
patent is attached as Appendix A. When issued, the '381 patent indicated Netflix, Inc.
as its owner.
It should be noted that this letter does not necessarily discuss every reason why
the claims of the '381 patent are invalid. Once we concluded that a claim was invalid
for one or more reasons, we did not perform additional analysis. Thus, there may be
other reasons why the claims of the '381 patent are invalid or not enforceable.
Furthermore, we did not consider infringement issues.
i. OVERVIEW OF THE PRIOR ART TO THE '381 PATENT
The '381 patent describes methods for rentig items over a computer network.
In particular, the claims of the '381 patent are directed to a computerized method for
renting movies to customers. An overview of the prior art is helpful for an
understanding of our opinion and frames our opinion in the context of the prior art as it
then existed.
Before April 28, 2000, the earlier filing date that the '381 application2,3 is entitled
to, renting items to customers through a mail order method was well known.4 In
addition, prior to April 28, 2000, network-based computer systems were used to
automate the process of rentig items to customers. One patent ('594 patent)5 describes
a network-based computer system for the "rental, purchase, use, attendance, or tring
2 The patent application resultig in the '381 patent is referred to as the '381 application. 3 The '381 application was fied on May 14, 2003 and is a continuation of an earlier-filed application, filed
on April 28, 2000. The '381 application is entitled to the filing date of the earlier-fied patent application
28, 2000). Thus, for determining what is prior art, we used April 28, 2000 as the critical date. (April 4 See, e.g., Appendix B.
5 U.S. Patent 5,898,594.
-2-
Attorney-Client Privileged Communication
8801309444
Case 3:06-cv-02361-WHA
Document 211-4
Filed 05/18/2007
Page 4 of 32
BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR ,&ZAFMA
A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING LAW CORPORATIONS
of thigs or activities made available through an electronic catalog. The '594 patent
states:
At step 206, the customer either designates selections for rental or
purchase from the reservation or shopping list, returns to the category
select screen 115 to select more items, or completes the transaction.6
It goes on to state how "the invention can be applied to services available on public
networks such as the internet and the world wide web."? In another prior art
documentB, Web pages are ilustrated with data fields for entering titles of books to rent
online. This page is set forth later in ths opinion.
In fact, Netflx provided an Internet-based movie rental service more than a year
prior to April 28, 2000. (Since it was more than a year before April 28, 2000, Netflix's
own activities are prior art to the '381 patent.) Netflx began rentig DVDs over the
Internet in 1998 using a "pay-per-rental" modeL.
order process of particular relevance is described in Learning is Easy. . .
One
mail
With Audio Cassettes, Tape Rental Library, Inc. (hereinafter "Tape Rental").9 Tape Rental
describes a process for rentig audio cassettes in which a customer is initially provided
with a catalog of available audio cassettes.lO The customer submits a numbered list of
cassettes that they wish to rent (referred to as a "Time Saver List") to the rental service.
The rental service then selects cassettes from the list and mails the cassettes to the
customer. As the customer returns each cassette, the rental service mails a new cassette
6 '594 patent, column 10, line 66 - column 11, line 2.
7 '594 patent, column 12, lines 22-24. .
8 Books on TapeC On-Line Order Form (1997) (Bates Stamped BB00012211-18 in the current litigation).
9 Appendix Bi we do not know the earliest date that this service was available. We rely on the
investigation made by your litigation counsel (Alschuler Crossman LLP) that ths service is prior ar to
the '381 patent.
10 Appendix B, p. 1.
-3-
Attorney-Client Privileged Communication
8801309445
Case 3:06-cv-02361-WHA
Document 211-4
Filed 05/18/2007
Page 5 of 32
BLAKLY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR,&ZAFMA
A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING LAW CORPORATIONS
from the list to the customer. If a particular cassette on the list is not available, the next
cassette from the list is selected.
Tape Rental also allows a customer to enter into an anual subscription servce
under which the user pays an anual fee and is permitted to retain up to two cassettes
at any given time.11 When the user mails back one or two cassettes, the rental service
mails the user the next one or two cassettes on the user's list, if they are available. As
mentioned above, if a cassette is not available, the next alternate selection from the list is
mailed to the user. The rental service does not require cassettes to be returned within a
specified tie period. Rather, the customer need only return cassettes as soon as the
customer is finished using them. Tape Rental also provides its customers with a catalog
of cassettes whereby the customer could make the user's
list.
Thus, prior.to the fiing date of the '381 application, it was known to rent items
over the Internet. It was also known to establish a rental list for rentig items
comprised of a list specified by the customer through the maiL. If a particular item on
the list was not available, then other customer selections from the rental
list were sent.
II. OVERVIEW OF THE '381 PATENT
A. Subject Matter of the '381 patent
As mentioned above, the '381 patent describes computer-implemented methods
for renting items to customers. This is ilustrated by Figure 6 of the '381 patent,
reproduced below.
11 Appendix B, p. 13-15.
-4-
Attorney-Client Privileged Communication
8801309446
Case 3:06-cv-02361-WHA
Document 211-4
Filed 05/18/2007
Page 6 of 32
BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR'&ZAFMAN
A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING LAW CORPORATIONS
FIG.
6
600
\
-60
Mr PR
TO
CUSTO ENTES IWO MO RBTAl AGRrvT
ClJTQl£R PRS MO saTION CRIIA
PRDE
INI OO OEUVEREO TO CUS
First, as shown in Figure 6, the customer enters into a movie rental agreement
with the provider (step 604 of Figure 6). Then the customer provides movie selection
criteria to the provider (step 606 of Figure 6).
The customers provide this "item selection criteria" to the provider over a lin
which may be "any medium for transferring data."12 The item selection criteria indicate
12 Column 2, line 51.
-5-
Attorney-Client Privileged Communication
8801309447
Case 3:06-cv-02361-WHA
Document 211-4
Filed 05/18/2007
Page 7 of 32
BLAKELY
SOKOLOFF TAYLOR,&ZAFMAN
A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING LAW CORPORATIONS
"the particular items that customer 102 desires to rent from provider 104"13 and are
used by the provider to "define a customer-specific order queue that is fulfiled by
provider 104."14 The order queue may include a list of titles in the "order in which (the
customers) want to receive them."15 In all of the claims of the '381 patent, the "items"
are movies and the customer provides the selection criteria to the provider over the
Internet (e.g. by logging into a server operated by the provider).16
Once the movie rental queue is
established, up to a specified number of movies
are delivered to the customer (step 608 of Figure 6). Subsequently, in response to "one
or more delivery criteria" being satisfied, such as the return of a movie to the provider
(step 610 of Figure 6), additional movies are
delivered to the customer (e.g. steps 612
and 608 of Figure 6). As described in the '381 patent:
According to the "Max Out" approach, up to a specified number of items may be rented simultaneously to a customer. Thus, the "Max Out"
approach establishes the size of an inventory of items that may be
maintained by customers. The specified number of items may be specific
to each customer or may be common to one or more customers. In the
present example, if the specified number of items is three, then up to three
items may be rented simultaneously by provider 104 to customer 102. If
the specified number of items are currently rented to customer 102 and the
specified item delivery criteria triggers the delivery of
one or more
additional items, then those items are not delivered until one or more
items are returned by customer 102 to provider 104,1
Additionally, the '381 patent describes that the movie rental queue may be
updated by the user at any time. As recited in the '381 patent, "(i)tem selection criteria
13 Column 3, lines 23-24. 14 Column 3, lines 25-26. 15 Column 7, lines 29-30. 16 See, e.g., column 2, lines 53-56. See also co!. 7, lines 5-9 and Claim 1 at column 13, lines 6 and 10-11. 17 Column 4, lines 3-16.
-6:.
Attorney-Client Privileged Communication
8801309448
Case 3:06-cv-02361-WHA
Document 211-4
Filed 05/18/2007
Page 8 of 32
BLAKLY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR,&ZAFMA
A LIMITED LIAILITY PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING LAW CORPORATIONS
may be changed at any time to reflect changes in items that customers desire to rent
from a provider."18
Figure 2 of the '381 patent is reproduced immediately below.
FIG. 2
20
\
CUTCM CRTES IìEM SBCTIGl CRITE
204
SE CRlTERIA TO PR
PROV PROV ITE WlCTE BY
THE ITM SELECN CRITIA TO CUSO..
CUTOf PROVDES ITEM
206
210
This figure is described as follows in the '381 patent:
The approach just described for rentig items to customers is now
described with reference to a flow diagram 200 of Figure 2. After startig
in step 202, in step 204, customer 102 creates item selection criteria. In
step 206, customer 102 provides the item selection criteria to provider 104. In step 208, in response to provider 104 receiving the item selection criteria
from customer 102, provider 104 provides one or more items indicated by
the item selection criteria to customer 102. The process is
complete in step
210,19
18 Column 3, lines 32-34.
19 '381 patent, column 3, lines 11-19.
-7-
Attorney-Cliett Privileged
Communication
8801309449
Case 3:06-cv-02361-WHA
Document 211-4
Filed 05/18/2007
Page 9 of 32
BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR,&ZAFMA
A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING LAW CORPORATIONS
Later in this opinon it wil be important to recall that the customer creates and
supplies the selection criteria. There is no discussion in the '381 patent of the provider
causing these attributes to be displayed on the user's computer, or anywhere else for
that matter.
B. Summary of the Prosecution History of the '381 patent
The '381 patent issued on April 4, 2006 name W. Reed Hastigs, Marc B.
Randolph, and Neil Duncan Hunt as the inventors and Netflx as its owner. The '381
application, as mentioned earlier, is a continuation of a U.S. patent application filed on
April
28, 2000, now issued as U.S. Patent 6,584,450.
The '381 application initially included a total of 51 claims. Netflx filed two
Preliminary Amendments prior to the examination of the claims of the '381 application.
In the first Preliminary Amendment, filed September 30, 2003, Netfix amended claims
10, 27, and 44 and added Claims 52-54. In the second Preliminary amendment, filed
September 10, 2004, Netfix cancelled Claims 1-54 and added Claims 55-94.
Independent Claims 55, 65, 75, and 85, contained similar limitations. Claim 55, the
broadest independent claim, read as follows:
-8-
Attorney-Client Privileged Communication
8801309450
Case 3:06-cv-02361-WHA
Document 211-4
Filed 05/18/2007
Page 10 of 32
BLAKLY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR,&ZAFMAN
A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING LAW CORPORATIONS
55. A computer-implemented method for renting movies to
customers, the method comprising:
establishing, . from inormation received over the Internet, a movie
rental queue associated with a customer comprising an ordered list
indicatig two or more movies for rentig to the customer;
causing to be delivered to the customer up to a specified number of movies based upon the movie rental queue;
causing the selected movie to be delivered
in response to receipt of a movie previously delivered to the customer, selecting a movie based upon the movie rental queue and to the customer; and
in response to inormation received from the customer over the
Internet updatig the movie rental queue.20
The PTO on October 29,2004, rejected all claims of the '381 application under 35
U.se. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject-matter and under 35 U.S.e. § 103
. as being unpatentable over Kleiman, US Patent No. 5,959,945. Specifically, with respect
to Kleiman, the PTO Examiner stated:
Kleiman discloses distributig over the Internet from a central
location a specified number of music plays or videos, e.g. cols. 5-6, lines
59-21. Kleiman does not specifically disclose selectig a movie based
upon the rental queue.
Official Notice is taken that selectig a movielbook based upon a
rental queue was common knowledge in the library art prior to
Applicant's filing date.
To have provided a video, i.e. movie, based upon a rental queue as recited in the claim language for Kleiman would have been obvious to one of ordinary skil in the art in view of Official Notice. The motivation for
having done such would have been to incorporate common knowledge
and extremely well known item rental procedures with the system of
20 Preliminar Amendment (Sept 10, 2004), p.2.
-9-
Attorney-Client Privileged Communication
8801309451
Case 3:06-cv-02361-WHA
Document 211-4
Filed 05/18/2007
Page 11 of 32
BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR,&ZAFMA
A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING LAW CORPORATIONS
Kleiman. It is noted that Applicant's intended use, e.g. for rentig, do not positively recite claim limitations that are given great patentable weight.21
In. response to these rejections, Netflix on January 31, 2005, amended the
independent claims in substantially the same maner and added new Claims 95-105.
By way of example, Claim 55 was amended as follows:22 (The underlinng indicates the
changes to the claims made on January 31,2005.)
55. A computer-implemented method for rentig movies to customers,
the method comprising:
providing electronic digital inormation that causes one or more
attributes of movies to be displayed;
establishing, in electronic digital form, from electronic digital
information received over the Internet, a movie rental queue associated
with a customer comprising an ordered list indicatig two or more movies
for rentig to the customer;
causing to be delivered to the customer up to a specified number of movies based upon ((the movie rental queueD the order of the list;
in response to ((receipt of a movie previously delivered to the customer)) one or more delivery criteria being satisfied, selectig ((a)) another movie based upon the order of the list and causing the selected movie to be delivered to the customer; and
in response to other electronic digital information received from the
customer over the Internet, electronically updating the movie rental
queue.
In response to the rejections under 35 D.S.C. § 101, Netflx argued, among other
thigs, that the clais cover "(t)echnology (which) is used to provide electronic digital
information that causes attributes of movies to be displayed to the user."23 In response
21 Office Action (Oct 29, 2004), p. 3.
22 Underlines indicate limitations added by Netflix and brackets indicate limitations deleted by Netflix. 23 Reply to Office Action Oan 31,2005), p.12.
-10-
Attorney-Client Privileged Communication
8801309452
Case 3:06-cv-02361-WHA
Document 211-4
Filed 05/18/2007
Page 12 of 32
BLAKLY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR,&ZAFMA
A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING LAW CORPORATIONS
to the rejections under 35 U.S.c. § 103, Netfix argued that Kleiman did not teach or
suggest features recited in the claims including "in response to one or more delivery
criteria being satisfied, selectig another movie based upon the order of the list and
causing the selected movie to be delivered to the customer"24 or "an ordered queue or
liSt."25
Prior to receiving the next communication from the PTO, Netfix submitted a
letter to the Examiner on October 17, 2005 in which it argued, among other thgs, that
the claims were allowable over two additional prior art references, "Kenton Library"
and "JP-9231279-A" (a Japanese patent application). With respect to JP-9231279-A,
Netfix argued that the claims were distinguishable from this reference because the
reference "has no provision for providing electronic digital information that causes one
or more attibutes of movies to be displayed, as claimed."26 In addition, Netflx argued
that the combination of Kenton Library and JP-9231279-A "would not provide for
L.
providing electronic digital information that causes one or more attributes of movies to
be displayed." (Remarkably, as wil be disCussed later, the '381 patent does not provide
for displaying the attributes to the customer.)
The Examiner mailed a Notice of Allowabilty on January 17, 2006 allowing
Claims 55-105, which were renumbered as claims 1-51 of the '381 patent. The '381
patent issued on April 4, 2006.
24 Reply to Office Action Gan 31,2005), p. 14. 25 Reply to Offce Action Oan 31, 2005), p. 15. 26 Letter to Examiner (Oct 17, 2005), p. 6.
-11-
Attorney-Client Privileged Communication
8801309453
Case 3:06-cv-02361-WHA
Document 211-4
Filed 05/18/2007
Page 13 of 32
BLAKLY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR,&ZAFMAN
A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING LAW CORPORATIONS
III. LEGAL ANALYSIS
A. The Manner of Determining Invalidity
1. Criteria Applied to Assess Patent Invalidity Over Prior Art
(a) General Concepts Related to Patent Invalidity
"Prior art" generally refers to techology and information publicly available
before the date of the invention. Ths includes patents, other publications, services and
products in public use.2
A patent claim is invalid as "anticipated" by prior art if each and every element
(or limitation) of the claim is disclosed in a single prior art publication, service or
product, either expressly or inherently.28 Even if all the claim elements are not found in
a single prior art source, the patent claim may be invalid based on "obviousness" if the
differences(s) between the claimed invention and the prior art would have been obvious
to a person of ordinary skil in the art at the time the invention was made. Clear and
convincing evidence is needed to show that claims of a patent are invalid.
Below, we have concluded that the claims of the '381 patent are obvious in view
of the prior art. One principle noted by the Supreme Court in Graham v. John Deere29, a
leading case on obviousness, is that a mere change in the materials or form of the prior
art is insufficient to overcome the non-obviousness requirement of the patent law. As
the Court noted in Graham:
-(Thomas) Jefferson did not believe in grantig patents for small details,
obvious improvements, or frivolous devices. His writigs evidence his insistence upon a high level of patentability. As a member of the patent board for several years, Jefferson saw clearly the difficulty in 'drawing a
2735 U.se. § 102.
28 See, e.g., 35 U.S.C. § 102. 29 Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1 (1966).
-12-
Attorney-Client Privileged Communication
8801309454
Case 3:06-cv-02361-WHA
Document 211-4
Filed 05/18/2007
Page 14 of 32
BLAKLY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR,&ZAFMA
A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING LAW CORPORATIONS
line between thigs which are worth to the public the embarrassment of an exclusive patent and those which are not.' The board on which he served sought to draw such a line and formulated several rules which are
preserved in Jefferson's correspondence.3D
Jefferson's correspondence referred to above by the Supreme Court reads, in pertinent
part:
(A) change of material should not give title to a patent. As the making a
plowshare of cast rather than of wrought iron; a comb of iron instead of horn or ivory. . .
(A) mere change of form should give no right to a patent, as a high quartered shoe instead of a low one; a round hat instead of a three square,
or a square bucket intead of a round one.31
Under a similar line of analysis, a federal circuit court in Digitronics Corp. V. New
York Racing Association32, addressed the question of whether improvements in an
electronic system for processing data from ticket issuing machies, such as those used
in racetrack totalisator systems, were obvious. In holding the claims to be obvious, this
Court noted that:
Appellant's contribution to the totalisator business involved simply
upgrading of a well-defined, existig data processing system by
convertig some components of the tote system from electromechancal to solid state data processing.
. . . Thus we have here the routie seeking of business by a qualified data
processing "system" house, followed by the routie application of thencurrent state of the art data processing technology to the updatig of an existig data processing system of known and defined functional
characteristics.33 (emphasis added).
30 Graham, 383 U.S. 1, 9-10. 31 Graham, 383 U.S. 1, 9 n.3 (citing VI Writings of Thomas Jefferson (Washington ed.), at 181-182 (1814). 32553 F.2d 740 (2d Cir. 1977).
33 At 747.
-13-
Attorney-Client Privileged Communication
8801309455
Case 3:06-cv-02361-WHA
Document 211-4
Filed 05/18/2007
Page 15 of 32
BLAKLY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR,&ZAFMAN
A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING LAW CORPORATIONS
The Court went on to note the distiction between the "predictable result" of the
improvements to the totalisator system, resulting from the use of solid state data
processing hardware with "synergistic" results that would not necessarily be obvious to
one of skil in the art:
Here, however, the benefits that accrued from the replacement of
electromechancal by solid state electronic means - increased accuracy, speed, compactness, flexibilty, reliability, and economy - were, as Judge Dooling found, nothg more than the recognzed advantages of electronic
upgrading of a data processing system.34
Thus, under these principles, merely changing known prior art techniques to a
new form that performs the same function is insufficient to overcome the requirements
of 35 USe. § 103.
(b) Special Considerations When Assessing the
Validity of "Business Method" Patents
The '381 patent is a "business method" patent.5 Thus, a discussion of the law
and PTO regulations applied to assess the patentability of business method patents wil
be helpful for an understanding of our opinion.
In State Street Bank and Trust Co. v. Signature Financial Group, Inc, the Federal
Circuit Court rejected the argument that computer-implemented business methods
constitute non-statutory subject matter.36 The Federal Circuit stated that "(w)hether the
34 At 747. 35 Specifically, the '381 patent was classified by the PrO under Class 705 (Electronic Commerce), Subclass
26 (E-Shopping). Patents classified under Class 705 are "business method" patents.
36 State Street Bank and Trust Co. v. Signature Financial Group, Inc., 149 F.3d 1368, (Fed. Cir. 1998)
(hereinafter State Street), cert. denied, 119 S. Ct. 851 (1999). The Court reversed a the decision of a
-14-
Attorney-Climt Privileged Communication
8801309456
Case 3:06-cv-02361-WHA
Document 211-4
Filed 05/18/2007
Page 16 of 32
BLAKLY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR,&ZAFMA
A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING LAW CORPORATIONS
patent's claims are too broad to be patentable is not to be judged under § 101 (related to
non-statutory subject matter), but rather under §§ 102, 103 and 112." Even assuming
that the claims at issue were too broad, the court held that breadth of claims has
"nothng to do with whether what is claimed is statutory subject matter."37 The court
also noted that its holding related to the statutory nature of methods of doing business
was consistent with the PTO's 1996 Examination Guidelines for Computer Related
Inventions. These state that a claim directed to a method of doing business should be
treated as any other method clai.38
Thus, computer-implemented "business method" patents are analyzed using
similar standards for patentabilty as other computer-implemented method patents. In
ths regard, it has long been understood that providing an automatic means to replace a
manual activity which accomplishes the same result is not sufficient to distinguish over
the prior art.39 This line of analysis has been adopted in the PTO's Manual of Patent
Examining Procedure ("MPEP").40 In addition, the PTO currently employs a special set
of guidelines for evaluatig computer-implemented business methods, which explicitly
state that a claim directed to a computerized implementation of a known business
method is not patentable under § 103. For example, in
Massachusetts District Court which held that the patent at issue was invalid for claiming non-statutory
subject matter under 35 U.s.c. § 101.
37 State Street Bank at 1375-77.
38 Examination Guidelines, 61 Fed. Reg. 7478, 7479 (1996). 39 See In re Venner, 46 CCPA 754, 758, 262 F.2d 91, 95, 121 USPQ 193,194 (CCPA 1958) ("Furthermore, it is
well settled that it is not 'invention' to broadly provide a mechanical or automatic means to replace a
manual activity which has accomplished the same result."). See also In re Rundell, 18 CCP A 1290,48 F.2d
958 (CCPA 1931). 40 MPEP 2144.04 Legal Precedent as Source of Supporting Rationale ¡R-1J ... II. AUTOMATING A
MANUAL ACTIVITY (citing to In re Venner in which "(tJhe court held that broadly providing an
automatic or mechanical means to replace a manual activity which accomplished the same result is not suffcient to distinguish over the prior art.").
-15-
Attorney-Client Privileged Communication
8801309457
Case 3:06-cv-02361-WHA
Document 211-4
Filed 05/18/2007
Page 17 of 32
BLAKLY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR,&ZAFMA
A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING LAW CORPORATIONS
FORMULATING AND COMMUNICATING REJECTIONS UNDER 35 U.se. 103 FOR APPLICATIONS DIRECTED TO COMPUTERIMPLEMENTED BUSINESS METHOD INVENTIONS (N) (B) Examples of Rationale Statements Logically Reasoned From Sources Other Than a Reference, Example 10 provides a rejection for Internet-based system in which:
there is no enhancement found in the claimed step other than the known advantage of increased speed. The end result is the same as compared to
the manual method. . . . It would have been obvious to a person of
ordinary skil in the art at the tie of the invention to automate the step of
determing proposed transactions that could improve the portfolio because this would speed up the determining step which is purely known and expected resultfrom automation of what is known in the art.
2. Person of Ordinary Skil in the Art
The Graham case requires us to consider obviousness through the eyes of a
person of ordinary skil in the art. In the case of the '381 patent, two separate art fields
must be considered. First since the patent deals with computer technology and the
Internet, a person of ordinary skil in the art must be skiled in the field of computer
technology and the Internet. Second, the '381 patent deals with the rental of items over
the Internet. The person of ordinary skil in the art must know rental practices of items
such as movies.
In Dann v. Johnston,41 the Supreme Court was faced with a very similar question,
namely the determation of a person of ordinary skil in the art in two fields. In the
Dann case, the invention involved machine systems' for automatic record-keeping of
bank checks and deposits. The Court summarized the invention as:
Whle respondent's patent application pertains to the highly esoteric field
of computer technology, the basic functioning of his invention is not difficult to comprehend. Under respondent's system a ban customer
41425 U.s. 219 (1976)
-16-
Attorney-Client Privileged
Communicatio1t
8801309458
Case 3:06-cv-02361-WHA
Document 211-4
Filed 05/18/2007
Page 18 of 32
BLAKLY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR ,&ZAFMA
A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING LAW CORPORATIONS
labels each check that he writes with a numerical category code
corresponding to the purpose for which the funds are being expended.
For instance, 'food expenditures' might be a category code "123l" "fuel
expenditures" a category coded "124," and "rent" still another category
coded "125."
Thus, when the time comes for the bank customer's regular periodic statement to be rendered, the programmed computer sorts out the entries
in the various categories and produces a statement which groups the
entries according to category and which gives subtotals for each category.
The Court went on to describe the person of ordinary skil in the art needed for
determining obviousness as follows: In making the determination of "obviousness," it is important to remember that the criterion is measured not in terms of what would be obvious to a layman, but rather what would be obvious to one 'reasonably skilled in (the applicable) art.' ...In the context of the subject matter of the instant case, it can be assumed that such a hypothetical person would have been aware both of the nature of the extensive use of data processing systems in
the bang industr and of the system encompassed in the Dirks patent.
While computer technology is an exploding one, '(i)t is but an evenhanded
application to require that those persons granted the benefit of a patent
monopoly be charged with an awareness' of that technology.
The court went on to conclude that the patent was invalid for obviousness statig:
The gap between the prior art and respondent's system is simply not so
great as to render the system nonobvious to one reasonably skiled in the
art.
Consequently, for purposes of evaluatig the obviousness or non-obviousness of
the claims in the '381 patent, we assume that the person of ordinary skil in the art is one
knowledgeable in computer systems and the Internet. In the time frame of the '381
application (2000), such person would have at least one college degree in electrical
-17-
Attorney-Client Privileged Communication
8801309459
Case 3:06-cv-02361-WHA
Document 211-4
Filed 05/18/2007
Page 19 of 32
BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR'&ZAFMAN
A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING LAW CORPORATIONS
engineering or computer science and several years of practical expenence with
computers and the Internet. Additionally, ths person would be knowledgeable in the
methods for rentig items to customers. We believe such person would be an
experienced businessman knowledgeable in all aspects of renting items such as movies,
or the like, to customers either through retail chains, mail order, or the Internet.
3. Criteria Applied to Assess the Adequacy of
the Written Description for Issued Patent Claims
The patent laws require that what is claimed in an issued patent claim must be
supported by a written description in the patent application originally filed for the
patent.42 The patent application as originally filed must describe the claimed invention
in such a maner that one of skil in the art would reasonably understand that the
inventor was "in possession" of the invention at the time the application was fied.43 To
be "in possession" of the claimed subject matter, the originally-filed application must
disclose all of the limitations of the patent claim. It is not enough to say 11 one of
ordinary skil would know to add the omitted materiaL." In this regard, The Federal
Circuit Court stated:
Whle the meaning of terms, phrases, or diagrams in a disclosure is to be explained or interpreted from the vantage point of one skiled in the art, all the limitations must appear in the specification. The question is not
42 Specifically, 35 USC § 112 requires first that the specification:
shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skiled in the art to which it pertains...to make and use the same... 35 USC §1l2, 'l1.
Additionally the statute requires that the specification:
shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming
the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. 35 USC §1l2, 'l2.
43 See, e.g., Vas-Cath v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1563 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
-18-
Attorney-Client Privileged Communication
8801309460
Case 3:06-cv-02361-WHA
Document 211-4
Filed 05/18/2007
Page 20 of 32
BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR,&ZAFMA
A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING LAW CORPORATIONS
whether a claimed invention is an obvious variant of that which is
disclosed in the specification. Rather, a prior application itself must describe an inventioa and do so in sufficient detail that one skiled in the
art can clearly conclude that the inventor invented the claimed invention
as of the filing date sought. .. .One shows that one is 'in possession' of the invention by describing the invention, with all its claimed limitations, not that which makes it obvious. ...A description which renders obvious the invention for which an earlier fiing date is sought is not sufficient. ...
Lockwood's expert averred that the disclosed termial in the former
application' can be connected' to multiple vendors and that, although the
latter application only 'discusses the use of a television set and a keypad at
a consumer's home,' it would have been apparent to one skiled in the art
that Lockwood also envisioned the use of a 'terminal' containig a video
disk player. That does not solve Lockwood's problem. Lockwood
claimed a distict invention from that disclosed in the specification. It is not sufficient for purposes of the written description requirement of §112 that the disclosure, when combined with the knowledge in the art, would lead one to speculate as to modifications that the inventor might have
envisioned, but failed to disclose.44
Thus, for a claim to be valid under 35 D.S.C. § 112, every element of that claim
must be explicitly described in the specification.
B. Validity Analysis
1. In the two following sections we set forth our analysis which
concludes that: (i) all the claims are obvious in view of the prior art and hence
44 Lockwood v. American Airlines, 107 F.3d 1565, 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See also Jepson v. Coleman, 314
F.2d 533, 536 (CCP A 1963) (describing how it is "not a question of whether one skiled in the art might be
able to construct the patentee's device from the teachings of the disclosure. . . Rather, it is a question of whether the application necessarily discloses that particular device."); Manual of Patent Examining
Procedure, 8th Ed, Rev. 4 (Oct. 2005) § 2163(1) ("An applicant shows possession of the claimed invention by describing the claimed invention with all of its limitations using such descriptive means as words,
strctures, figures, diagrams, and formulas that fully set forth the claimed invention." (citing Lockwood,
107 F.3d 1565, 1572)).
i "t.
-19-
Attorney-Client Privileged Communication
8801309461
Case 3:06-cv-02361-WHA
Document 211-4
Filed 05/18/2007
Page 21 of 32
BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR'&ZAFMA
A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING LAW CORPORATIONS
invalid, and (ii) all the claims are invalid because they claim subject matter not
described, specifically the displaying of attributes.
2. The Claims of the '381 Patent are Invalid Under 35 US.c. § 103
Because They Claim a Computerized Implementation of a Known Prior Art Business Process
The '381 patent has a total of fifty-one claims with five independent claims
(Claim 1, 14, 24, 34 and 44). In our opinion, all of the claims of the '381 patent are
invalid under 35 US.c. § 103 for obviousness based on Learning is Easy. . . With Audio
Cassettes, Tape Rental Library, Inc. (the "Tape Rental" of Appendix B). The Tape Rental
service was discussed earlier in the Prior Art Section of this letter. Although Tape
Rental describes a manual mail-order process for rentig audio cassettes, rather than a
computer-implemented rental process, the underlying rental process is the same. The
computer-implemented claims of the '381 patent are obvious in view of the known
manual service of Tape RentaL.
Attached as Appendix C are claim charts showing the elements of the '381 patent
claims in the left-hand column. In the right-hand column, the corresponding activity of
Tape Rental supports our opinion that the claim is obvious in view of Tape RentaL. We
have drawn a line through those words in the claim which solely go to the computer
implementation of the rental service of the claim. For instance, we have drawn a lie
through words such as "computer implemented," "electronic digital," and "Internet" in
order to allow better focus on the underlying method of the claim. As pointed out
above, the fact that a prior art method is implemented in a computer form does not, of
itself, make the method patentable.
-20-
A ttorney-Client Privileged
Communication
8801309462
Case 3:06-cv-02361-WHA
Document 211-4
Filed 05/18/2007
Page 22 of 32
BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR,&ZAFMA
A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING LAW CORPORATIONS
As described above in the Tape Rental service, a catalog is sent to customers
contaiing various attributes of audio cassettes, coverig a wide variety of subjects and
speakers. "Subjects" and "speakers" specifically mentioned in Tape Rental service are
two attrbutes. A rental
list or queue is sent to customers, and customers are permitted
to send a complete list of the cassettes they wish to the tape rental company. Tape
Rental (the tape provider) then sends the cassettes to the customer as the customer
returns each cassette. When a cassette is not available from the customer's list, another
cassette is sent from the list. Tape Rental describes an anual subscription service in
which up to two tapes at a tie may be retained by a user. The user is able to change,
cancel or add to the user's list at any time.
The issue here is whether it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the
art, knowing of the Tape Rental service, to implement a corresponding service for
rentig movies using the Internet. Recall that a person of ordinary skill in the art, for
this obviousness consideration, is someone skiled with computers and the Internet, as
well as a person acquainted with the rental of items. It is our opinon that to such a
person it would be obvious in view of Tape Rental to rent movies over the Internet in
the maner set forth in the claims of the '381 patent.
In this connection, we note that no unexpected result is obtained from using the
Internet to complete the transactions of supplying movies to customers. The '381 patent
makes it clear that the customer provides one or more criteria to the provider over a
"link 106."45 :
.. .Examples of lin 106 include, without limitation, a network such as a LAN, WAN or the Internet, a telecommunications link, a wire or optical
li or a wireless connection. 46
45 '381 patent, column 2, lie 51.
46 '381 patent, column 2, lies 53-56.
-21-
Attorney-Client Privileged Communication
8801309463
Case 3:06-cv-02361-WHA
Document 211-4
Filed 05/18/2007
Page 23 of 32
BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR,&ZAFMA
A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING LAW CORPORATIONS
From ths we see that the '381 patent does not describe any unusual result from using
the Internet, in fact, any lin may be used including a wire.
Similarly, there is no unusual or unexpected result from supplying movies using
the service as opposed to supplying audio cassettes. Again, the '381 patent discusses,
for the most part, supplying "items" such as suggested by the title of the '381 patent,
"Approach for Rentig Items to Customers." Even the term "moviesl" according to
claim 13 of the '381 patent, can include "motion pictures, television series,
documentaries, cartoons, music videos, video recordings of concert performances,
instrctional programs, and educational programs." The Court in its Claim
Constrction Order explicitly held that "the term 'movie,' as used in the patents, was
intended to include media such as documentaries, television series, cartoons, music
videos, concert performance films, and educational programs."47 Movies, as used in the
claim, includes many forms of recorded matEiriat and there appears to be no benefit to
providing these materials as opposed to a audio cassette. Looked at another way, we
see no reason why the claim becomes non-obvious because a movie is provided rather
than an audio cassette.
Below we review claim 1 in a narrative form to assist in understanding our
analysis as presented in the Claim Charts of Appendix C.
The preamble to claim 1 reads:
A computcr implcmcntcd method for rentig movies to customers,
the method comprising:
As mentioned earlier, we have placed a line through the "computer implemented" and
like terms in order to focus on the rental method, aside from its computer aspects. The
47 Claim Constrction Order, p. 6.
-22-
A ttorney-Client Privileged
Communication
8801309464
Case 3:06-cv-02361-WHA
Document 211-4
Filed 05/18/2007
Page 24 of 32
BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR'&ZAFMA
A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING LAW CORPORATIONS
preamble simply requires a method for renting movies to customers. Tape Rental
describes a method for renting audio cassettes to customers. See, for example, page 1 of
Appendix B.
The first element of claim 1 reads:
providing electronic digital inormation that causes one or more
attibutes of movies to be displayed;
In Tape Rental, a catalog is sent to the user containng various attributes of video
cassettes. For example, Tape Rental mentions a wide variety of subjects and speakers.
As discussed earlier, we believe there is no meaningful difference in providing
information on audio cassettes versus information on movies.
The next element of claim 1 requires:
establishing, in electronic digit=il form, from electronic digit=il
information rcceivcd over the Intcrnet, a movie rental queue
associated with a customer comprising an ordered list indicating two or more movies for rentig to the customer;
Similarly, Tape Rental provides:
A new selection card wil be sent provided with each cassette you
receive or use our convenient time saver list. Many of our
customers find it convenient to send us a list of the cassettes they wish to hear . We wil send a cassette from the list as you return
each cassette. Of course you may change, cancel or add to your list
at any time.48
Tape Rental has a list corresponding to a movie rental queue associated with the
customer, and this is an ordered list in that it is numbered as shown in Appendix B.
48 See Appendix B.
-23-
Attorney-Client Privileged Communication
8801309465
Case 3:06-cv-02361-WHA
Document 211-4
Filed 05/18/2007
Page 25 of 32
BLAKLY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR,&ZAFMA
A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING LAW CORPORATIONS
This interpretation of ths claim element of the '381 patent is consistent with the
interpretation the Court gave in its Claim Constrction for this element of the claim.
The next element of the claim requires:
causing to be delivered to the customer up to a specified number of
movies based upon the order of the list;
Tape Rental describes that a specific number of cassettes are delivered to the customer
based on the order of the list, and if a particular cassette is not available, the next
cassette wil be delivered.
The next element of the claim states:
in response to one or more delivery criteria being satisfied,
selecting another movie based upon the order of the list and
causing the selected movie to be delivered to the customer; and
The delivery criteria described in the '381 patent includes customer return of an item. In
Tape Rental, a new cassette from the order list is sent to the user as the user returns each
cassette. Thus, the return of the cassette causes a new cassette to be sent, and this
satisfies the limitation of the claim for one or more delivery criteria.
The last element of the claim, set forth below, allows the customer to update the
rental queue. in response to other electronic digital inormation received from the
customer o~¡er the Internet, electronically updatig the movie rental
queue.
As mentioned above, in Tape RentaL, the user "may change, cancel or add to (the
user's list) at any time."
Thus, every step in claim 1 is found in Tape Rental when the "computer
implemented" words are ignored. As mentioned earlier, simply implementing a
-24-
Attorney-Client Privileged Communication
8801309466
Case 3:06-cv-02361-WHA
Document 211-4
Filed 05/18/2007
Page 26 of 32
BLAKLY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR,&ZAFMA
A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING LAW CORPORATIONS
manual process into a computerized process does of itself not make an invention. There
is nothing, in our opinion, that is non-obvious about implementig Tape Rental over the
Internet and supplying movies instead of audio cassettes. Clearly, this would be
obvious to a person of ordinary skil in the art.
In summary, as set forth in the Claim Charts (Appendix C), it is our opinon that
all of the claims of the '381 patent are obvious and therefore invalid in view of Tape
Rental
under 35 U.S.c. § 103.
3. The Claims of the '381 Patent are Invalid Under 35 US.c. Eì 112
Because They Contain a Limitation not Disclosed in the '381 Application
The claims of the '381 patent are also invalid because they include a limitation:
not supported by the '381 application.49 In particular, the claims of the '381 patent
require "providing electronic digital information that causes one or more attributes of
movies to be displayed." Significantly, the claim language of providing the attibutes to
the user was added to the claims to make them allowable. Recall that to render the
claims allowable over the Examiner's non-statutory subject matter rejection under 35
U.S.c. § 101, Netfix argued that, among other thgs, the claims cover U(t)echnology
(which) is used to provide electronic digital information that causes attbutes of movies
to be displayed to the user."50 In a subsequent letter to the Examiner, Netflx argued
that the amended claims were non-obvious in view of the prior art because the prior art
"would not provide for providing electronic digital information that causes one or more
49 As mentioned, the '381 application was a continuation of a previously-fied application, filed on April
28, 2000. When we refer to the '''381 application," for purposes of this section we include the specification
of the previously-filed application, including its original claims. 50 Reply to Offce Action Uan 31, 2005), p.12.
-25-
Attorney-Client Privileged Communication
8801309467
Case 3:06-cv-02361-WHA
Document 211-4
Filed 05/18/2007
Page 27 of 32
BLAKLY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR'&ZAFMA
A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING LAW CORPORATIONS
attributes of movies to be displayed."51 Thus, this limitation was a signficant addition
to the claims which ultimately resulted in the issuance of the '381 patent. However, the
'381 application has no description of "attibutes" of movies being displayed to the user
or of "electronic digital information" causing "attributes" to be displayed.
In the '381 patent, "attibutes" can include title, director name, year of release,
etc.52 Ths means that the claimed method for rentig movies requires the provider
provide inormation that causes, for instance, the title "Gone with
the Wind" to be
displayed to the user. Yet there is no description in the '381 patent describing that such
inormation is stored by the provider, or is sent to the customer. Rather, in the '381
application (and '381 patent) the description is that the customer or user provides the
information that causes the title, for example, to be displayed. Throughout the '381
patent, it is emphasized that the customer or user provides the attributes.
The only discussion of a "display" in the '381 patent is related to the general
description of a computer system: "Computer system 700 may be coupled via bus 702 to
a display 712, such as a cathode ray tube (CRT), for displaying information to a
computer user,"53 The '381 patent also describes a graphical user interface through
which a user may submit attributes to the rental provider:
Customers S02 create and provide item selection criteria to provider S04
over lis S06 and SlO and the Internet S08. The invention is not limited to
any particular approach for specifying and providing item selection crteria to provider S04. For example, according to one embodiment, customers S02 provide item selection criteria to provider S04 in one or more data files. According to another embodiment, customers S02 log
onto a web site of provider S04 and use a graphical user interfaced (GUI)
51 Letter to Examiner (Oct 17, 2005), p. 6. 52 See, e.g. '381 patent, column 7, lies 10-18.
53 '381 patent, column 10, lines 39-41.
-26-
Attorney-Client Privileged Communication
8801309468
Case 3:06-cv-02361-WHA
Document 211-4
Filed 05/18/2007
Page 28 of 32
BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR ,&ZAFMA
A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING LAW CORPORATIONS
to specify attributes of the movies and music that customers desire to rent
from provider S04. (emphasis added).54
There is nothing in this quotation from the '381 patent describing that the
customer gets "attributes of movies" for display. It is the customer that specifies the
attributes. In the '381 patent, the user specifies the attributes for movies and, in
response, the rental provider rents movies to the user based on those attibutes. The
provider does not automatically send the title "Gone with the Wind" to the user's
computer for display. This aspect of the rental process (in which the !! provides the
information and attbutes to the rental provider) is consistent throughout the
specification of the '381 patent. For example, referrig to the process ilustrated in
Figure 2 of the '381 patent:
. . . After starting in step 202, in step 204, customer 102 creates item
selection criteria. In step 206, customer 102 provides the item selection criteria to provider 104. In step 208, in response to provider 104 receiving
the item selection criteria from customer 102, provider 104 provides one or more items indicated by the item selection criteria to customer 102. The
process is complete in step 210.
2. Item Selection Criteria
The one or more item selection criteria provided by customer 102 to
provider 104 indicate the particular items that customer 102 desires to rent
from provider 104. Thus, the item selection criteria define a customerspecific order queue that is fulfiled by provider 104. According to one embodiment, the item selection criteria specify attributes of items to be provided by provider 104 to customer 102. Item selection criteria may
specify any type of item attributes and the invention is not limited to
particular item attributes. Examples of item attibutes include, without liitation, identifier attributes, type attbutes and cost attributes. Item
54 '381 patent, column 6, line 66 - column 7, line 9.
-27-
Attorney-Client Privileged Communication
8801309469
Case 3:06-cv-02361-WHA
Document 211-4
Filed 05/18/2007
Page 29 of 32
BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR ,&ZAFMAN
A LIMITED LIAILITY PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING LAW CORPORATIONS
selection criteria may be changed at any time to reflect changes in items
that customers desire to rent from a provider. (emphasis added),55
Again, here there is nothig describing that the provider sends electronic digital
information to the customers causing titles, or the like, to be displayed to the customer
to allow, for example, for the customer to select from the titles.
Allowing a user to log into a web site and "specify attbutes" öf movies is quite
different from a provider "providing electronic digital information that causes one or
more attbutes of movies to be displayed" for the user. In the former case, the user is
required to provide information that causes attributes (e.g. the title) of desired movies'
to be displayed to the user on the user's CRT monitor, e.g. by typing on a keyboard
which in turn displays the title of the movie in a GUI form that the user is filing out.
The '381 patent describes that these attributes are then used by the provider to create
the "ordered list" of movie selections on behalf of the user. Ths is not the
same as the
rental provider taking the initial step of providing, for example, a list of titles to be
displayed on the user's computer.
55 '381 patent, column 3, lines 13-35. See also, column 8, lines 30-32 (referring to Figure 6, "ri)n step 606,
customer 502 creates and provides movie selection criteria to provider 504 that indicates movies that customer 502 desires to rent. For example, the movie selection criteria may specify particular movie titles
that customer 502 desires to rent." (emphasis added))¡ and, column 7, lines 17-32:
Customers 502 may identify specific movies or music by the item selection criteria, or may provide various attributes and allow provider 504 to automatically select particular movies and music that satisfy the attributes specified. For example, customers 502 may
~ item selection criteria that include horror movies released in 1999 and let
provider 504 automatically select horror movies that were release in 1999. As another example, customers 502 may specify item selection criteria that include adventure movies starring Harrison Ford. Customers 502 may also specify an order or priority for the specified item selection criteria. For example, customers 502 may specify specific movie titles and the order in which they want to receive them. As another example, customers
502 may specify that they want to receive a particular number of movies of different
types. (emphasis added).
-28-
Attorney-Client Privileged Communication
8801309470
Case 3:06-cv-02361-WHA
Document 211-4
Filed 05/18/2007
Page 30 of 32
BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR,&ZAFMAN
/\ LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING LAW CORPORATIONS
We also recognze that in actual business, Netflx may send a list of, for example,
newly released movies for the user to browse. However, for unknown reasons, Netfix
chose not to describe in the '381 application the provider providing such inormation.
Therefore, although it may be Netfl's actual business practice, it is not what Netflix
chose to describe in its patent and therefore not relevant to the issue.
The display of the attribution is not inerent in what is described in the '381
patent. The Court of Customs and Patent Appeals has stated that "Inerency...may not
be established by probabilties or possibilities. The mere fact that a certain thing may
result from a given set of circumstances is not sufficient."56 The element must have been
necessarily present or implicit in the original disclosure. It is not enough that it might
have been present.57 The rental provider taking the initial step of providing, for
example, a list of titles to be displayed to the user is not necessarily present or implicit.
See, for example, the Books on Tape On-Line Order Form (Bates Number BB00012212)
which shows the user providing the inormation into a blank form.
56 Hansgirgv. Kemmer, 102 F. 2d 212, 214 (CCPA 1939).
57 See. e.g., Chisolm § 11.04(4)(a) In re Robertson, 169 F. 3d (Fed. eir. 1999) quotig In re Oelrich, 666 F. 2d
578,581 (CCPA 1981). ("Inerency, however, may not be established by probabilties or possibilties. The
mere fact that a certain thing may result from a given set of circumstances is not suffcient.").
-29-
Attorney-Client Privileged Communication
8801309471
Case 3:06-cv-02361-WHA
Document 211-4
Filed 05/18/2007
Page 31 of 32
BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR,&ZAFMA
A LIMITED LIAILITY PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING LAW CORPORATIONS
Rental Book Order
Ordtr JÐ bob (or pam or m,lll-pal1 bobli ¡e aD 11th OD~ FRE. All webstt orn will
rooiv~ an llitonaJ 5% DISCOUN fr ou DOnnal catag piçe. N()/,: durlpiiom ci prices 1ff/ apar O/ tJii ToI10rtu bItlclI is prùd.
C~t6i09 No T.tl.
I
Iliotai
j
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
i
I
The courts strictly adhere to the rule that claims may be no broader than the
supporting disclosure. In Gentr Gallery58, an often cited case, Gentr claimed a
sectional sofa with controls on a console between reclining seats. The court found that
Gentry's patent did not support claims in which the location of the recliner controls is
other than on the console. When one claims something that is not described, the claims
are invalid. This makes good common sense. Inventors should not be able, years after
they fie their application, to add steps or elements to their claims that they did not
originally describe. Looked at another way, if providing the attributes to the customers
so that they can be displayed was so important as to allow Netflix to distiguish their
claims over the prior art, shouldn't they have put it in their application?
We need not consider whether "providing electronic digital information that
causes one or more attibutes of movies to be displayed" would have been obvious to
one of ordinary skill in the art. As described above, this is not the test articulated by the
58 134 F. 3d 1473 (Fed. Gr. 1998).
-30-
Attorney-Client Privileged Communication
8801309472
Case 3:06-cv-02361-WHA
Document 211-4
Filed 05/18/2007
Page 32 of 32
BLAKLY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR ,&ZAFMA
A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING LAW CORPORATIONS
courts or the USPT0,59 Rather, to comply with the Written Description requirement of
the patent law, the specification must describe "the claimed invention with all ofits
limitations using such descrptive means as words, strctures, figures, diagrams, and
formulas that fully set forth the claimed invention."60
In summary, because the '381 application did not describe the limitation of
"providing electronic digital information that causes one or more attributes of movies to
be displayedl" as recited in all of the claims of the '381 patent, the claims of the '381
patent are invalid for lack of a written description under 35 U.S.c. § 112, 111. The law is
clear; one cannot claim somethig that is not described in the patent application.
iv. CONCLUSION
As set forth in the claim chart above, it is our opinion that claims 1-51 of the '381
patent are invalid under 35 U.S.c. § 103 based on Tape RentaL. In addition, in our
opinionl claims 1-51 of the '381 patent are invalid under 35 D.S.C. § 112, 111 based on the
lack of a written description.
Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have any questions concernng this
opinion.
Very trly yours,
BLAKELY, SOKOLOFF, TAYLOR & ZAFMAN, LLP
Ed~~
59 See, e.g., Lockwood, supra note 43, at 1572. See also Manual of Patent Examining Procedure, 8th Ed,
Rev. 4 (Oct. 2005) § 2163(1).
60 Lockwood (emphasis added).
-31-
Attorney-Client Privileged Communication
8801309473
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?