Received: Case: 17-2161 Filed 09/22/20 1 7

Case: 17-2161
Case: 17-2161Document: 23 Page: 1 09/22/20

Filed Filed: 10/17/2017
17
2017-2161
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL

CIRCUIT
RECEIVED
PATRICK ZUlLI,
SEP 22 2017
Appellant r United States Court of AppeaJa
For The FederaJ Circuit
v.
ALPHABET Inc.,
(known as Google Inc.) Appellee
Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and
Appeal Board in
Case: CBM2016-00008- U.S. Patent No. 8,671,057 Bt

Case: CBM2016-00021 -U.S. Patent No. 7,953,667 Bl
Case: CBM2016-00022- U.S. Patent No. 8,326,763 B2
CORRECTED BRIEF OF APPELLANT
PATRICK ZUlLI
Patrick Zuil i
Inventor & Patent Owner,
Appellant, pro se
20777 Palm Island Drive
Boca Raton, Florida, 33498
Patrick@tenderbox. tv
Case: 17-2161
Contents
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION ........................................................................ 7
STATEMENT OF RELATED CASES .................................................................... 7
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT .............................................................................. 8
1. Precise Relief Requested ............................................................................ 18
11. Why PTAB paid no attention to the ruling of Judge Labson Freeman? .... 25
111. CBM Petitions brought by Google and Big Tech Boys like Amazon are
often ruled in favor of them by Patent Judges ("APJ"). If at least one APJ
decide to change the path of the non-final decision against that Petitioner,
were they ostracized by the Michelle Lee administration? ................................ 27
a. GOOGLE STOLE OVERTURE TECHNOLOGY AND GOT SUED

BY YAHOO FOR STEALING IT ................................................................. 3 7
b. $500 MILLION FINE BECAUSE GOOGLE ILLEGAL

INVOLVEMENT WITH ONLINE PHARMACIES ..................................... 38
c. LANE'S GIFT & COLLECTIBLES LAWSUIT. CLICK FRAUD.

GOOGLE WAS A DEFENDANT. $90 MILLION SETTLEMENT............ 39
d. GOOGLE FINED A RECORD 2.4 BILLION BY THE EU FOR

MANIPULATING SEARCH RESULTS TO PROMOTE GOOGLE
OWN PRODUCTS .........................................................................................41
I. INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 41
a. Google created an infrastructure titled "Quality Team" in June 2003 to
handle the click fraud problem but why three years later in 2006 Google
settled a click fraud lawsuit after having i11ega1ly and allegedly charged
clients billions of dollars as if the "quality team" created in June 2003 never
existed................................................................................................................. 48
2
Case: 17-2161
Case: 17-2161Document: 23 Page: 3 Filed: 10/17/2017
Filed 09/22/2017
Differences between USPTO v. PTAB? ............................................................. 50
b. Examining a difference is not merely subtraction ...................................... Sl
II. ARGUMENT .................................................................................................. 51

a. TECHNOLOGY EXPERTS SUCH AS PTAB JUDGES GOT SWAY
TO GOOGLE SIDE AND MICHELLE LEE SO MUCH, UNABLE TO
MAKE THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE CONTEXT OR
ENVIRONMENT OF A PAY-PER-CLICK SYSTEM APPLICATION
RUNNING AND THE INVALID CLICK DETECTION SYSTEM USING
THAT PPCS ENVIRONMENT IN ORDER TO CREATE ITS OWN FEED.. 53
b. Board unethically applied technological invention exception by

analyzing claim 1 with a bias, in bits and pieces just to invalidate the '057-
667-763 patents ................................................................................................... 61
c. Board applied an illogical Abstract Idea Analysis and none of the

Petitioner arguments prove that claims are directed to patent-ineligible
subject n1atter......................................................................................................63
1. Stephen Grey's phannacist example including implementing the

three patent's technology using pen paper and wall clock is clearly
unreasonable, arbitrary and fanciful. .............................................................. 66
d. Board has again incorrectly applied the steps of inventive concept

Analysis ............................................................................................................... 70
e. Lack of uniformity in the treatment of lAB exhibits inside PTAB lead

to the whimsical and contradictory application of Judicial rulings offering
criminal protection shield to Google .................................................................. 72
III. CASE LAWS .................................................................................................... 75

a. Unwired Planet LCC vs Google Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2016) ............................... 75
3
Case: 17-2161
Filed 09/22/201 7
b. Travelocity.com LP v. Cronos Technologies, LLC, CBM2014-00082

(US5,664, 11 0) ..................................................................................................... 76
c. Trading Technologies International, Inc. v. CQG, Inc (Fed. Cir., 2016) .. 78
d. Blue Calypso, LLC v. Groupon, Inc., 815 F.3d 1331, 1338 (Fed. Cir.
2016) ................................................................................................................... 80
e. Versata Dev. Grp., Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1318- 23
(Fed. Cir. 20 15) ................................................................................................... 82
f. SightSound Techs., LLC v. Apple Inc., 809 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2015) .. 83
g. Amdocs (Isr.) Ltd. v. Openet Telecom, Inc. (Fed. Cir., 2016) .................. 84
h. Qualtrics, LLC, v. OpinionLab, Inc., Case No. CBM2016-00003

(PTAB, Apr. 13, 2016) (DeFranco, APJ) ........................................................... 85
1. Par Pham1., Inc. v. Jazz Pham1., Inc., Case Nos. CBM2014-00149,-

0150,-0151 and -0153 (PTAB, Jan. 13, 2015) (Murphy, APJ) ......................... 87
IV. FACTS SUPPORTING THE CLAIMS MADE BY THE PATENT OWNER

89
a. Google' s counsel presented a level of joint preparation between
Google's attorneys and the paid witness ............................................................. 90
b. ANOTHER GOOD REASON TO DISMISS THOSE PROCEEDINGS .92
V. GOOGLE CLAIMED APPELLANT AS ~~cONSPIRACY THEORIST"....... 93

a. Conspirator at putting Michelle Lee as USPTO Director [Appx509] ....... 95
b. Conspirator at invalidating the patent owner's patent by colluding with

lAB 95
c. Strange coincidence or deliberate purpose ................................................. 96
VI. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 97
4
Case: 17-2161
Filed 09/22/2017
Table of Authorities
Cases
Amdocs (lsr.) Ltd. v. Openet Telecom, Inc. (Fed. Cir., 2016) ............................... 83
Blue Calypso, LLC v. Groupon, Inc., 815 F.3d 1331, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ........ 79
Brite Smart Corp. v. Google Inc., 2:20 14cv00760, (Texas Eastern District
Court, 20 14) .......................................................................................................... 6
Brite Smart Corp. v. Google Inc., 5:2015cv03962, (California Northern District
Court, 20 15) .......................................................................................................... 6
Google, Inc. v. Zuili, CBM20 16-00008/00021 /00022 ........................................... .49
Mandamus Writ 2017-101, (Fed. Cir. 20 16) ......................................... 7, 17, 40, 97
Par Pharm., Inc. v. Jazz Phann., Inc., Case Nos. CBM2014-00149, -0150,-
0151 and -0153 (PTAB, Jan. 13, 2015) ........................................................ 52, 86
Qualtrics, LLC, v. Opinion Lab, Inc., Case No. CBM20 16-00003 (PTAB, Apr.
13, 20 16) ............................................................................................................. 84
SightSound Techs., LLC v. Apple Inc., 809 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ............... 82
Trading Technologies International, Inc. v. CQG, Inc (Fed. Cir., 20 16) ............... 77
Travelocity.com LP v. Cronos Technologies, LLC, CBM2014-00082 ...... 16, 53, 75
Unwired Planet LCC vs Google Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2016) ........................ 14, 53, 59, 74
5
Case: 17-2161
Filed 09/22/20 I7
Versata Dev. Grp., Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1318- 23 (Fed. Cir.
2015) ................................................................................................................... 81
Statutes
28 U.S.C. 1295(a)(4)(A) ........................................................................................ 6
35 u.s.c 101 ..................................................................................... 49, 71, 78, 83

35 U.S.C 103(a) ................................................................................................... 82
35 u.s.c. 101.7 .................................................................................................... 75

35 U.S.C. I 02(a) .................................................................................................. 82
35 u.s.c. 103 ....................................................................................................... 49

35 u.s.c. 329 ......................................................................................................... 6
AlA 18(d) ............................................................................................................. 74
6
Case: 17-2161 Document: 23 Page: 7 Filed: 10/17/2017
Case: 17-2161 Filed 09/22/20 I 7
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The PTAB wrongly gave decision regarding three patents of inventor Patrick Zuili
in three CBM cases filed by Google for three patents of same family. PTAB issued
three final written decisions on April 24, 2017 [Appx 1, Appx283, Appx406] and
May 5, 2017 [Appx283]. Patrick Zuili timely filed its notice of appeal on June 6,
2017 [Appx 120] and June 28, 2017 [Appx279]. This Court has jurisdiction under
28 U.S.C. 1295(a)(4)(A){ TA \1 "28 U.S.C. 1295(a)(4)(A)" \s "28 U.S.C.
1295(a)(4)(A)" \c 2} and 35 U.S.C. 329{ TA \1 "35 U.S.C. 329" \s "35 U.S.C.
329" \c 2 }.
STATEMENT OF RELATED CASES
Pursuant to FED. CIR. R. 47.5, Appellant Patrick Zuili, notes that:
This appeal is also related to previous Brite Smart Corp. v. Google Inc.,
2:2014cv00760, (Texas Eastern District Court, 2014){ TA \1 "Brite Smart Corp. v.
Google Inc., 2:2014cv00760, (Texas Eastern District Court, 2014)" \s "Brite Smart
Corp. v. Google Inc., 2:20 14cv00760, (Texas Eastern District Court, 20 14)" \c 1 }
and Brite Smart Corp. v. Google Inc., 5:201 5cv03962, (California Northern District
Court, 2015){ TA \1 "Brite Smart Corp. v. Google Inc., 5:2015cv03962, (California
Northern District Court, 2015)" \s "Brite Smart Corp. v. Google Inc.,
5:2015cv03962, (California Northern District Court, 2015)" \c 1 } which were
7
Case: 17-2161 Filed 09/22/2017
dismissed by the court for non-availability of attorney to Brite Smart Corp. against
Google due to lack of financial funding. Also, this appeal is related to mandamus
writ filed by Patrick Zuili to inform Fed. Cir. about the lies and forgery done by
Google and its counsel during the CBM Proceedings. Mandamus Writ 2017-101,
(Fed. Cir. 2016){ TA \1 "Mandamus Writ 2017-101, (Fed. Cir. 2016)" \s "Mandamus
Writ 2017-10 I, (Fed. Cir. 20 16)" \c 1 } [Appx42]
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
Decisions of the PTAB lack uniformity and in complete disdain for the rule ofthis
Higher Court.
The patentfor a novelty worm detector apparatus, screening applesfor the presence
of worms, will work particular~v well in the "context, of a working environment
of merchants producing and selling organic apples online. A patent for worm(s)
detection does not become a CBM patent because of its incidental or
complementary' 11se in the online apple merchant selling healthy jr11it to clients".
Similar approach for a patented detection system identifving users and invalid
clicks does not become a CBM patent because ofits incidental or complement01y
11se by search engine advertising platform at selling legitimate clicks to clients. .
"Invalid clicks" are like "apples with worm(s)" both need to be detected, both
have respectively no financial value unless provider is [caught] cheating clients.
8
Case: 17-2161 Filed 09/22/2017
DICES WERE LOADED FROM THE START.
Contrary to the Universal Principle of Sovereignty of Justice, the
introduction of '"Non-Final Decision" by Director Lee at the PTAB represents a
pathway for Judges to "stick with the initial direction" or in others words a patent
is pre-assumed to be "guilty" instead of "not guilty" Jon CBM eligibility].
PTAB has done an exceptionally poor job at not finding an attenuated
relationship between invalid clicks detection and financial aspect 1Appx12] in the
three patents.
PTAB's flawed reasoning or favoritism invalidated claims below:
IV. ORDER
For the reasons given, it is
ORDERED that claitns 1, 5, 9, and 11 of the '057 patent are
, unpatentable;
[Addendum, Appx38]
IV. ORDER
It is
ORDERED that claims 1-3~ 6 ~ 10, 14~ 15 ~ 18, 19, and 21 of U.S.
Patent No. 7,953,667 Bl are unpatentable.
9
Case: 17-2161 Filed 09/22/201 7
[Addendum. Appx326]
IV. ORDER
It is
ORDERED that claims 1-3, 5, 6, I 0~ 11, 14. 15, and 17 of U.S. Patent
No. 8,326. 763 B2 are unpatentable.
[Addendum, Appx448]
PTAB abused discretion by failing to consider overwhelming evidence of
fraud by Google has become a half-mystery. Half-mystery because Michelle Lee.
the fonner Google Executive was running the PTAB until June 2017 as later
explained in this brief for Google's benefit.
If anyone at the Office of Inspector General was aware of the extent of this
Govemmental Agency practicing unlawful behavior? Interference and favoritism
which are discriminatory are underlined by own PTO admission [Appx509] that
"'PTO can select judges for a reconfigured panel so as to achieve a decision opposite
to that of the original panel" 1 which probably explain such lack of uniformity in
PTAB 's decisions. As a result of the foregoing, Michelle Lee does not need to
explain why she selected the second Board on the same family of patents. Judge
1
http://www. 717madisonplace.com/?p==9143
10
Case:Case:
17-2161 Document: 23
17-2161 Page: 11 09/22/2017
Easthom was on the first Board. Was a suggestion to Michelle Lee of selecting a
second Board could have ever come from Judge Karl Easthom? In any event and
in view of such PTO admissions and in conjunction with the above, PTAB's
behavior was unlawful right from the beginning of proceedings with Michelle Lee
at the helm of PTO. The odds were in favor of Google and were stacked a gainst
Appellant, THEREFORE, THE ENTIRED CBM PROCEEDINGS
AGAINST APPELLANT SHOULD BE HELD VOID AND BE
DISMISSED.
This anomaly of Justice by Michelle Lee to break down the same family of
patents in three different proceedings was rightly identified and properly avoided
by the Clerk of the Federal Circuit Court's Peter R. Mark Steiner by
consolidating three appeals of the same family of patents into one APPEAL.
Three proceedings with two Boards were an attempt by Fom1er USPTO Director
Lee to destabilize Patrick Zuili to review his approach by self-induced him to
withdraw in front of the cumulating complexity of those proceedings. By selecting
two Boards in the middle of those CBM proceedings, Michelle Lee offered to the
Silicon Valley firm a huge procedural advantage right from the beginning. Michelle
Lee's Selection of a second Board was not only a fiscally wrong use of American
Case: 17-2161 Filed 09/22/20 17
tax payer's funds but also a show of disregard for the USPTO's rule to do a fast and
inexpensive triaL
MicheJle Lee has failed at establishing a "Non-Involvement" policy while she
was the Director ofUSPTO. She preferred exerting influence on dominatingjudge's
decisions, by selecting the right "'blend of Judges'' or select the right "'Proxy-Judge"
in order to obtain invalidation of three patents against Google.
BY ILLEGALLY USING THE ''INVALID CLICK DETECTION
TECHNOLOGY PATENTED BY ZUlLI",
SEARCH ENGINE'S ADVERTISING SYSTEM
IS RECEIVING ON-THE-FLY FEED
WITH DETAILED INFORMATION
ON SEARCH ENGINE USERS AND FAKE CLICKS
I'FAKE TRAFFIC'] ....
. . .. 6 HOURS LATER
.... SEARCH ENGINE HAD PLENTY OF TIME TO RECONCILE ITS OWN
DATA WITH THE DETECTION SYSTEM FEED
AFTER SUCH RECONCILIATION GOGGLE'S OWN TECHNOLOGY
STARTS THE PROCESS
12
Case: 17-2161 Filed 09/22/2017
[AGAIN, NOT THE ZUlLI DETECTION TECHNOLOGY]
TO INFORM OF WHAT FEE AMOUNT, MERCHANTS WILL SOON BE
CHARGED TO THEIR ACCOUNT FOR [SUPPOSEDLY] LEGITIMATE
SERVICES.
GOOGLE'S PAYMENT PROCESSING TECHNOLOGY WOULD CHARGE
CREDIT CARDS FROM THOSE MERCHANTS WITHIN THE RESPECTIVE
DAILY SPENDING LIMIT SETUP PREVIOUSLY BY THOSE MERCHANTS
BEFORE LAUNCHING THEIR ADVERTISING CAMPAIGN.
The Federal Circuit reviews the Board's management of its proceedings for abuse of
discretion. Redline Detection, LLC v. Star Envirotech, Inc., 811 F.3d 435, 442 (Fed. Cir. 2015). The
Board abuses its discretion if the decision: (1) is clearly unreasonable, arbitrary, or fanciful; (2)
is based on an erroneous conclusion of law; (3) rests on clearly erroneous fact findings; or (4)
involves a record that contains no evidence on which the Board could rationally base its
decision./d. (quotingAbrutyn v. Giovannielfo, 15 F.3d 1048, 1050-51 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
1
[Addendum]
APPELLANT HAS NOT PATENTED:
(i) A SEARCH ENGINE
1
http://www. ipwatchdog.com/20 17/09/01 /ptab-abused-d iscretion-fai ling-
consider-materia1-evidence/id=8 753 5/
13
Case:Case:
17-2161 Page: 14 09/22/2017
(ii) PAY-PER-CLICK SYSTEM ("PPCS")
(iii) A PAYMENT PROCESSING OR BILLING SYSTEM
(iv) AN ONLINE ORDERING SYSTEM ACCEPTING DELIVERY OF
ITEM AT A SHIPPING DESTINATION AND REMIT FULL
PAYMENT TO THE ORDERING SYSTEM'S OPERATOR.
(v) A PATENT COVERING THE MECHANISM OF ONLINE
ADVERTISING PATENTED BY OVERTURE INC. AND
INFRINGED BY GOGGLE IN 2001.
APPELLANT HAS PATENTED:
A detection application which technology identifies users before they click on a
link then the technology detects invalid clicks when such application is working in
conjunction with a search engine. The detection system creates a continuous data
stream of live data feed reporting quantity of information such as invalid clicks that
could knowingly be used or deliberately not used by a search engine or the search
engine's advertising platform. Same detection technology could also find its place
in conjunction with a different environment such as online and/or electronic voting
system.
PTAB flawed logic to declare patents as CBM eligible.
14
Case: 17-2161 Filed 09/22/2017
Words: ''merchants", "pay-per-click" and "clicks" recited in

claims are exactly as if recitation of "bank notes", "financial
instrument", and "central banks" on claims would be describing the
context for a novelty ink, and that such color shifting ink would
become a CBM patent because this "ink" is also used in conjunction
with a "printing financial instrument system" for the creation of
banknotes.
PTAB GROSS OVERSIMPLIFICATION
WAS SHAPED BY FLAWED REASONING
to motivate biased CBM decisions.
~n1erchants", "pay-per-click" and "clicks"

or "bank notes", "financial instruntent ", and "central banks"
Q!. "bank vaults" [for a novel bulb]
[See Unwired Planet LCC vs Google Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2016){ TA \1
"Unwired Planet LCC vs Google Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2016)" \s "Unwired Planet
LCC vs Google Inc. (Fed. Cir. 20 16)" \c 1 }] .
"bank notes" and "central banks" recited in claiml

DO NOT MAKE [A PATENTED] "ink"
a CBM patent
15
Case: 17-2161 Filed 09/22/2017
"merchants", "pay-per-click" and "clicks" recited in Claim I

DO NOT MAKE [A PATENTED] "detection system"
a CBM patent
The user's traceability is done BEFORE

A USER EVEN CLICKS ON A LINK
SEQUENTIAL STEPS TAKEN INDIVIDUALLY OR

TOGETHER DO NOT DEFINE FINANCIAL STEPS AT
ALL AlA 18(d):
THEN WORDS "merchants", "pay-per-click" and "clicks"
DO NOT MAKE
A DETECTION SYSTEM FOR USER'S TRACEABILITY AND INVALID
CLICKS
a CBMpatent
(a) FIRST identifying the internet user [entity],
(b) EVEN before a click has occurred
16
Case: 17-2161 Filed 09/22/201 7
(c) and IF click(s) occurs, again record entity data and then detect if the
click(s) is invalid or not [linked to that entity].
PTAB BAD CBM DECISIONS WAS LARGELY ISSUED FOR THE
WRONG AND ILLEGITIMATE REASONS.
(Travelocity .com LP v. Cronos Technologies, LLC, CBM20 14-00082{ TA \1
"Travelocity.com LP v. Cronos Technologies, LLC, CBM2014-00082" \s
"Travelocity.com LP v. Cronos Technologies, LLC, CBM2014-00082" \c I}). On
several diagrams and text found in CRONOS Patent No 5,664,110 words such
"merchant"; "order"; "prices".
Patent 110 IS TITLED: "Re1note ORDERING Systen1"
PTAB said: "Patent 110 Remote "ORDERING" system":
NOTaCBM
ONLY MYSTERIOUS PTAB RATIONALE COULD

JUSTIFY FLAWED DECISIONS BACKED BY FLAWED
LOGICS.
COVERING TRACEABILITY OF USERS AND CLICKS
17
Case: 17-2161 Filed 09/22/2017
BE MIRACULOUSLY CLOSER OF A FINANCIAL

TRANSACTION
THAN A REMOTE "ORDERING" SYSTEM
[PATENTllO].
FEDERAL CIRCUIT NEEDS TO CLEARLY UNDERSTAND

THAT DETECTION SYSTEM "667-763-057 PATENTS" DOES
NOT INVOKE ANY FINANCIAL ACTIVITY AND THEREFORE
PTAB'S DECISIONS SHOULD BE FLATLY OVERTURNED.
FINANCIAL ACTIVITY maybe found in the

Overture pay-per-click-system which was stolen from Overture by Google
{and infringed upon. then Google refused to pay royalties for few years after
stealing Overture's pay-per-click technology, see page 33).
i. Precise Relief Requested
PTAB avoided bringing Google 's tampered exhibits into the light. PTAB 's
hammering for flawed arguments has no basis in view of tampered Exhibits
submitted by Google which was fully disclosed by Patrick Zuili in a filed
Mandamus Writ 2017-101, (Fed. Cir. 2016){ TA \s "Mandamus Writ 2017-101,
(Fed. Cir. 20 16)" } [Appx42].
18
Case:Case:
17-2161 Page: 19 09/22/20
I7
Very conciliatory to Gooe;le, PTAB removed Google's backup counsel
Rosenthal without officially removing him. Counsel Rosenthal left abruptly
Petitioner's Counsel firm Mayer Brown without requesting PTAB authorization and
proper dismissal. Such complete disdain by Counsel Rosenthal to subtract himself
from his legal responsibi1ities is wrong.
So-calJed Lead Counsel Siddiqui filed a request, a week after Rosenthal left
Mayer Brown and started working for the new firm. Patent Owner sent an email to
both Boards on January 26th 201 7 notifying them that on January 19th that Go ogle's
counsel Brian Rosenthal, failed to request authorization from PTAB before
Rosenthal officially joined Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP 1
Again, Board failed to take necessary action and thereby ignoring disregard of
other grounds related to the case are as follows:
I. '05 7 Board did exclude Exhibit I 03 7 from CBM20 I 6-00008 but helped
Google by itself breaking exhibit 1037 into parts [Appx27] which was rejected by
Jameson Lee's Board.
1
https://www.law360.com/articles/882553 /gibson-dunn-nabs-ip-trial-pro-from-
mayer-brown-in-ny
19
Case: 17-2161 Filed 09/22/201 7
2. Board(s) unsuitably agreed to sworn statements of Al1ison Pepper, George
Ivie and Kevin Blouin due to the inherent conflict of interests posed by a business
relationship between Google and above entities.
3. Furthermore, as a vexatious sign, Appellant was clearlv threatened to go
to jail if found lying before the PTAB. Conciliatory to Google, PTAB did not
applv any of the same standards against Google's counsels who were caught
red handed lying to both PT AB and Appellant [Appx42]. Attempting to
invalidate the Zuili patents, Counsel Siddiqui made multiple attempts to
portray a prior art of the year 2007 (links in his email) as that of 2002, but
evidence (see figure below) showed that those links were not from 2002 but
from 2007. [Appx63, Appx171].
20
Case: 17-2161 Filed 09/22/2017
HTTP Response Header
Nam~ Value Dellm

Status: HTTP/1. 1 200 OK
Date; Tue, 30 Aug 2016 19:21 :56 GMT

Content-Type: appllcatlon/pclr
Content- length: 72448
Connection: close
Set-Cookie: _ d duJd;db2Sdf7a949a909515cdbBa618813c73614 72584916;
exp1res::Wed, 30 -Aug-17 19:21:56 GMT; path= aln=.lab.net;
Last-Modified: Tue, 0 6 Nov 2007 17:30:39 GM

ETag: "4810d- llb0043e45fdd36dc0"
CFCache-Status: HIT
Vary: Accept-Encoding
Expires: Tuc, 30 Aug 2016 23:21:56 GMT
Cac:l1e-Co ntro I: public, max -agc .. 14400
Accept-Ranges: bytes
Server: cloudflarc-nglnx
CF-RAY: 2daa9bcdbb2315a7 -FRA
addendum
Both links are from 2007 because they have an HTTP header date ofNovember 611t,
2007 and not 2002. Is anywhere in the email was stipulated that those JAB links on
lAB servers were uploaded in 2007? Not just a willful omission but a blatant lie
if this is not being caught lying what is a lie for the Fed. Cir.?
CLEARLY, TH1S RESTS ON ERROUNEOUS FACTUAL
FINDINGS AND CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS A RESULT OF
INCOMPLETNESS OR SLOPINESS BUT A BLUNT LIE WITH A
21
Case: I 7-2161 Filed 09/22/2017
MOTIVE TO DEPRIVE A PATENT OWNER OF ITS PATENT
RIGHTS ALONG WITH ROYALTIES.
FEDERAL CIRCUIT SHOULD DISMISS PROCEEDINGS WHICH
ARE FRIVOLOUS, VEXATIOUS OR COMMENCED IN BAD FAITH.
Probably PTAB will probably try to downplay what has been a "lie caught
on the spot" as if 2002 did not mean 2002 when Google wrote 2002 several times.
Mr.Zuili,
We understand from your objections that you believe that metadata related to lAB documents (Exhs. 1004, 1005, and
1011) shows that Petitioner forged these Exhibits. We also understand from your objections that you are accusing
Petitioner of causing lAB to disable the following link on archive.org, whose screenshot Is shown In Exhibit 1010 and
from which webpage Petitioner orig nally downloaded Exhs. 1004 and 1005.
https://web.a rch.ve.orrJweb/2002100221584Uhttp:ljwww.iab.net/standards/measurement.asp
While we are disturbed by these accusations, and we have already told you as officers of the court that there is no basis
whatsoever for the accusations, In order to prevent unnecessary motion practice with the PTAB and in order to allay
your above-referenced concerns we wanted to take this opportunity to provide you with addit1onal information about
the lAB publications.
Spedfically, our research has led us to identify the following two links that are working as of July 15, 2016:
1. http:l/www.iab.net/med1a/flle/standards iabpr 01 15 02.pdf?rnd=115
2. http:l/www.iab.net/medaffile/standards pwc report.odf
an conten as t press re ease at was In u e as 1 it 1011 w n we 1e t e petition. s s t e same press

release that we downloaded from the above-referenced link on archive. erg when we clicked on the hyper! ink entitled
"lAB Press Release 1/15/02" as shown In the screenshot in Ex. 1010, wh1ch shows the content on lab.net at least by
October 2, 2002. Please also note that when you download the press release from link number 1 you will be find that
the press release has the original metadata, i.e., it has a date created and date modified of January 15, 2002. This Is also
shown in the screenshot Included below:
Since the beginning, Google has been corrupting those trials by cheating and
falsifying the history of events.
22
Case: 17-2161 Filed 09/22/2017
Appellant has been witnessing PTAB 's willful pumping-up of imprisonment
threat against APPELLANT AND A MUCH LESS ASSERTIVE STANCE against
Google's criminal activities. Such difference of treatment draws a quite
disconcerting picture that hopefuily Fed. Cir. will know how to appreciate.
We directed attention of the pat1ies to 37 C.F.R. 1.68. which

provides that a declaration may be used in lieu of an oath "if, and only U: the
declarant is on the same document!' warned that willful false statements and
the like are ptmishable by fine or imprisonment, or both (18 U.S.C. 1001)
and may jeopardize the validity of the application or any patent issuing
thereon." The nde ftu1her provides that "[t]he declarant n1ust set fm1h in the
body of the declaration that all statements made of the declarant's own
knowledge are tnte and that all statements made on infmmation and belief
are believed to be true." 37 C.F.R. 1.68,
[Appx 169]
6. Google's intent to deceive PTAB and Appellant was apparently supported by its
Director of Litigation Catherine Lacavera who must have supervised in her
capacity of Chief of Litigation, every exhibit before they were submitted by Counsel
Rosenthal and Siddiqui before PTAB. Why Catherine Lacavera allowed such
forged exhibits to be filed at PTAB and why she did not prevent the destruction
of important evidence when robots.txt was deployed on lAB website or unless
those evidences are not totally real?
-?3-
Case: 17-2161 Filed 09/22/2017
l)ursuant to 37 C.F.R. 42.10(b), Petitioner, Googlc Inc., hereby appoints
the Practitione1{s) at Mayer Brown LLP associated with Customer Number 26565
as its attorneys to prosecute the aforementioned proceeding. and to transact all
business in the United States Patent and Trademark Office connected therewith,
including appointment of lead and backup counsel. Please recognize the
correspondence address (including any electronic mail address) for the above
identified CBM Review proceeding to be the address associated with appointed
lead and backup counsel
The individual signing below has the authority to execute this document on
behalf of Google Inc.
Signature:
By: a~v"~ L.L~

Title: JJI l~~~ L; hJeJJb,
"
Date: 0 c
Addendum
24
Case: 17-2161 Filed 09/22/2017
ii. Why PTAB paid no attention to the ruling of Judge Labson Freeman?
This provides yet more proof that PTAB connected [with Google] with any fom1
of co1lusion, cheating, unfair or fraudulent practice against Appellant by PTAB
going ahead with flawed CBM petitions. Goo2Je knew that Brite Smart had
no counsel in California and Patrick Zuili not be allowed to represent Brite
Smart's before District Court in California certainly less before PTAB?
Even, Judge White turned a deaf ear when Patrick Zuili's made a plea for
flawed proceedings to be dismissed right from the onset.
The Real Party of Interest then became Patrick Zuili but nevertheless, the
entity ''Brite Smart Corp." (and not BRITE SMART CORPORATION) was
wrongly mixed multiple times after over twelve months of trial by both
Boards and even attorneys.
Judge Beth Labson Freeman ruled that interchanging one entity with
another was wrong and that Patrick Zuili cannot represent himself "pro se"
in California because Brite Smart Corp. and Patrick Zuili are not the same
entity, they are different legal persons.
25
Case: 17-2161 Filed 09/22/2017
Judge Lee writes: "Patent OHmer does not dispute that Petitioner has been
sued for infringement of the '667 patent" 1Appx291J. Judge Lee is clearly
omitting to name of real party that sued Google i.e. Brite Smart Corp. [It was
certainly not Patrick Zuili]
Furthem1ore, USPTO/PTAB certified list was sent to wrong email address
., patick@tenderbox.tv." after 18 months ofproceedings.
Nevertheless, Mr. Zuili has filed multiple documents in tllis litigation, ostensibly on behalf
of Plaintiff. Because throughout this litigation Mr. Zuili has blurred the line between himself and
Plaintiff, the Court feels compelled to make explicit an important distinction: Mr. Zuili and
Plaintiff are not the same entity. They are different legal persons. Although Mr. Zuili is the CEO
ofPlaintiff, he is not the named plaintiff in this suit. The only plaintiff in this suit is Brite Smart, a
corporation. Since Mr. Zuili is a layperson and not a lawyer, he cannot represent the interests of
Plaintiff in this Court, even if he is an officer of the corporation. See Pension Tr. Fund for
Patent Owner is representing himself 'pro se" and cannot afford an attorney.
Appellant and Patent Owner Patrick Zuili is an individual, (an inventor, not a patent
troll, not an attomey), and is a subject technology expert with its principal place of
residence in Palm Beach County Florida.
Defendant ALPHABET INC., (known as Google) is a Delaware corporation with
its principal place of business at 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA
94043.
26
Case: 17-2161 Filed 09/22/20 17
iii. CBM Petitions brought by Google and Big Tech Boys like Amazon are
often ruled in favor of them by Patent Judges (" APJ"). If at least one
APJ decide to change the path of the non-final decision against that
Petitioner, were they ostracized by the Michelle Lee administration?
Michelle Lee's involvement policy in the selection of APJs focuses on
selecting judges from at least two different lists such as judges from:
A-List judges will highly likely implement a CBM ruling basicaJly
"doing the heavy lifting" for Michelle Lee
and
B-List judges with more fairness less likely to implement a CBM ruling.
Lists are compiled based on how Judges voted in past proceedings. It must
have been quite easy to rig a trial [Appx509] using those kinds of lists for Michelle
Lee was playing in favor of Google. No wonder why Michelle Lee was "THE"
prime candidate of choice for the USPTO nomination.
Google has named Patrick Zuili as a "Conspiracy Theorist". But in reality Who
is the real conspiracy theorist?
27
Case: 17-2161 Filed 09/22/201 7
Is the nomination of Michelle Lee as USPTO's Director or even Marissa
Meyer ("Googirl") applying for becoming CEO at Yahoo were pure products
of Google's pernicious intelligence?
Mayer, sometimes referred to as the " certainly has

charted her own course. often weaving seemingly disparate
worlds and interests together_
Raised In Wausau. Wisconsin, the 37-year-old joined Google in

1999 when it was a fledgling start-up, not an Internet titan She
danced In "The Nutcracker" ballet at Stanford and earned a
degree In computer science She espouses a love for cupcakes
-- but, according to interviews with other news organizations.
once created a spreadsheet to determine the perfect recipe
http://edition.cnn.com/20 12/07/16/tech/web/marissa-mayer-bio/index.html
Google actively lobbied and convinced fonner President Obama for
implementing deep changes in patent laws mostly in Google's own financial interest
such as implementing AMERICA INVENTS ACT [THE BIGGEST ATTEMPT
BY A U.S. ADMINISTRATION TO DEMONETIZE INNOVATION] and
nominate Michelle Lee as USPTO Director and the opening of USPTO branch
Office near Google headquarters to bring more convenience to Michelle Lee from
Google's working place to the new Silicon Valley USPTO branch.
28
Case: 17-2161 Filed 09/22/2017
-_...
.........
jiiil v!oUS.lU15
Whv was Michelle Lee nomination so important for Google?
Eliminating almost all major patent pending infringement lawsuits against Google
by inventors was successfully achieved when Obama appointed Michelle Lee as
USPTO's Director. White House logs show that Google had ''unrivaled access" to
the Obama administration with Google representatives attending 427 meetings in
the White House from the time Obama took office, on Jan. 20, 2009 until October
2015 - a meeting every 5.8 days - more than once a week - averaging one meeting
every 4.1 working days.
Google was loaded with hundreds of patents infringement lawsuits and badly
wanted to rid to get of those lawsuits, for which Michelle Lee also vowed. Of course,
Google will deny any collusion between Google and Michelle Lee but who will
believe them?
29
Case: 17-2161 Filed 09/22/2017
PTAB has said in one of its rulings that it has no authority over Michelle Lee
to ask her any questions in the relation to financial involvement with Google.
Strange behavior even joumalists working for any publication are required to
disclose any stock ownership. But for Lee, after spending 10 years at Google then
Michelle Lee engaged in such unacceptable behavior ofpu1ling at the PTAB, strings
in the background in favor of Google. Why not mandatorily request her to disclose
if she had possessed any holdings in Google shares while she was working at
USPTO? Why not ask her under oath if her nomination [lobbied by Google] was
not part of a conspiracy in favor of Google? Apart from Michelle Lee, every
member of her family should also be willing to disclose any amount in U.S dollars,
or any other currency including any crypto currencies or any holdings in Google's
shares or in any derivative instruments including options, warrants, or instruments
linked directly or indirectly to the underlying trading of Google stock, including
option and warrant of any other corporation that Google or Michelle Lee or her
family may have directly or indirectly a stake on it.
For Silicon Valley, no doubts Michelle Lee did a "great job" for
implementing a transitional program to invalidate patents that by law will CEASE
in 2020, just the time Google needed to eradicate patents that have been the sources
30
Case: 17-2161 Filed 09/22/2017
1
of various patent infringement lawsuits against Google.
DOES GOOCiLE'S MICHELLE LEE

WORK FOR BOTH COOGLE AND THE
U.S. PATENT OFFICE AT THE
SAME TIM E?
DOES GOOOLE'S MICHELLE LEE WORK FOR BOTH

GOOGLE AND THE U.S. PATENT OFFICE AT THE
SAME TIME?
Tech Companies like eBay, Cisco, Facebook, Apple, Amazon, and other few
did express a lot of regret and praise after learning the resignation of Michelle Lee
from her position of USPTO Director in June 2017. A handful of those companies
lead by Google were able to wipe out more than a trillion of dollars combined.
Should Michelle Lee be appointed as a Judge in California? Hopefully not.
An article in IP Watchdo2: shows that Michelle Lee aspires to be a Federal Judge
https://atvmdoe. wordpress.com/20 16/04/06/does-googles-michelie-lee-work-

for-both-google-and-the-u-s-patent-office-at-the-same-time/
31
Case: 17-2161 Filed 09/22/2017
pre ferably in California 1where Google has lobbied heavily and where she will
probably continue to fleece inventors and to make Google stealing other inventor' s
technology like with APPELLANT.
Lee has since

put roots down in the Greater Washington, DC area, which has lead some to speculate that
she may be making herself available in the event that an opening comes up on the United
States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Others have speculated that Lee will move into
some open position either at the Department of Commerce or the White House, perhaps in
the Office of Science and Technology Policy {OSTP). More recent information, however,
suggest that Lee is one of several people under consideration for a position as Deputy United
States Trade Representative (USTR), which carries with it the rank of Ambassador. Of course, a
position at USTR in OSTP would not preclude her being available in the event a judgeship
opens on the Federal Circuit.
Judge Lee was selected by Michelle Lee for '667 and '763 patents after the
Judge White was assigned the '057 patent first. Appellant noticed during a
telephone conference that when Judge White was ready to acknowledge some point
of view with the Patent owner. her voice audio was turned-off in a middle of a
sentence as if she was prevented [probably by Judge Lee] to intervene to say
something that could technically have hurt Google in the 057 proceeding. Jameson
Lee was not on the same panel as Stacey White but did influence Judge White.
1
http://www.ipwatchdog.com/20 17/03/30/breaking-commerce-secretary-wilbur-
ross-interviews-candidates-uspto-director/id=8l533/
32
Case: 17-2161 Filed 09/22/2017
Judge White and Lee were on the same front cover when communicating with
Appellant.
Michelle Lee knew too well mechanism of the PTAB she helped to build. She
knew that two judges thinking like her on the same Board would have looked
"obviously rigged" for that reason she selected two powerful judges having a proven
capacity at influencing their peers, and by placing those two friendly judges on two
separate Boards, it was highly likely that all final decisions will match each other.
33
Case: 17-2161 Filed 09/22/201 7
MAKING THEIR MARK

About 80 judges have done the heavy lifting so far on AlA post~grant proceedings.
Here's what the early data shows:
MOST CASES
Most participations in decisions to institute and final written decisions
Chang,Joni 259
~.Jameson 12~2. Medley, Sally 64
Turner, Kevin 219 Bisk, Jennifer 54
Medley. Sally 186 Chang. Joni 53
Bisk, Jl!flnifer 167 Tierney, Michael 53
McNamara, Brian 158 Arbes, Jus1in 46
[ astluHn,JS,itrf ~3- McNamara, Brian 46
Zecher, Michael 144 Giannetti, Thomas 44
r~aney, Michael 142 Kim, Michael 37
Arbes, Justin 140 Zecher, Michael 34
HIGHEST LOWEST
CANCELLATION RATE CANCELLATION RATE
on some or all claims on some or all claims
Blankenship, Howard 100% Green, lora 69%

Cocks, Josiah 100% Quinn, Miriam 75%
Deshpande, Kaylan 100% Bisk, Jennifer 76%
Fitzpatrick, Michael 100% Yang, Zhenyu 76%
Medley, Sally 100% Moore, Bryan n%
Parvis, Barbara 100% Anderson, Gregg 81%
Siu, Stephen 100% Prats, Francisco 81%
Snedden, Sheridan Tumer, Kevin 82%
~~. f5arl Arbes. Justin 85%
Pettigrew, lynne 97% Tiemey, Michael 85%
S:JUrce Dor.i'.et Alarm data, a:: ol July 2015
34
Case: 17-2161 Filed 09/22/2017
"USPTO admits to stacking PTAB panels to achieve

desired outcomes" [Appx509]
http://www. ipwatchdog.com/20 I 7/08/23/uspto-admits-stacking-ptab-panels-
achieve-desired-outcomes/
A Director who bends the rules: to attenuate strong suspicion of collusion
Michelle Lee selected one Judge out of the six, Judge Miriam Quinn is known
for her principles of Justice and Fairness. Interestingly, Judge Quinn's name was
simply removed [for an unknown reason] at several instances on telephone
conference and paper communication with Patent Owner. This allowing Judge
Jameson Lee actively influencing the other four Board Members of both Boards.
Would Google stimulate or reward Jameson Lee or any of those people to work
as a partner at Fenwick for their increased performance in their track record
at "PATENT DEMONETIZATION"?
t \ k.
FetMll~vtft /1 '~ II
. ''. .I I .
,,. . 1
'
. "
'.'.
. .
I
llrll"l,. Pl hhr ..llrJfl~
Administrative Patent judges: Not Your Authors

Typical Federal Judge [ffi!'o!IPr R. 6u~h
lntelleuull Pu~~eny
Bt Jrnnlfc It ElL. july 10, 2014
35
Case: 17-2161 Filed 09/22/2017
A sampling of a few of the administrative patent judges with the highest caseloads
appears to be representative. Of five of the judges with the greatest number of trials
docketed to them. two are experienced judges well-known to the interference bar. with
more than 10 years experience in inter partes matters at the board: jameson Lee and
Sally c. Medley.
I Addendum)
Does this "meddling" [interference] sound "right" to the Fed. Cir.?
Michelle Lee worked for Fenwick. Google is a big client at Fenwick. Fenwick
has been praising "Jameson Lee" or ~'Sally C. Medley" publicly on Fenwick
website. 1Judge Jameson Lee has the highest number of decisions to cancel
patents. Judge Medley 11 OOo/o each time] has highest cancellation rate on some
or all claims.
For Michelle Lee, a good Judge is loaded with partiality and lack of
equanimity.
Is Justice can be served for all when the thieves win over the victims?
Thanks to Google's lack of ethics, with insolence, to say the least, Google has
become the dominant force and has eclipsed Yahoo completely. [Overture sued
Google for patent infringement in April 2002]. Google alone collects around $200
1
https://www.fenwick.com/publications/pages/administrative-patent-judges-not-
your-tvpica 1-federal-judge.aspx
36
Case: 17-2161 Filed 09/22/2017
million each day from advertisers. If you do everything right you have nothing
to hide. Google constantly needs intensified cooperation from groups or
politicians to prevent ANY SERIOUS GOVERNEMENT INITIATIVE of
verification deep inside its billing practices.
a. GOOGLE STOLE OVERTURE TECHNOLOGY AND GOT SUED BY
YAHOO FOR STEALING IT.
In July 200 I, the US patent office issued Overture Inc. a patent 6,269,361
also known as the '361 patent covering the mechanism of online advertising which
was bad news for Google since it threatened Google's core business modeL It was
imperative for Google who created his first release of AdWords '"BUSINESS
MODEL'' on October 23, 2000, to have access to the '361 patent, but for Eric
Schmidt, it was out of the question to pay royalties and Google immediately rejected
the notion to negotiate a satisfactory licensing agreement with Overture.
Google is using the same approach with invalid click detection Patents
rejecting the idea to pay royalties to the patent owner. Google reluctantly agreed in
settling the suit and agreed to give Yahoo 2. 7 million shares of the preferred Class
37
Case: 17-2161 Filed 09/22/20 17
A shares 1in exchange for a permanent license to use the Overture business of paid
advertising model patent pioneered by Goto.com and Overture.
b. $500 MILLION FINE BECAUSE GOOGLE ILLEGAL INVOLVEMENT

WITH ONLINE PHARMACIES
Google did not have second thoughts lying in 2011 when it blatantly lied
to US authorities. Google was fined $500 million for lying to the US authorities.
The heavy Google lobbying had paid off and again thanks to former
President Obama that the Justice Department had entered into a non-prosecution
agreement with Google.
1
https://www.law360.com/ip/articlesll 925/!!oogle-to-pay-at-least-300m-in-stock-
to-settle-yahoo-patent-suit
38
Case: 17-2161 Filed 09/22/2017
Behind Google's $500 Million Settlement With U.S.

B)' PETER J. HENNING AUGUST 30 2011 9 30 AM 28
The Justice Department's settlement of

a criminal investigation of Google for
allmdng Canadian pharmacies to
advertise drugs for distnbution in the
United States reflected an effort by
prosecutors to e)..1:end the reach of
federal drug laws. This may present
future challenges to Internet search
companies o\er their advertisements.
Google entered into a nonprosecution

agreement with the government last
week 0\er the use of its AdWords Joe G1b!n/ Assom;ted Pre.1sThe
program by canadian pharmacies that imestigation was led b~ the U.S
helped them sell prescription drugs in attorney's office for the District of
the United States in violation of a Rhode Island, headed by Peter
Neronha. and the FDA s Office of
federal law: 21 U.S.C. 331(a). TI1at
Criminal Investigations
law prohibits causing the "introduction
or delivery for introduction into
interstate commerce of any food, drug, de,ice, tobacco product, or
cosmetic that is adulterated or misbranded."
llttps:/ /dea lbook.nytimes.com/20 11/08/30/behind-googles-500-mi Ilion-settlement-

1
with-u-s/
c. LANE'S GIFT & COLLECTIBLES LAWSUIT. CLICK FRAUD. GOOGLE

WAS A DEFENDANT. $90 MILLION SETTLEMENT.
Google was i11ega11y charging for invalid clicks to their clients for which
Google got caught and agreed to a very smooth settlement for a total amount of $90
million in 2006 with other online advertisers. [Lane's Gift & Collectibles Lawsuit].
$90 million SETTLEMENT was a very comfortable and advantageous
settlement after Google generated $4 billion in revenues between 2005/2006 where
39
Case: 17-2161 Filed 09/22/2017
potentially 50-60% billing was done to clients for clicks that were invalid according
to multiple press reports and a landmark BusinessWeek article. TODAY, no other
company is able to COLLECT so much money [$200 million a day].
Google with its inherent opacity [how it really bills clients] has a worldwide
recognized expertise with a keen ability to often refund just a tiny fraction of the
100% merchant's prejudice. Of course, Google is never part of any fraud and this
overbilling, is not Google fault but due to complex technical matters to identify
entities generating invalid clicks. Despite all those technical obstacles Google kept
growing from $4 billion in [legitimate clicks?] 2004 close to $1 00 billion [legitimate
clicks?] in 2017. Google again itself admitted recently that it was charging clients
for fake clicks and now plans to issue a very partial refund [credit vouchers] as we
have seen it in the past 1 but more likely it will be a fraction of what clients are really
looking for to be refunded.
Google Issuing Refunds lo Advertisers Over Fake Traffic, Plans

Nc\\' Safeguard
Some adver11sers quest1on level of refunds, want more details about fraudulent traffic
Addendum [Appx5 141
1
h ttps://www. wsj .com/articles/google-issuing-refunds-to-advertisers-over-fake-
traffic-plans-new-safeguard-1503675395
40
Case:Case:
17-2161 Page: 41 09/22/2017
IT IS UNACCEPTABLE FOR ANY GOVERNMENT NOT TO CALL A FULL
INQUIRY ON GOOGLE BILLING PRACTICES AND GET THE BOTTOM OF
THIS ISSUE.
Those patents solve a technical problem of invalid clicks which existed long before
the priority date of'667-763-057 patents and due to which Google got fined in Class
Action Lanes Gifts and Collectibles lawsuit.
d. GOOGLE FINED A RECORD 2.4 BILLION BY THE EU FOR
MANIPULATING SEARCH RESULTS TO PROMOTE GOOGLE OWN
PRODUCTS 1
Google has been hit with a record-breaking 2.42 billion ($2.7 billion) fine by the European
Union for breaking antitrust law. The decision follows a seven-year investigation into the US
company's search algorithms, which ended with the judgement that Google had "abused its
dominant position by systematically favoring"' its own shopping comparison service. Today's
fine is the largest antitrust judgement handed out by the executive body of the EU, the
European Commission, topping a 1 billion penalty given to Intel in 2009.
I. INTRODUCTION
As clearly described inside Mandamus Writ 20 I 7-10], (Fed. Cir. 20 I 6){ TA \s
"Mandamus Writ 201 7- I 01, (Fed. Cir. 20 16)" } [Appx42l Google' s counsel
1
https://www.theverge.com/20 17/6/27/15872354/goog]e-eu-fine-antitrust-
shopping
41
Case: 17-2161 Filed 09/22/201 7
presented tampered exhibits [Appx58] and a biased testimony of Stephen Gray
whose report was in great part baseless. if not absurd and which did not even deter
PTAB to give a ruling in favor of Google [Appxl, Final Decision]. PTAB
authorized Google to present a new set of exhibits to cure patent owner's objections.
Even after filing new exhibits, Google could not hide its tampering activity with the
evidence but in fact presented AGAIN false exhibits (containing misleading
information). Again, the false information in the exhibits was promptly detected by
the patent owner but PTAB was continuously in a standstill position and continued
to ignore Patent Owner repeated requests to dismiss thwarted proceedings.
Fed. Cir. should draw their fresh attention towards the Fig.1 ofGoogle's own
patent Application Number "US20070 129999" titled "Fraud detection in web-based
advertising" which was filed on November 18, 2005, much after the effective filing
priority date of the three Patents. See Fig. 1. It clearly shows that Fraud Analyst 110
is a separate module which has to do nothing with the Advertiser or any Advertising
System/ PPC System. This blatantly shows that detecting invalid clicks is a distinct
function than invoicing clients. See Figure below from '999 Patent application.
42
Case: 17-2161 Filed 09/22/2017
Adverti&ing
Advertiser Fraud System
System
~ lli
1Q!
t 1
Web Server Fraud Analyst
1M 1tQ
Fig. 1
PTAB erred completely when it concluded that a claim for "identifying
invalid clicks" was directed to a covered business method and 'mouse clicks can be
financial transactions" [Appxl4]. Clicking is an activity which is performed by
humans as a part of their daily routine at an average of 428 clicks a day or 156,220
clicks a year when they either work or play on computer devices. They click to
select, to text, to edit, to design, to play games, to click on a link etc.
According to Professor Fenian at Cornell University the average person
makes about 428 clicks a day from his/her computer or smartphone device.
How many of those 156,220 clicks are financial transactions?
Obviously, Board Panel of Judge White was not aware that each of us has
been clicking 156,220 clicks per year otherwise she probably would
not have associated mouse "clicks to financial transactions when half
43
Case:Case:
17-2161
17-2161Document: 23 Page: 44 09/22/2017
of the people don't know the difference if they are clicking on
sponsored links or organic links.
S3!:mlay, A;JJil2:>, 2011
That click
We dick, fur the rest ol our lives Our generation re~olves mound le<:hnoio!Jy and almost (l;ery single day wo at least dick unw m
morP. WP. dick In check nut e:llilils. \'le dick In si!Jn in, ~nd \'/e click In do oa!:ne tests Tnclmology ill its fine5t Physir.ill luhor doing
such tasks arc yoiny ubsolctr.. <~nd to Hria~. I c:xpc;icnced that not :oo lony ayu On an average, a person makes about 428 dicks per
day or more done by a research from Prot. Fenian at Cornell University. So in a week there will be 2,996 clicks, in a month there will be
12,840 c6cks. and in a year 156,220. Just !he thought of dicking comes so natural to us. We r.nmr! :Jcro5" :1 mousn or a l:1plnp, what tin
we do'J We dick No muller ho;:n1uch we sit iu front of our ccmpu!~r o: how much we nrc outside. we \'Jill still he eliding in some fo;rn
or in some \'tJy We click to he lrfi!nds. we dick to read hreal..ing ne~;s, \'IC dick to post our daily hlo!JS You see onlme rei<Jtior.ships
h;Jppenin(J, anrl it is :1!1 hncm1so of lhat pr.rson clicking subm!t profile" on ,ln online d;]t;n~ sito It hilppcnod hf!CiJIISI' o! <1 slmplc dick
Clicking hus rnallc iJirnosl cv1:ry sinylc known o:1line <Jc.tivity possible We wiil dick for the rest of our ~ves The questiun i5 wf:cn will
this par.demic h<Jit. Jnd let us live om clu)'S witho:Jt di<:kin!fl
RESEARCH BY PROFESSOR fENIAN AT CORNELL UNIVERSITY
Merchants are powerless even if Google cheats a lot. The only option is that
the merchant has to cut his spending limit in half and evaluate what happens.
Tracking of fake clicks are done by Zuili Patents and the same is reported to search
engine advertising platform. Therefore, an entity clicking on a hyperlink is not
undergoing any financial activity, and for that reason, there is a strong ..attenuated
relationship" between clicks reported in the Zuili patent claims and the financial
activity of the search engine's advertising platform.
44
Case: 17-2161 Filed 09/22/2017
~ ~ News > Do 50% of adu~s realty not recognise ads in search resu~s?
Do 50/o of adults really not recognise ads in search results?

11m - E1iiJ 27 Apr 16 I Graham Charlton
0 l!iij.fj,j 519 G+ Share 80
Around half of adults are unable to recognise ads in Goog le's search results, according to
a survey.
This surprising stattstic comes from Ofcoms Adults' media use and attitudes report released this
month
While I ve seen stud es suggesting that many people don't know the difference between paid and
organic ads. that 50% could look at a set of results like those below and still not spot them seems
bizarre
Addendum
https://searchenginewatch.conl/20 16/04/2 7/do-50-of-adults-really-not-
recognise-ads-in-search-results/
a) Zuili Patents are detecting the Entities which are generating clicks or invalid clicks
by clicking on the merchant's ad link displayed by Google. These entities are NOT
paid by Google. No financial transaction occurs between the malicious entity
clicking on a Google's link and Google.
b) Merchants which have an account with the advertising platfonn of the search engine
are not paying the entity clicking on Merchant's link or getting paid by that entity.
c) A financial transaction mav occasionally occw between Google and the Merchant
who has an account with Google's PPCS. Fed. Cir. can be completely certain that
45
Case: 17-2161 Filed 09/22/2017
such unwarranted transaction was not potentially caused by any of the Zuili
detection system's claims.
t. Zuili patents are detecting "Users and Invalid clicks", therefore, the 667-763-057
respectively are there for improving quality of service offered by PPCS. The Zuili
Patents are not billing invalid clicks, Google does. Patented technology operating
for bringing 'Fairness and Honesty" in various working environments and detecting
fraudulent activity in a search engine or for the voting system must never be
considered as covered business methods.
(a) Does Google get an incentive to give any financial value to any invalid clicks?
(b) Being charged for invalid clicks by an advertising platfon11 is like the online apple
merchant knowingly aware that he is selling repeatedly minute after minute a lot of
apples with a wonn inside.
(c) Zuili 's patents are there to detect invalid clicks, would Fed. Cir. attributes blame to
the Zuili's patents or rather to the advertising operator knowingly detecting invalid
clicks with the 667-763-057 technology and then a few hours later illegally billing
those invalid clicks to clients with a payment technology not covered in the Zuili's
patents?
(d) Who is accountable here for the action of billing invalid clicks?
(e) Is it FRAUD or a FINANCIAL TRANSACTION?
46
Case: 17-2161 Filed 09/22/20 I 7
(f) Overture technology or other patents claim to bill clients, not Zuili click detection
patents.
Detecting apples with wom1s and invalid clicks in order to prevent search engine
advertising platform to illegally billed merchants for services not performed by
the advertising platform does not constitute a financial activity.
Invalid clicks are billed to merchants by the advertising operator,
Inventor Zuili patented technology has an ''advisory function" to Google AND
not a "billing function". It is always the advertising search engine operator
which roughly six hours later after receiving the feed, is billing merchants.
WOULD THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT CONSIDER THE WORM

INSIDE THE ORGANIC APPLE TO REPRESENT AN INCREMENTAL,
AN INCIDENTAL OR A COMPLEMENTARY REVENUE FOR THE
APPLE PRODUCER?
WOULD THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT CONSIDER AN INVALID

CLICK TO BE A "FINANCIAL PRODUCT"?
OR BILLING OVER A PERIOD OF TIME OF ''BILLIONS OF

DOLLARS" FOR INVALID CLICKS TO CLIENTS OF THE SEARCH
ENGINE PAY-PER-CLICK COMPANY IS:
t. A "BUSINESS MISTAKE"
11. A "TECHNICAL'' MISTAKE
111. AN "ILLEGAL ACT"
IV. A "CRIMINAL ACT",
47
Case: 17-2161 Filed 09/22/2017
v. AN '"INCREMENTAL, COMPLEMENTARY OR INCIDENTAL REVENUE"
vt. A '"FAIR BUSINESS PRACTICE"
a. Google created an infrastructure titled "Oualitv Team" in June 2003 to handle
the click fraud problem but why three years later in 2006 Google settled a click
fraud lawsuit after having illegally and allegedly charged clients billions of
dollars as if the ''quality team" created in June 2003 never existed.
Google itself established the "Click Quality Team" in the Spring of2003, which
was responsible for developing the whole infrastructure for detecting and removing
invalid clicks as disclosed by Dr. Tuzhilin Report. The '"Click Quality Team" was
a technical team building "whole infrastructure" and therefore, not a Business
Team. The creation of an "infrastructure" means a lot more than an obvious idea.
As explained previously, illegitimate or invalid clicks do not represent any
FINANCIAL OR COMMERCIAL TRANSACTION [invalid click should never
carry any commercial value otherwise it will be like robbing clients] but rather a
technical problem that needs to be seriously addressed. Therefore, CBM eligible
status is biased and should legitimately be overturned by the Fed. Cir.
48
Case: 17-2161
7
Since its establishment in the Spring and Summer of 2003 the Click Quality team has
been developing an infrastructure for detecting and removing invalid clicks and
implementing various methods in the four detection stages described above. CuiTently.
they reached a consolidation phase in their efforts. when their methods work reasonably
well. the invalid click detection problem is under control.'' and the Click Quality team is
fme-nming these methods. There is no hard data that can acnmlly prove this statement.
However. indirect evidence provided in this report supports this conclusion with a
moderate degree of certainty. The Click Quality team also realizes that battling click
fraud is an arms race, and it wants to stay "ahead of the cmveH and get ready for more
advanced forms of click fraud by developing the next generation of online filters.
DR. TUZHILIN REPORT ON GOOGLE'S CLICK QUALITY TEAM 1
Appellant never found in Dr. Tuzhilin 's report that Google Quality Team attempted
even once to count invalid clicks with a clock on the wall, a pen, and paper. The
fact that Google fonned a click quality team in 2003 and then they get caught in
2006, confinns that the quality team was operating in tum-off mode to charge fake
clicks. What was the purpose ofhaving a quality team if3 years later, 50% of fake
clicks were i1legitimately billed to clients of the PPC company? Is the Click Quality
team giving the impression to Google merchants that Google does something to
fight click fraud when in fact Google is getting richer year after year by billing its
valuable clients for fake clicks?
Below link is a compilation of Google press releases in the relation to click fraud,
IAppx277], which includes the creation of the infrastructure and a team of
1
https ://googleblog. blogspot. in/pd f/Tuzhil in Report. pdf
49
Case:Case:
17-2161
17-2161Document: 23 Page: 50 09/22/201
7
developers in charge of the "Click Quality" in Spring 2003. Three years later Google
settled click fraud lawsuit in Arkansas as if the Click Quality Team created in June
2003 by Google failed to detect invalid c1icks in 2006 or rather enjoyed the biJling
of merchants for services not perfonned by Googlel.
[The whole infrastructure filled with Google's employees are not detecting invalid
c1icks with plenty of clocks in alJ the walls, pencils and a lot of paper sheets]
http://web.archive.org/web/20071 009035313/http://bloe:s.reuters.com/blog/2006/0
7/22/the-google-cl ick-fraud-saga/
Differences between USPTO v. PTAB?
PTAB found the claims ineligible for the three patents under { TA \1 "35 U.S.C
101" \s "35 U.S.C 101" \c 2} 35 U.S.C. 101 { TA \s "35 U.S.C. 101"} and
obvious under 35 U.S.C. 103 { TA \1 "35 U.S.C. 103" \s "35 U.S.C. I 03" \c 2
}. Coogle, Inc. v. Zuili, CBM2016-00008/00021/00022 { TA \1 "Coogle, Inc. v.
Zuili, CBM20 16-00008/00021/00022" \s "Google, Inc. v. Zuili, CBM2016-
00008/00021/00022" \c 1 }, Paper No. 56 and 48 (Appx37 Appx283, Appx406).
Federal Circuit should see the patent issue notification [Appx 124, Appx375,
Appx495] of the three patents which were issued after enactment of AlA to Patrick
Zuili.
It would show to the Federal Circuit that the issue of Abstract Idea or 35 U.S.C.
lOI{TA \s "35 U.S.C. 101"} and obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103{TA \s
50
Case: 17-2161 Filed 09/22/201 7
"35 U.S.C. 103" } was not raised during communications between pnmary
examiners and Inventor.
b. Examining a difference is not merely subtraction.
By measuring the number of clicks from a user in a given time period, the system
can automatically detem1ine invalid clicks after examining the difference between
clicks. Examining a difference is not merely a subtraction and reducing the '667-
763-057 patent technology as a subtraction between clicks is not totally wrong but
also misleading and would not reflect what the technology of '667-763-057 patents.
There is a fundamental difference between the word '"examine" and "subtraction".
By examining, the system takes into account all the encoded codes, time of click,
network information and then examines to find out the difference between clicks.
The system has to first identify which two clicks, it wants to examine and then only
a detennination can be made about which are the invalid clicks.
II. ARGUMENT
The three patents are in-fact related to the monitoring of "quality" of web-
traffic with an emphasis on ''fake traffic" with search engine on a server side
interacting [interacting: sending and receiving] with clients [clients: users] or
[clients: participants] or [clients: entities] or [clients: customers] who click on links
presented to them by the server on their device, [device: computer, smartphone,
etc .. ] after the client makes a request for information about a particular subject of
51
Case: 17-2161 Filed 09/22/2017
interest. The search engine which is "free to use" by all entities. The search engine
is a website receiving keyword requests from search engine's clients or users over
a communication network (i.e. internet) [on the client side]. Search is perfonned
with the help ofHkeywords" having at least one word or a "'group of words".
PTAB: Mouse clicks could lead to financial transactions" [Appx13]
Advertising platforms host merchants/advertisers looking to display ''sponsored
links" for a particular keyword on a search engine. The search engine displays two
kinds of links, either organic links or sponsored links[ advertising]. The participant
or entity has the choice to either click or not click on the "'sponsored link". The
entity is identified by the 667-763-057 whether it makes a click or not. None of the
entities or participants are getting a fee from Google or merchant to be on the search
engine and click on links. Whichever link is being clicked upon, either organic or
sponsored link, it is for sure that the search engine's client or user is not charged
with a single penny because the ENTITY OR USER clicked on a sponsored link.
The whole spectrum and scope of the three patents are allowing PPCS operators to
identify users even before click fraud has occurred or not and thereafter identify
invalid clicks if any. This process of identification does not constitute a financial
transaction at all.
52
Case: 17-2161 Filed 09/22/2017
a. TECHNOLOGY EXPERTS SUCH AS PTAB JUDGES GOT SWAY TO
GOOGLE SIDE AND MICHELLE LEE SO MUCH, UNABLE TO MAKE
THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE CONTEXT OR ENVIRONMENT
OF A PAY-PER-CLICK SYSTEM APPLICATION RUNNING AND THE
INVALID CLICK DETECTION SYSTEM USING THAT PPCS
ENVIRONMENT IN ORDER TO CREATE ITS OWN FEED.
Board of '667 patent argues that the recitation of a Hpay-per-click system" in
the preamble of claim 1 is limiting because it is necessary to give life, meaning, and
vitality to the subject matter of claim 1 [Appx296]. In Par Pharm., Inc. v. Jazz
Phann., Inc., Case Nos. CBM2014-00149, -0150,-0151 and -0153 (PTAB, Jan. 13,
2015){ TA \I "Par Pharm., Inc. v. Jazz Phann., Inc., Case Nos. CBM2014-00149,-
0150, -0151 and -0153 (PTAB, Jan. 13, 20 15)" \s "Par Phann., Inc. v. Jazz Phann.,
Inc., Case Nos. CBM2014-00149, -0150,-0151 and -0153 (PTAB, Jan. 13, 2015)"
\c I } (Murphy, APJ), Board stated that preamble phrase is not necessary to give
life, meaning and vitality to the claims, contrary to what the '667-763-057 Board
said.
The preamble phrase Hdistributing a prescription dn1g" is not a substantive

lS
claiiulinlitation because it is not "necessaty to give life~ meaning, and

vitality'' to the claiins. Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d
1298, 1305 (Fed. Cir. 1999)(citations omitted). All steps necessary to
execute the method are recited in the body of the claiin.
53
Case: 17-2161 Filed 09/22/2017
Board(s) said: that the arguments given by Patent Owner do not aid in Patent
Owner's assertion that the three patents do not satisfy the financial product or
service requirement ofthe statutory d~finition ofa covered business method patent,
because board has focused specifically on the subject matter ofclaim 1 [Appx299].
This argument is flawed. Board is focusing everywhere in the patent's specification,
abstract, title, background, and field of the invention but not on the subject matter
of claim 1. As explained above, the pay-per-click system is specifically recited in
the preamble of claim 1 as an application environment. Therefore, the pay-per-click
system should be treated only as an environment. (Unwired Planet LCC vs Google
Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2016){ TA \s "Unwired Planet LCC vs Google Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2016)"
}).
The Board disagrees with Petitioner's argument that claim 1 is financial in
nature because it recites advertising IAppxlO] but at the same time incorrectly
agrees with the other statement of the petitioner that claim 1 of '057 patent recites
clicks which are financial transactions IAppxlO].
[In Travelocity .com LP v. Cronos Technologies, LLC, CBM20 14-00082 { T A \s
"Travelocity.com LP v. Cronos Technologies, LLC, CBM2014-00082" }, describes
e-commerce related activities], but Board did not institute any CBM . See more at
page 74.
54
Case: 17-2161 Filed 09/22/2017
FIG. 2
http://www.google.com/patents/US566411 0
The specific purpose of the Zuili click detection patents is to first identify the
entities or internet users that are presented with the link by search engine server,
after making a keyword specific search request, even before the entities or internet
users have clicked on the link. The technology relates to providing on-the-fly
reporting to the search engine advertising platform about all bad clicks which are
identified almost immediately by the three patents.
The Publication date of the '057 patent is March 11 111 , 2014 which is after the
enactment of AlA. The primary examiner in its prosecution never mentioned that
'057 patent is a CBM patent. The three patents are just reporting monitoring traffic
quality and the quality of clicks.
55
Case: 17-2161 Filed 09/22/2017
Board incorrectly concluded by getting mislead with Petitioner's assertion that
the challenged claims are directed to the abstract idea of'~detecting fraud based on
the time between two requests by the same client." [Appx311] This conclusion is
absolutely an over-generalization and over-simplification of the claimed subject
matter. Claim I recites detecting fraudulent activity by measuring the duration
between clicks by said client to said selected web site by examining said code and
website infonnation.
Board quoted a summary portion of the specification of the '667 patent and
concluded that the summary discloses no specific improvement in any underlying
technology, hardware or software, but merely invokes generic processes and
machinery, as do the claims [Appx312]. Patent Owner argues that summary portion
generally provide an overview of the patent in short and that is why it is called as a
summary. Board has not properly read the detailed description portion of the
specification of the '667 patent which clearly discloses specific improvements in
detail related to fraud detection in an online environment. "According to this
invention, the search engine generates a code, preferably in the form of a serial
number utilizing a cookie via Active X, Java, JavaScript, or any other type C?f
technology based upon the end-user's Global Unique Identifier (GUID). In
addition, or as an alternative, network cartography may be generated periodically
for each user based upon their use of the search engine 102." "The code (e.g., a
56
Case: 17-2161 Filed 09/22/20 17
serial number) generated by the search engine along path 105 is concatenated with
the result along path 104 through XML link 110. Given the serial number provided
through the cookie, this allows the concatenation to occur through firewalls and
other devices which may othenvise block the transmission as unauthorized."
''According to the invention, a legitimate serial number may be generated in
different ways, including the first use of a different user having a unique IP address,
or, if multiple requests are made by the same user, they may be considered
legitimate if they are sufficiently spaced apart in time to be indicative of a legitimate
as opposed to fraudulent access to the website 122."
57
Case: 17-2161 Filed 09/22/2017
Cllet< USAGE
PAY PER CLICK
~
~
SEARCH OONE WRITE
A SfRW. NUflf8R
OH TliE COOI<IE VIA
~~JA~~~
DlD UQR GUID. ORlAND
NETWORK CARTOGRAPHY
Q(H[RATED MOOr.AUY
fOR EAOt USR ON EACH
WRCH EHGINE
FIG.l
Fig. I inside the Zuili Patents is disclosing not only the click fraud detection
system but also the complete environment (not claiming the environment) i.e. search
engine and advertising platfonn including the internet where the Zuili technology
of dick fraud detection is independently being applied in this environment. To apply
this principle, Appellant never claimed a search engine or an advertising platform
or a pay-per-click system or even an invoicing system even if those three elements
are mentioned inside Fig. I. in order to explain where that technology system is
58
Case: 17-2161 Filed 09/22/2017
perfonning. The three patents were issued by the USPTO for the detection of
fraudulent activity in the pay-per-click system and not for a search engine or for
pay-per-click advertising platfonn or any payment processing system.
Appellant's technology is claiming just how to get the identification of
the user (entitv] before user clicks and the detection of click fraud i.e.
identifying invalid clicks if anv, once a click has occurred. Patent Owner is
neither claiming the search engine nor the pay-per-click system and nor the
invoicing module or the firewall of the advertising platform.
Claim 1. The preamble of claim I recites "[a} method for identffying invalid
click(s) ... other web pages associated with a plurality ofmerchants." The preamble
is an essential part of the claim. It gives an example of the contextual environment
to the claim and it is totally wrong for the Board to give any life to any financial
activity to a detection system. Claim I is disclosing an environment described by
the recitation of the word '"merchants" or "'clicks". Describing in the patent a
financial e nvironment does not equate for the patent to undergo a financial activity
inside its claims.
PT AB is mixing outside elements to link to inventor's patents and is
basing its dispossession of inventor rights on an over simplistic vision that
"Clicking on a link is one in which ~~commercial enterprises" profit from by
attaching an '~incremental monetary value" to that act" [Appx13].
59
Case: 17-2161 Filed 09/22/201 7
Patent Owner is legally challenging the Board to show any incremental
monetary value being claimed in claim 1. Moreover, if at any point of time, Board
clicks somewhere on the internet while using their computers, no assurance of any
commercial activity is warranted. Also, the tracking of entities/participants of Zuili
Patents occurs before the click is made and not after a click is made. Because
. participants tracking is happening before the click is made.
Board itself states that they are mindful of the caution that 1imitations should
not be read in from the specification [Appx14], but however, they read the claim
limitations only in light of the specification which is self-contradicting. Board is
again not following the guidelines of Federal Circuit by saying that the '057 patent's
title, abstract, drawings, and written description all place the claims in the context
of a detecting invalid click transactions in web-based advertising [Appx14]. Title,
abstract, drawings and written description are teaching the environment where the
claim 1 can find its utility in view of CAFC decision in Unwired Planet LCC vs
Google Inc. (Fed. Cir. 20 16){ TA \s "Unwired Planet LCC vs Google Inc. (Fed. Cir.
2016)" }.
If by mere inclusion of a working environment in a patent with words such as
"pay-per-click" or '"clicks" makes a patent CBM eligible, then all the patents which
4
has the word ' pay-per-click" or clicks in its description, owned by petitioner Google
should be held null and void at once without any second thought.
60
Case:Case:
17-2161 Page: 61 09/22/20
17
Claim 1 is only talking about invalid clicks and whatever happens with
the valid clicks is not a matter of concern for the Zuili Patents case.
b. Board unethically applied technological invention exception by analyzing
claim 1 with a bias, in bits and pieces just to invalidate the '057-667-763
patents.
Board(s) has analyzed claim elements on a word by word basis like in a
dictionary to incorrectly conclude that claims of the three patents lack novelty.
There is a long-standing technical problem that the invention of the 'three patents
has been designed to solve. When the claim elements of the three patents are viewed
as a combination of whole, it definitely presents a novel concept which has not been
there, at least by the priority date of three patents. Patents describe a technology to
identify origin or source of clicks and then identify invalid clicks. A patent wi11
definitely use a hardware such as a computer or a client device to deploy the
patented technology from the Board(s) is inaccurate to conclude that patent lacks
novelty. Board incorrectly states that "The specification describes each of these
e1ements as existing in the prior art. ... (noting that the user devices could be desktop
or laptop computers, PDAs, smartphone, other internet capable devices)." [Appxl6J
Prior arts cited doesn't disclose each & every element of the claims which is
also written in the specification where the prior arts were cited which the
Board has failed to see.
61
Case: 17-2161 Filed 09/22/2017
Board has applied the doctrine of convenience to achieve the desired outcome
of the CBM petition. Overcharging advertisers for invalid clicks is a business
problem claimed [lied] by Google against the Zuili Patents. Appellant totally
disagrees. Actually, in August 251h 2017 press reports including zerohedge 1 and the
WSJ 2 various reports indicated '"first tacit admission that Google AD Network has
few [technical] protections against fake "'traffic".
PTAB ARGUMENT IS FLAWED.
According to Figure 1, unit 120 is a medium which receives information
regarding click to a website and then identifies invalid clicks made by entities with
malicious intent. Claim 1 itself recites detecting fraudulent activity by measuring
the duration between clicks by said client to said selected web site by examining
said code and website information which definitely constitutes a technical feature.
It does not merely state a goal to be accomplished or a function to be performed but
requires an intermediary system such as unit 120 as shown in Figure 1 for tracking
entities making clicks and then detecting invalid clicks by examining encoded codes
and website infonnation. Therefore, at least claim 1 of the '667 patent is directed
1
http:/1\vww.zerohedge.com/news/2017-08-25/Qoogle-refund-fake-traftic-
advertising-revenue
2
https://www.wsj.com/articles/google-issuing-refunds-to-advertisers-over-fake-
trafftc-plans-new-safeguard-1503675395
62
Case: 17-2161 Filed 09/22/2017
towards solving a technical problem using a technical solution. For the foregoing
reasons, claim 1 as a whole recite a technological feature that is novel and unobvious
over the prior art. Thus, the requirements of the first prong of the technological
invention exception to CBM subject matter eligibility is met and the board is wrong
in its decision.
c. Board applied an illogical Abstract Idea Analysis and none of the Petitioner
arguments prove that claims are directed to patent-ineligible subject matter.
Claims of the three patents are drawn specifically towards the concept of
tracking user entities and thereafter detecting invalid clicks based on the time
between two requests by the same device. First of all, there is a requirement of a
tracking device with respect to each click on the basis of first, second and third code.
After that invalid clicks are detected. The whole process happens in a web-based
environment where [the baseless] pharmacist assumption cannot do anything.
Since Boards agreed on the abstract idea of the petitioner to categorize the
three patents process as something, everybody can do mentally. Federal Circuit will
get a better perspective by using this example [Appx237].
Let's take a pencil and a sheet of paper as well as keeping the exact
position of the clock on the wall and follow the steps provided below.
Let's see how judges perform into memorizing a simple serial ID.
63
Case: 17-2161
Filed 09/22/2017
ai=CmfmOZMpFVPyeJanNsQfy44DYBLzX898DINGdyrwB860GBggAE
A loA 1DR 1pmf- 8BYMmGp4fco5QRoAHg_ 7T8A8gBAaoEik_ Q--
yrxb7i9iqK5R5tA WbbH2wnTGEe84C3Dd2aV2-5gDWAB4iAywOQBwOoB6a-
Gw.
Each judge AFTER ONE SECOND should memorize the following tracking
number
B = ABCDE
With the help of a Pencil, a paper, [clock, pencil, and paper was based on
Google paid witness's example] and the c1ock on the Wall, then concatenate the
value s' to it and provide the result of the concatenation to Patent Owner including
the GMT time (inc1uding seconds) of storing the value and the time of getting the
concatenated value. Nobody can do it, of course, wither users and clicks
occurring at a high frame rate and in real time.
Petitioner's dec1arant, Stephen Gray's any of the testimony should not hold
any water due to the presence of such illogical facts and the fact that the testimony
was prepared to basically become a coordinated response to suit the tastes and need
of Google. The Appellant could not disagree more with PTAB and paid witness
Stephen Gray who has to agree with the attomeys who paid him probably hundreds
of thousands of dollars. Contrary to what Mr. Gray wrote, Appellant knows that it
is humanly NOT feasible to ask someone s brain to process the patented technology
64
Case: 17-2161 Filed 09/22/201 7
and concomitantly remembering continuously all the cookies and encoded codes
without such being any twisted and spoiled basically in a spectrum analyzer mode
and in real time. It would be totally trivial to also believe that generating serial
numbers or other identification information are humanly manageable with a piece
of paper a pencil and a clock.
Therefore, Fed. Cir. should flatly reject categorization of the three patents'
methods as something everybody can do mentally. For the foregoing reasons,
Patent owner argues that each of the challenged claims includes an eligible
"inventive concept," i.e., an element or combination of elements sufficient to ensure
that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent on the abstract
idea itself and Patent owner respectfully submits that all claims recite eligible
subject matter.
Board of Judge Jameson Lee had incorrectly agreed with Google's and Mr. Gray's
flawed arguments that claims 1- 3, 6, I 0, 14, 15, 18, 19, and 21 of '667 patent is
directed to patent-ineligible subject matter [Appx306]. The appellant could not
disagree with it more and respectfu!Jy submits that the claims of the '667 patent
recite a valid subject matter under 35 U.S.C. I 01 { TA \s "U.S.C. I 01" } for at
least the reasons explained below.
65
Case: 17-2161 Filed 09/22/2017
i. Stephen Grey's pharmacist example including implementing the three
patent's technology using pen paper and wall clock is clearlv
unreasonable, arbitrary and fanciful.
The irrelevance Gray's arguments were accepted by PTAB willful blindness.
In real life conditions, a medical prescription is inked by the pharmacy indicating
on the medical prescription document itself brought by the client each time the drug
is served to the client. Phannacy example was taken out of the context of the nature
of the patents and does not hold water. Firstly, this is a shocking display of
ineptitude to compare patients entering a pharmacy at a street corner with an organic
or a sponsored link displayed by a search engine. Codes are sent over a
communication network which is a claim limitation and should not be ignored.
Second, the patient is not sent by someone while on the other hand click is sent or
made by an entity. TI1ird. the patient is required to pay for the drugs while entity
clicking on links is not required to pay or to received money to or from Google for
the clicks made. Fourth, Google's merchants do benefit from a technology
preventing Google to steal money from them while phannacist and c1 ient do not
benefit at all from the same synergies. Claims of three patents are drawn specifically
towards the concept of detecting each entity and invalid clicks via the internet
network based on at least two requests by the same device and fraud is detected for
66
Case: 17-2161 Filed 09/22/2017
each and every click by generating a unique code for each user as well as different
unique codes for each click made.
Specifically, a phannacist would not be able to detect the fraud in his own
brain because Phannacist would not be able to keep in mind for a short period of
time or in the long run the dispensed prescription even for one client and this
becomes obviously impossible if it has to do it for multiple clients. For multiple
clients, such task requires a computer including a hard drive to save data of each of
his client and then detecting the fraud. NOT only human cannot remember a simple
seriallD but also search engine's employee would not be able to remember or count
multiple clicks which occur over the internet. And three patents clearly explain, the
process of generating unique codes to improve quality in detecting fraud. The
system which is explained here is not restricted to a limited number of users and
includes handling multiple requests. The system is intended to avoid human error,
as it is difficult to identify the user's ID without software. Therefore, this pham1acist
analogy does not hold water at all, as said by the Patent Owner in the past numerous
times.
As said above, the claim limitation of three patents requires a communication
network to make it happen. Codes are sent to the device as a cookie or first code
and after that, second and third codes are received when a click is made which has
a timestamp. The time interval is considered to find out invalid clicks. This process
67
Case: 17-2161 Filed 09/22/20 17
is nowhere described in the farcical example of phammcist which Board and
Petitioner are forcing on Patent Owner to believe.
Google also argues that the concept embodied in these claims is abstract
because it relates to the commercial activity of generating interest by advertising
but for once the Board has denied this statement in the starting of the decision by
saying that: "We do not reach Petitioner's argument that claim I is financial in
nature because it recites advertising" [AppxlO). Also, the abstract idea has no
relation to a commercial activity or advertising. On page 22 of the final written
decision (Paper 56), Board summarizes the claims of '057 patent in an overly
simplistic manner showing the ability of the board to summarize any patent, how
much complex it may be [Appx22]. Board seems to forget, again and again, that the
whole process is taking place on a communication network and not on a pharmacist
shop. After an entity makes a click, second and third codes are received which
contains a timestamp (See Specification "'When the user clicks on a link within the
browser 21 0, the code 240 with infonnation like network cartography, time stamps
and a number of previous clicks, ... the frequency of clicks from that user or device,
the interval between clicks etc."). These first and second timestamps from second
code and third code are then used to find whether said second click is invalid by
examining a difference between said first time and said second time.
68
Case: 17-2161 Filed 09/22/20 17
Board has just used doctrine of convenience where it only states portion of
the patent which can help it in INVALIDATING the three patents. The board should
read the patent's technology carefully. Board determined that Patent Owner's
assertion that the claims are directed to "collecting click-through traffic information
to detennine traffic quality" is not supported by the evidence 1Appx22]. Patent
Owner argues that by determining the volume of invalid clicks from all the clicks,
traffic quality is determined ultimately. The only determination made by the claims
is the origin of clicks and whether a click is invalid based on an examination of the
time between clicks which is taken from the second and third codes received by the
server. If Board is evaluating everything in the light of the specification, then the
board should read the full specification and not just some random dictionary words
by doing a quick ctrl + f command.
Board states that it is not explicitly written in the claims "able to handle
millions of clicks in real time whether from the same or different users" [Appx23].
Obviously, Patent owner would not have invented and filed several patents for
just two clicks only. This assessment by Google and PTAB should be rejected
by the Fed. Cir. because it defies intelligence, logic and this is wrong. Board
itself talks everything in view of the 1ight of the specification and stated a line from
the specification "by observing a metric like the number of clicks for a given period
of time... certain clicks are illegitimate". Board failed to see that it is written
69
Case: 17-2161 Filed 09/22/201 7
"number of clicks". Of course, '057 patent technology was invented to handle a
countless number of clicks which occurs on the internet over a communications
network.
Board again incorrectly determined that "In addition, while the claims recite
the creation of codes and encoded codes none of this is used ... The only information
used in the detennination is the time of the two clicks" [Appx23). Patent Owner
argues that it is the encoded codes from which the clicks and their associated time
is detennined. How can system track click and their associated time without the
encoded codes? Patent detects the origin of clicks and keeps a record of clicks in
the form of encoded codes. The three patents clearly state "'detecting fraudulent
activity by measuring the duration between clicks by said client to said selected web
site by examining said code and website information". There is not a mere transfer
of data from one place to another as incorrectly understood by the Board.
d. Board has again incorrectly applied the steps of inventive concept Analysis
At first place, claims of three patents are not directed to any patent ineligible
concept; therefore, this second step of inventive concept analysis does not hold.
Patent Owner argues on point by point basis as follows.
1. Board said that after the code is sent. it is not referenced again in claim 1.
There is no requirement in claim 1 that the code be received by any device,
and the code is not used to perform any task 1Appx26). Patent Owner argues
70
Case: 17-2161 Filed 09/22/2017
that Claim 1 specifically and clearly states that Hgenerating a first code on the
server side computing device, the first code identifying at least one device on
a client side; sending said first code to said at least one device over a
communication network;" First Code is received by client device and as per
Claim 9 'storing said first code as a cookie." Also, the fraudulent activity is
detected by measuring the duration between clicks by said client to said
selected web site by examining said code and website infonnation.
2. Claim 9 recites that the first code is stored as a cookie, but it does not state
whether this storage occurs at the server or at one of the devices to which the
code may have been sent [Appx26]. Patent Owner argues that first code is
stored as a cookie at one of the devices as clearly mentioned in claim 1 that
server sends this first code to one of the client side devices.
3. As to the second and third codes, they are obtained from a device and then
they have not been referenced again in claim I [Appx26]. In claim 5, the
second code is sent to at least one device, and in claim 11, the second and
third codes are encoded. It is obvious or inherent from the claim language
that second and third codes are used to keep track of the origin and time of
clicks. First time and second time is associated with the encoded codes in the
light of specification which states "When the user . . . information like
network cartography, timestamps and number of previous clicks, will be
71
Case: 17-2161 Filed 09/22/201 7
sent to the search engine 102 "' The time between two clicks is then
examined to find invalid clicks.
Thus, the Board is wrong in its analysis. Board has incorrectly concluded that
the claimed methods do not require a particular apparatus beyond a general-purpose
computer. See Ex. I 001, 4:25-28. Further the steps of''generating," ''sending," and
"obtaining" in claim 1 correspond to "'basic calculation, storage, and transmission
functions" that are within the capability of nearly every computer [Appx27J. Patent
Owner argues that '057 patent does not merely require a general-purpose computer
but at least two computing devices, one at client side and one at server side
connected with each other over a communications network in which codes are first
stored as cookie on the client side and then encoded codes are obtained at server
side used to keep track of the clicks, their time and other parameters as seen in the
light of specification. Therefore, for reasons cited above, claims 1, 5, 9, and II are
patentable as claiming patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. I 01 { TA \s
"35 U.S.C 101" }{ TA \s "U.S.C. 101" }.
e. Lack of uniformity in the treatment of lAB exhibits inside PTAB lead to the
whimsical and contradictory application of Judicial rulings offering criminal
protection shield to Google.
Board-White considered lAB exhibits as potential prior arts while second
Board-Lee completely thrashed the use lAB exhibits as potential prior arts citing
72
Case: 17-2161 Filed 09/22/2017
other reasons. Same court different stances. APJ Jameson Lee for the patent of the
same family of '057 patent rejected Asserted Grounds of Obviousness over lAB
study. lAB is amongst the huge list of groups or organizations funded by
Google.
In the petition filed by Google and Non-final decision given by APJ Stacey
White, judgment was given on the basis of lAB Study I.e. Exhibit 1037. Since
Exhibit 1037 has been excluded, there is no ground for discussing Asserted Grounds
of Obviousness over lAB study. APJ Stacey White and the panel of judges, broke
down lAB study into lAB I and IAB2 themselves "conveniently for the Board" to
provide analysis on the basis of Asserted Grounds of Obviousness which is illegal
and thereby, giving an "unfair advantage" to Google.
Codes mentioned in the Patents are encoded in nature and they are not just
the website URLs which user clicks but rather contain more infom1ation as stated
above. Indeed, the second and third code is different from first code. Petitioner
cannot overly simplify by saying first code to be same as second and third code. It
is absurd to say that the third code would be the same as the second code if the two
clicks were on the same advertisement. Since each code is encoded and includes a
variety of infom1ation including a timestamp. Therefore, even a difference of
second between the two clicks will make the two codes different.
73
Case: 17-2161
Filed 09/22/2017
Patent Owner argues that there is a huge difference between Target site URL
and second or third code. Second and third codes are encoded in nature and at least
includes network cartography, timestamps, and number of previous clicks.". The
board disagreed with Patent Owner's assertions because they are not supported by
the claims or the specification. Patent Owner argues that board can clearly see the
specification and claims. Claim 11 recites that the second and third codes are
encoded. Also, specification recites "When the user clicks on a link within the
browser 210, the code 240 with information like network cartography,
timestamps and number of previous clicks, ... user or device, interval between
clicks etc." Board could just do a ctrl f of the above text in the patent.
It only happens when the board has not gone through the whole specification
but is just doing a ctrl fkind ofthing, which is why the board is everywhere stating
that '"Patent Owner's assertions are not supported by the specification". Patent
Owner has given clear cut text from the specification to the board number of times
to support patent owner's assertion. The specification clearly states that code
includes infonnation like network cartography, timestamps and number of previous
clicks which is further supported by claim 11 of 057. TI1e definition of second code
and third code is clearly stated in the specification. And that is the only purpose of
providing specification along with claims, i.e. to bring more clarity to the invention.
Therefore, illegal lAB I and IAB2 and even Laurent fails to teach technology of
74
Case: 17-2161 Filed 09/22/201 7
'057 patent. Board has again and again incorrectly compared second and third code
with website URL. Website URL is just a string of characters while first and second
codes are encoded in nature and include information as described in the
specification.
III. CASE LAWS
a. Unwired Planet LCC vs Google Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2016){ TA \s "Unwired
Planet LCC vs Google Inc. (Fed. Cir. 20 16)" 1
Judge Jimmie REYNA delivered the opinion of a unanimous panel (REYNA,
PLAGER, and HUGHES) in Unwired Planet v. Google. Statements from Circuit
Judges wrote in their November 21, 2016, decision that ''CBM patents are limited
to those with claims that are directed to methods and apparatuses of particular types
and with particular uses ''in the practice, administration, or management of a
financial product or service." AlA 18(d){ T A \1 "AlA 18( d)" \s "AlA 18(d)"
\c 2 }. The patent for a novel light bulb or [metal detector] that is found to work
particularly well in bank vaults [bank entrance] does not become a CBM patent
because of its incidental or complementary use in banks. Likewise, it cannot be the
case that a patent covering a method and corresponding apparatuses becomes a
CBM patent because its practice could involve a potential sale of a good or service.
All patents, at some level, relate to the potential sale of a good or service. See 3 5
75
Case: 17-2161 Filed 09/22/2017
U.S.C. 101.7{ TA \I "35 U.S.C. 101.7" \s "35 U.S.C. 101.7" \c 2} It is not
enough that a sale has occurred or may occur, or even that the specification
speculates such a potential sale might occur."
Similarly, in the '667-763-057 patent, the tenn "pay-per click system" only
describes the environment where the patent is perfonning its task. Therefore, the
three patents cannot be regarded as CBM eligible patents.
b. Travelocity.com LP v. Cronos Technologies, LLC, CBM2014-00082{ TA \s

"Travelocity.com LP v. Cronos Technologies, LLC, CBM2014-00082" 1
(US5,664,11 0)
Board while reviewing '11 0 Patent agreed to the fact that '11 0 Patent is related
to a financial activity and therefore, was eligible to be granted a CBM review but
the Board denied CBM citing other reasons. Patent Owner questions that why the
Board that is considering a patent to be financial, declared the patent not eligible for
a CBM review. Patent Owner does not believe at all that the three patents have
anything of a financial component in it which is contrary to the written assessment
of the two Board regarding the three patents.
Fig. 13 & 14 of the '11 0 patent which is not CBM has included the words
"merchants", "price" etc.in its claims and/or specifications.
76
Case: 17-2161 Filed 09/22/20 l 7
US. Patent Sql. 2, 1997 Sbtd 13 of !5 5,664,110
FIG. 13
77
Case: 17-2161 Filed 09/22/2017
PRICE OlCK
fH) USER tl DISPI.AY WEl.C<iiE

STORE DATABASE TO CUSTOMER
262
MN)lJil CICK AVAl.ABlJTY
MRENT SPECIALS 00 GT PRKIS
TEACH USER DATABAS

CODE/PRODUCT D
CORRESP(HI}[:[
275
273
FIG. 14
Patent Owner agrees that if a patent claims a pay-per-click system or a method
of implementing a pay-per-click system, then the patent should be held CBM
eligible but the patent which is only claiming to track users and detection of invalid
clicks like the three patents, cannot be held as CBM patent which the two Boards
headed by Jameson Lee and Stacey White have done.
c. Trading Technologies International, Inc. v. COG, Inc (Fed. Cir., 2016){ TA \1

"Trading Technoloeies International, Inc. v. COG, Inc (Fed. Cir., 2016)" \s
"Trading Technologies Intemational, Inc. v. CQG, Inc (Fed. Cir., 2016)" \c I 1
78
Case: 17-2161 Filed 09/22/2017
The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a
nonprecedential opinion finding claims to a graphical user interface (GUI) patent to
be patent e1igible 1
The district court held that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea and also
that they recite an inventive concept, such that the subject matter is patent eligible
under 35 U.S.C 101 { TA \s "35 U.S.C 101" }.
The ' 132 and '304 patents describe and claim a method and system for the
electronic trading of stocks, bonds, futures, options and similar products. The
patents explain problems that arise when a trader attempts to enter an order at a
particular price but misses the price because the market moved before the order was
entered and executed. This is the problem these patents are directed toward solving.
Firstly, US 6,772,132 ('132 Trading Tech.) relates to Click based trading with
intuitive grid display of market depth. See '1 32 specs (Further, the specification
refers to a single click of a mouse as a means for user input and interaction with the
tenninal display as an example of a single action of the user. The preferred
embodiments of the present invention include the display of "Market Depth" and
1
http://www.ipwatchdo~.com/20 17/0 I /18/cafc-graphical-user-interface-patent-
el igible/id=77262/
79
Case:Case:
17-2161 Page: 80 09/22/2017
allow traders to view the market depth of a commodity and to execute trades within
the market depth with a single click of a computer mouse button.
Thus, the three patents also work on the basis of a click of a mouse and the click
of a mouse cannot be termed as financial in nature as held incorrectly by two boards.
Three patents do not merely claim to display data processing or repetitive data
calculation, but rather claim to detect fraudulent activity by measuring the duration
between clicks by said client to said selected website by examining said code and
website infonnation. Analyzing the difference in the time between first click, a
second click, and any subsequent click is not merely subtracting two numbers.
Analyzing the differences implies comparing the duration value to an established
critical duration value which is different to just making a basic subtraction between
two durations.
The claims are not limited to mere data gathering but rather measuring the
duration between click by examining a code and website information amounts to
technically addressing the specifically identified problem and the claims neither are
obvious to a person skilled in the art nor it is routine and a conventional activity.
d. Blue Calypso, LLC v. Groupon, Inc., 815 F.3d 1331, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2016){
TA \1 "Blue Calypso, LLC v. Groupon, Inc., 815 F.3d 1331, 1338 (Fed. Cir.
2016)" \s "Blue Calypso, LLC v. Groupon, Inc., 815 F.3d 1331, 1338 (Fed.
Cir. 2016)" \c 1 }
Board is misleading to associate CBM decisions when comparing two different
patents:
80
Case: 17-2161 Filed 09/22/2017
Patents for Blue Calypso, LLC v. Groupon, Inc., 815 F.3d 1331, 1338 (Fed.
Cir. 20 16) specifically talks about a method of advertisement i.e. "managing" and
distributing "advertising" content providing a subsidy to the subscriber.
Board's wrong and biased assessment of the patents does not make sense at all, each
and every claim of the three patents describes and explains procedure of detecting
fraud, as the claim states: "detecting fraudulent activity in a pay-per-click system
by providing search engine on server side, receiving request from client, generating
unique code for identifying client ..... and examining said code and website
information." here the whole claims focuses on software technology and it is
NOWHERE showing that monetary transactions are taking place. The patents are
providing a solution stating: "invention relates generally to network
computing of the type which occurs over the Internet, for example, and, more
particularly, to a method of protecting the providers of pay-per-click services from
multiple il1egitimate usages. Patrick Zuili's patents came up with a technical
solution by solving a technological problem. Board is basing their decision on a
flawed argume~tation weighing arbitrarily only upon a portion of the
specification which discloses working environment of the three patents and
using the environment of the technology as a base to invalidate the three
patents.
81
Case: 17-2161
Filed 09/22/20 17
Fed. Cir. will sort out that patents owned by Blue Calypso specifically talks about
a method of advertisement and providing [financial] subsidy to the subscriber which
is covered under CBM. There is a thick bold" line of difference between "an
advertising system"
and
"tracking users and detecting invalid clicks"
an advertising system.
e. Versata Dev. Grp., Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1318- 23 (Fed. Cir.
2015){ TA \1 "Versata Dev. Grp., Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1318-
23 (Fed. Cir. 2015)" \s "Versata Dev. Grp., Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d
1306, 1318-23 (Fed. Cir. 2015)" \c 1 }
The three patents are unequivocal. It is a detection system. It is NOT a
patent for a search engine or a patent for the pay-per-click system of a search
engine.
Patent 6,553,350 patent is Method and apparatus for pricing products. Claim
1 of350 said: A method for determining a price of a product offered to a purchasing
organization. Why offering "a price" price which would not lead to a financial
transaction? Why compare a patent "fonnulating a desired price to consumer" with
a patent towards user tracking and invalid click detection, if it was not to confuse
minds? The three patents do not provide any kind of pricing activity. Pricing
mechanism or detennining a price is apparently covered under CBM status. Why
82
Case: 17-2161 Filed 09/22/2017
providing a reporting on detecting an internet user or a fraudulent activity should be
considered as a business model or CBM eligible [When no financial activity is
required or even has taken place]?
Furthennore, '350 patent speaks about creating a general table that stores the
price infonnation that is different for every purchasing organization. However, three
patents claims don't recite any such financial activity related to any pricing instead,
it is a software invention to detect the fraudulent activities found on search engines
and its advertising platform. Moreover, it solves a technical problem of fraudulent
clicks by providing a technical solution according to section 37. C.F.R $42.301 (B);
and Smith 18 (b). So, mentioning about Versata case is a failed attempt by the
Board, clearly showing the PTAB deficient arguments with a biased and illogical
interpretation of the three patents.
f. SightSound Techs., LLC v. Apple Inc., 809 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2015){ TA
\1 "SightSound Techs., LLC v. Apple Inc., 809 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2015)"
\s "SightSound Techs., LLC v. Apple Inc., 809 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2015)"
\c 1 }
In SightSound Techs., LLC v. Apple Inc., 809 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2015), Board
instituted CBM method on the basis of two grounds ofunpatentability i.e. 35 U.S.C.
102(a){ TA \1 "35 U.S.C. 102(a)" \s "35 U.S.C. 102(a)" \c 2} and 35 U.S.C
I 03(a){ TA \1 "35 U.S.C 103(a)" \s "35 U.S.C 103(a)" \c 2 }. Nowhere in the
decision, the board discussed financial aspects of the patent. Moreover, Claimed
subject matter of SightSound Techs. There Patent specifically talks about
83
Case:Case:
17-2161 Page: 84 09/22/2017
transferring money electronically on distributing electronic media. But nowhere in
the claims of three patents, there is a financial transaction.
g. Amdocs (lsr.) Ltd. v. Openet Telecom, Inc. (Fed. Cir., 2016){ TA \1 "Amdocs
(lsr.) Ltd. v. Openet Telecom, Inc. (Fed. Cir., 2016)" \s "Amdocs (lsr.) Ltd. v.
Openet Telecom, Inc. (Fed. Cir., 2016)" \c 11
See Amdocs (Isr.) Ltd. v. Openet Telecom, Inc., (Fed. Cir. Nov. I, 20 16) (Before
Newman, Plager, and Reyna, J.) (Opinion for the court, Plager, J.) (Dissenting
opinion, Reyna, J.) Even if claims contained generic components and functions, the
overall ordered combination of the limitations was unconventional and solved the
technological problem. An unconventional solution to a technological prohlem is
patent eJigible. Claim combination of structural elements should be beneficial over
the prior solutions. The 35 U.S.C. 101 { TA \s "35 U.S.C. 101"} inquiry is not
whether the specifications disclose a patent eligible system, but whether the claims
are directed to a patent ineligible concept. The concept of an "abstract idea" has no
set meaning! No "single universal definition of 'abstract idea"' because "it is
difficult to fashion a workable definition to be applied to as-yet unknown
inventions". The decision, Amdocs (Israel) Ltd. v. Openet Telecom Inc. et al.,
makes clear that courts will evaluate patent eligibility, under 35 U.S.C. 10 I { TA
\s "35 U.S.C 101"} and the Supreme Court's Alice decision, using an individual,
case-by-case approach: courts will compare the challenged patents and claims to
those from previous cases in a traditional common-law style.
84
Case: 17-2161 Filed 09/22/2017
Similarly, the patents in questions are providing a technological solution to a
technical problem which existed due to which Google has to pay millions of dollars
in settlement. When the patent claims are seen as a whole in an orderly combination,
it provides a significant improvement over the Mr. Gray's method of using millions
of wall clocks to detect click fraud activity in billions of clicks by millions of users
in real time.
h. Qualtrics, LLC, v. OpinionLab, Inc., Case No. CBM2016-00003 (PTAB, Apr.
13, 2016){ TA \1 "Qualtrics, LLC, v. OpinionLab, Inc., Case No. CBM2016-
00003 (PTAB, Apr. 13, 2016)" \s "Qualtrics, LLC, v. OpinionLab, Inc., Case No.
CBM2016-00003 (PTAB, Apr. 13, 2016)" \c 1 } (DeFranco, APJ)
Qualtrics, LLC filed a petition for the CBM review of U.S. Patent No. 8,041,805
which is assigned to OpinionLab Inc. In Qualtrics, the challenged patent was
directed to a system and method for soliciting "page-specific" feedback from
website users. Petitioner argued that the invention is related to a financial product
because the specification stated that the "claimed invention may be used in
connection with websites that conduct 'commercial transactions.'" PROBABLY
BECAUSE GOOGLE WAS NOT THE PETITIONER, The Board for the '805
rejected the argument, explaining that nothing in the claims themselves was "rooted
in the financial sector".
85
Case: 17-2161 Filed 09/22/201 7
transaction/' Even though the specification mentioned the mventionls

possible applicability to the financial sector, no claim language
necessarily tied the claims to the commercial transaction descnoed in the specification. And even though the
specification indicated that the invention might be available 11for a fee 11 and may provide a "valuen for the
website, that language was merely incidental to the broader applicability of the claimed invention. Accordingly,
the Board found that none of the claims were eligible for CBM review.
http://www.natlawreview.com/article/financial-hook-cbm-review-can-be-shallow-
must-be-rooted-claims
The Board disagreed, focusing on the language of claim 1 that limited the web pages to those "associated with a
plurality of merchants." Using the word "merchants" as a hook, the Board tied this language to examples in the
specification showing that the invention uses "advertising and that an objective of the invention is to 'fairly
invoice merchants' by identifying fraudulent click activity." After determining that the claims were not directed
to a technological invention, the Board determined that the challenged claims were eligible for CBM review.
http://www .natlawreview.com/artiele/fi nancial-hook-cbm-review-can-be-sha llow-

must-be-rooted-claims
Patent Owner argues that the PTAB broke claims into mul tiple single elements
and misinterpreted each element. Board did not review the claim as a whole. The
objective of the patents is to identify multiple numbers of clicks and their origin and
then detect the one or more JNVALID clicks made by an entity with malicious intent
if any.
86
Case: 17-2161
i. Par Pharm., Inc. v. Jazz Pharm., Inc., Case Nos. CBM2014-00149, -0150, -0151
and -0153 (PTAB, Jan. 13, 2015){ TA \s "Par Pharm., Inc. v. Jazz Pham1., Inc.,
Case Nos. CBM2014-00149, -0150, -0151 and -0153 (PTAB, Jan. 13, 2015)" 1
(Murphy, APJ)
Patent Owner argues that Preamble Phrase is necessary to give life to meaning
and Vitality to the claims. The board that gave a decision on Jazz states that
preamble phrase is not necessary to give life, meaning and vitality to the claims,
contrary to what the '057 Board said. Screenshots below in green frame presents
the arguments given by the Board headed by Murphy while the screenshots in red
frame present contradicting arguments given by '057 Board in the current CBMs.
The preamble phrase "distributing a presc1iption dn1g" is not a substantive

If
claiinlinlitation because it is not "necessmy to give life, 1neaning, and
vitality" to the claiins. Pit11ey Bo1ves, l11c. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d
1298. 1305 (Fed. Cii. 1999)(citations o1nitted). All steps necessa1y to
execute the 1nethod are recited in the body of the claiiu.
87
Case:Case:
17-2161 Page: 88 Filed: 10/17/2017
Filed 09/22/20 17
Although the recitation of a "pay-per-click system" is in the claitn's

preatnble, it cannot be ignored because it is necesjsaty to give life~ tneaning,
12
CBM20 16-00021
Patent 7,953,667 B 1
and vitality to the claiin. See, e.g., Symantec Co1p. v. Computer Assocs.
Patent Owner argues that whether CBM should be reviewed on the basis of what is
claimed in the invention or on the basis of what is written in the specification. Board
which gave on Jazz states that their focus is firmly on the claims, contrary to what
'057 Board says that they interpret claims in the light of specification.
Petitioner bears the burden of d~n1onstrating that the '730 patent

clain1s a tnethod "used in the practice, adnlinistration, or tnanagetnent of a
fmancial product or service." AlA 18(d)(1): 37 C.F.R. 42.304(a). In
tnaking this detennination, our focus is finnly on the claims. See 77 Fed.
Reg. at 48,736 (Aug. 14,2012 Final Rule)(Response to Conunent 4: "[T]he
88
Case: 17-2161 Filed 09/22/2017
The specific combination of steps rec.ited in the body of claiin 1 are finance-
related because all embodiments disclosed in the Specification involve the
use of a pay-per-click systen1, and, as we explain below, a pay-per-click
systetn includes fmancial transactions bet\veen the tnerchant and the
It is strange that those panels have accepted groundless comparison related to
prescription drugs given by Google [prescription drugs were not mentioned in any
Zuili patents because example does not apply to the Zuili technology] and the paid
testimony of Stephan Gray. In fact, the testimony of Stephan Gray looked like it
was prepared by Google attorneys. This fact has been explained by the Patent Owner
in the next few sections below.
IV. FACTS SUPPORTING THE CLAIMS MADE BY THE PATENT

OWNER
Boards relied on Mr. Gray's biased testimony which states that '057-667-763
Patent discloses, PPCS allow advertisers to place ads on websites. As if the three
patents covered in this Appeal was perceived by this so-called technology "expert"
as a full-fledged technology covering what was already patented by Overture's pay-
per-click business model in 1999 and stolen by Google in 2000.
89
Case: 17-2161 Filed 09/22/2017
a. Google's counsel presented a level of joint preparation between Google's

attorneys and the paid witness.
Google on the same day got Mr. Gray's 66-page testimony, read and
understood it and prepare a 70 Pages petition and filed it.
Execution date of the Mr. Stephen Gray's testimony: 16th October 2015
Date when Google counsel filed its Petition for the '057 Patent:
16th October 2015
Similarly, in the other two CBMs for patents '763 and '667, Google filed
CBM case just a day after receiving Stephan's Gray testimony which proves that
the testimony is highly biased and tainted with the interests of Google.
Also, PTAB relied on Mr. Gray paid report. Gray holds a degree in
Economics. Mr. Stephan Gray is expert in changing his areas of expertise as per
client's requirements and need. Therefore, his testimony should hold no weight and
the example of the pham1acist underlines that he is the unqualified person to sign a
declaration.
90
Case: 17-2161 Filed 09/22/2017
5. Since the mid-19i0s. I have designed, developed. and deployed computing systems
and products that operate in server. desktop. and graphical environments. As such. I have
acquired expertise and am au expert in the areas of server computing architecture and design.
graphical user interfaces. operating systems. local area and wide area networks. and various
programming languages used in the development of those systems and products. I have been
employed by or retained as a consultant. including acting as a litigation consultant. for numerous
companies such as ButToughs. Filenet. Fujitsu. Ma1Tiott Corporation, MCI. Northem Telecom.
Olivetti. TRW. and Xerox. as well as other companies.
8. Since the mid-1970s, I have designed, developed, and deployed computing
systems and products that operate in sen.rer, client, and on-line em"ironments. As
such, I have acquired expertise in the areas of eCommerce systems, software
Google Exhibit 1006, p :
CBMR.ofUSP 8,671,057
Decl. of Stephen Gray
development, client/senrer technology, web sen:ices protocols, online advertising,
search engines, click fraud detection, and various programming languages and
standards used in the development of those systems and products, such as Java,
XML. and HTML. I have been employed by or retained as a consultant. including
acting as a litigation consultant, for numerous companies such as Burroughs,
Filenet, Fujitsu, Marriott Corporation, MCL Northern Telecom, Olivetti, TR\V,
and Xerox..
91
Case: 17-2161 Filed 09/22/20 17
b. ANOTHER GOOD REASON TO DISMISS THOSE PROCEEDINGS

Would the Fed. Cir. tolerate such contradicting testimonies and sworn
statements coming from the attorney and the Petitioner where both the
attorney and Petitioner has business relationships? The true, the false and the
almost true.
How come an Exhibit in 2014 produced by Google' s "same" Mayer Brown LLP
Counsels clearly tells that the first guidelines were published in 2004 which is
contradicting the "'2002 date" sent by Google's counsel. It was also the " same"
George Ivie making a comment on it [Appx 184] and then 2 years later in 20 16,
"same Mayer Brown LLP counsels" are saying that the first guidelines were
published in 2002.
Member companie-s who nave confirmed their participation In this Worklna Group tha.c far Include. Ask.com, Goowle,
LookSmart, Mltrosoft Corp., Yahoot, and othen.
The JAB I~ steadfan In Its commtunent to thtt principle~ of transparency and Industry overslaht for the measurement or
any aspect of Interactive media. The Click Measurement Gukletlne-s will also outline an Industry dtiYen audlttna and
certtncatton recommendatioo for any Ol'iant:atton Involved In perlotrMnte ~sed marketine like ~areh enetne~. ad
networks, third party ad servers or any company that counts dick~ as a part of the media cu~"Tenc.y. These euldettnes are
part of the broader Global Ad lmpremon Guldettnes that were launched in 200.. and follow the r~nt rete.se of the
Broadband Meuurement Guidelines
"I applaud the IAe for continuine to take a leader.hlp role in the creation of Measurement Guidelines acro:s all platforms
of the Interactive medium, said Georee lvie, Executive Director and CEO, Media Ratlne Council. "Al!encles and marketers
should fHI assured that the Interactive Industry Is strlvlni for Increased reliability and constsunc:y throueh the
eutdellnesetttne process and throueh their support for audits."
So-called "key" evidence one with a date of 2002 being quashed by
the clear fact of the adversarial evidence dated 2004 doubtlessly
deserves dismissal of those proceedings.
92
Case: 17-2161 Filed 09/22/201 7
In 2014, during the Case number 2: 14-cv-00760-JRG-RSP, Google filed an
exhibit 1 (Document 18-9 Filed 10/24/14 Page 3 of 4 Page ID #: 280) 1Appx182-
185] which is a press release from lAB published on lAB blog and titled as "'THE
INTERACTIVE INDUSTRY COMMITS TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF CLICK
MEASUREMENT GUIDELINES".
V. GOOGLE CLAIMED APPELLANT AS "CONSPIRACY THEORIST".
According to the APPELLANT,
A '"conspiracy theorist" would make sure to have at least one ''mole" working
in a senior position, directly impacting "big time" the finance of his corporation.
251 people either moved from Google into government or vice-versa since Obama
took office," the Center for Accountability noted.
A "conspiracy theorist" would lobby to the place of people he trusts to be
nominated as a District Judge or a Chief District Judge in California or any other
Appeal forum to shield his own corporation from countless patent infringement
lawsuits that are pending and still coming.
Google has lobbied the administration heavily over the patent legislation. Go ogle employees contributed more than
$800,000 to each of President Obama's two White House campaigns, according to Federal Election Commission data
from the Center for Responsive Politics.
Last year, Google spent about $17 million on lobbying. and the majority of its efforts were focused on patent reform.
In fact, Google spent more money than any other tech company on copyright, patent and trademark lobbying last
year, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, which tracks campaign and lobbying expenditures.
93
Case: I 7-216 1 Filed 09/22/2017
http://www. wash ingtonti mes.com/news/20 15/feb/5/patent-law-refonn-bi11-to-stop-

trolls-could-sti fle/
http://www. wired.com/20 15/07/goo!!le-face book-amazon-lobbying
It is hardly a secret that the Obama Administration has hired numerous former Google
executives. Go ogle is known to be one of the primary advocates of watering down, if not
outright destroying, the U.S. patent system. To a large extent Apple, Microsoft and many
other Silicon Valley innovators went along with the anti~ patent rhetoric perfected by the
Google machine because they were facing what they called a "patent troll problem." This
caused even innovation based leaders to throw in with Goog\e and others in an attempt to
vilify innovators and a patent system run amok.
http://www. ipwatchdog.com/20 14/12/08/ 12-guestions-the-senate-should-ask-

miche11e-lee/id=52521 I
55% of 2014 PTAB petitions were filed against NPEs.

85% of 2014 PTAB petitions were filed by companies with revenues of more than $200 million.
66% of 2014 PTAB petit ions were h igh-tech related.

84% of 2014 PTAB petit ions filed against NPEs were in the high~tech sector.
72% of 2014 PTAB petit ions filed against NPEs were filed against patent assertion entities.
lnterpartesreviews made up 90% ofall 2014 PTAB petitions.

The top five PTAB 2014 petitioners were Apple, Google, Microsoft, Samsung and LG.
The top five patent owners targeted by 2014 PTAB petitions were Zond, Intellectual Ventures,
ContentGuard, Smartflash and VirnetX*.
http://www. iam-media.com/Biog/Detai l.aspx?g=efdd8t71-a3 fa-4507 -a4b 1-

1201 f8ff88ae
Google very well-funded the Obama Campaign for the elections in 2012.
Therefore, it is no secret that President Obama was closely aligned with Google.
94
Case: 17-2161 Filed 09/22/2017
a. Conspirator at putting Michelle Lee as USPTO Director 1Appx509]

Fonner USPTO Director Michelle Lee has worked for Google for almost 10
years as the Director and Head of Patents Strategy. Google perfectly convinced U.S.
President Mr. Obama regime to change the Patent Law with heavy lobbying. They
financed many of the White House Campaigns 12 3 Most people think that Michelle
Lee is a "mole planted by Google to protect Google and only Google". 4
b. Conspirator at invalidating the patent owner's patent by colluding with lAB
Google Exhibits have been tampered with yet again the PTAB to show bad
faith, strategic blindness and lack of unifonnity. Appellant argued that Google has
participated with JAB to create a huge cloud of fraud. Google and JAB did
knowingly and willfully conspire and agree with each other and with other known
and unknown to commit such fraud in an attempt to spoil Patent Owner. Google in
association with lAB presented several exhibits and affidavits which were forged
and indicated a conspiracy to invalidate Patent Owner's Patents. Google presented
1
http://www.ipwatchdmr.com/20 14/12/08/12-questions-the-senate-should-ask-
michelle-1ee/id= 52521 I
2
http://www.wired.com/20 15/07/google-facebook-amazon-lobbying
3
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/20 15/feb/5/patent-law-reform-bill-to-
stop-trolls-could-stifle/
6
https://atvmdoe.wordpress.com/20 16/04/06/does-googles-michelle-lee-work-for-
both-google-and-the-u-s-patent-office-at-the-same-time/
95
Case: 17-2161 Filed 09/22/2017
exhibits 1004, 1005 and 101 0 and 1011 and tried to prove the Board their existence
before the priority date of Patent Owner's patents. When Patent Owner did check
on the metadata of the documents submitted by Google, it was revealed that the
metadata was having lot of inconsistencies and on further analysis, it revealed that
the original source of those exhibits i.e. Webarchive.org which is a trusted
organization were removed because lAB deployed robots. txt on the iab.net website
to delete all its documents from Wayback machine.
c. Strange coincidence or deliberate purpose.
lAB deployed robots.txt on ,~,iab.net" right at the time Google filed its first
CBM petition means that Google had a clear intent to literally erase any
alleged proof supposed they ever existed as Google wants The Court to believe.
If Google could influence PTAB 1Appx509), Google's representative at lAB
Board could have prevented lAB to deploy robots.txt on lAB website to wipe
out the history of all the lAB archives but did not.
96
Case: 17-2161 Filed 09/22/2017
VI. CONCLUSION
There is a huge deficit of democracy if there is a lack of judiciary revision on
rigged decisions or if a citizen is not assured that Higher Courts still succeed in
ensuring the inevitability of punishment for those who commit crimes via
dissemination of lies or forgery of Exhibits [evidence] because multinationals like
Google with political and economic ties, manipulative and mendacious to
successive governments and legislators but more seriously to ruling institutions only
seeking their own financial enjoyment to the detriment of the others, and making
inventors seeing their patent rights being abusively infringed and the value of their
legally issued U.S. patents being demonetized. [Appx509] Also, when carrying out
4
their judicial function, it will be 'true and fair justice'' if only Judges must be free
of any improper influence which could arise from improper pressure from other
judges, in particular regarding powerful judges selected [by Michelle Lee] for this
purpose to influence and undermine the independence of judgment of others Judges
and eventually of Higher Court.
American Dream is going up in smoke because bad legislation [AlA] is
thwarting innovation and diabolically successful at demonetizing the patent system
just for the benefit a handful of few Silicon Valley High Tech corporations,
themselves being often sued for having infringed patents. Not only because the 667-
763-057 Patents are not CBM patents, but Google must have to explain serious
97
Case: 17-2161 Filed 09/22/20 17
accusations of blatant lie and tampered evidence fully described inside the
Mandamus Writ 2017-10 I, (Fed. Cir. 20 16){ TA \s "Mandamus Writ 2017-101,
(Fed. Cir. 20 16)" } [Appx42] and Patent Owner's demonstrative exhibits
[Appx 195] will certainly provide additional clarity to the Honorable Judges and
Clerks of the Federal Circuit and of this Higher Court to understand the scope of the
deceitful Google's fraud.
Respectfully Submitted September 22, 20 17
/Patrick Zuili/
Patrick Zuili, prose
98
Case: 17-2161 Filed 09/22/2017
Addendum
99
Cnse: 17-2161 Filed 09/22/2017
Trials@uspto.gov PaperNo. 56
571.272.7822 Filed: April 24, 2017
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
GOOGLE INC.,
Petitioner
v.
PATRICK ZUlLI,
Patent Owner.
Case CBM2016-00008
Patent 8,671 ,05 7 B I
Before KARL D. EASTHOM, SCOTT A. DANIELS, and

STACEY G. WHITE, Administrative Patent Judges.
WHITE, Administrative Patent Judge.
FINAL WRITTEN DECISION

Covered Business Method Patent Review
35 U.S. C. 328 and 37 C.F.R. 42.73
100
Case: 17-2161 Filed 09/22/201 7
CBM20 16-00008
Patent 8,671,057 B I
I. INTRODUCTION
A. Background
Google Inc. ("Petitioner") filed a Petition (Paper 1, "Pet.") requesting
covered business method patent review of claims I, 5, 9, and 11
("challenged claims") of U.S. Patent No. 8,671,057 B 1 (Ex. 1001, ''the '057
patent") pursuant to 18 of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act ("'AlA").
Patrick Zuili ("Patent Owner") filed a Preliminary Response. Paper 12
("'Prelim. Resp."). Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 324, we instituted a covered
business method patent review on the following grounds (Paper 18, "Dec.",
Paper 22, "Reh'g Dec."):
References Basis Claims Challenged
N/A ~ 101 I, 5, 9, and 11
JAB 11, 2 and lAB 2 3 ~ 103 I, 5, and 9
JAB 1, lAB 2, and Laurent4 ~ 103 5 and 11
Patent Owner filed a Patent Owner's Response. Paper 23 ("PO

Resp.''). Petitioner filed a Reply to Patent Owner's Response. Paper 29
("Reply''). An oral hearing was held on December 1, 2016. Paper 48
1
Interactive Audience Measurement and Advertising Campaign Reporting
and Audit Guidelines, Interactive Advertising Bureau, Jan. 2002 (Ex. I 004,
"lAB I").
2
The Petition cites JAB Study ("Ex. I 037). This Exhibit is a combination of
Exhibits I 004 and I 005. lAB 1 (Ex. I 004) in its entirety is found on pages
1- 12 of Exhibit 103 7 and lAB 2 (Ex. 1005) in its entirety is found on pages
13- 64 of Exhibit 1037. As discussed in our Decision on Patent Owner's
Motion to Exclude, Exhibit 1037 is improper because it combines two
documents. Paper 55, 12. Thus, we refer to the individual exhibits lAB 1
(Ex. 1004) and lAB 2 (Ex. 1005).
3
JAB Online Ad Measurement Study, Dec. 2001 (Ex. 1005, "lAB 2").
4
Simon St. Laurent, Cookies, Mar. 1998 (Ex. 1009, "Laurent").
2
101
Case: 17-2161 Filed 09/22/201 7
CBM2016-00008
Patent 8,671 ,057 B 1
("Tr."). We have jurisdiction over this proceeding pursuant to 35 U.S.C.

6(c). This Final Written Decision is issued pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 328(a)
and 37 C.F.R. 42. 73. For the reasons that follow, we detennine5 that
Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1, 5, 9,
and 11 of the '057 patent are unpatentable.
B. Related Matters
The '057 patent is the subject of Brite Smart Corp. v. Google Inc., No.
2: 14-cv-760-JRG (E.D. Tex.). Pet. 3 (citing Ex. 1007). Petitioner and
Patent Owner are party to covered business method patent reviews of two
related patents, U.S. Patent Nos. 7,953,667 (CBM2016-00021) and
8,326,763 (CBM20 16-00022), which are pending before the Board. !d.
C. The '057 Patent

The '057 patent, titled "Method and System to Detect Invalid and
Fraudulent Impressions and Clicks in Web-Based Advertisement Schemes"
issued March 11, 2014. The patent focuses on "web-traffic [as it is] used in
online advertising." Ex. I00 I, Abstract. Specifically .. [i]t discloses a
system to detect invalid and fraudulent impressions and clicks and method(s]
of pay-per-click (when advettisers pay upon users actually clicking) and
pay-per-impression (when advertisers pay based on number of views)
advertising arrangements, which periodically generates a code associated
with the search-engine users." !d. The chal1enged claims are directed to a
method for identifying invalid clicks on links associated with merchants.
5
Patent Owner's Response includes a request for an expanded panel to
render the decision in this matter. PO Resp. 166. The panel does not have
authority to expand the panel. The Chief Judge, however, was informed of
Patent Owner's request and has declined to expand the panel.
3
102
Case: 17-2161 Filed 09/22/2017
CBM20 I 6-00008
Patent 8,671 ,057 B 1
Ex. 1001 , 5:16-37, 6:11-13,6:24-26, 6:32- 34. Figure I ofthe '057 patent
is reproduced below.
PAY PER CLICK

PAY PER CLICK
120 COMPAff1
,---~
30 122
VERIFY THAT THE SERIAl NUMBER WEBSITE
IS UNIQUE
110
LINK
~
~
SEARCH ENGINE GET
COOKIE SERIAL NUMBER
LOCATED OH END
USER COMPUTER
SEARCH ENGINE WRITE AND ADD IT TO
A SERIAL NUMBER THE UN!<. XUL
ON THE COOKIE VIA TECHNOLOGY PRMJT
ACTIVEX. JAVA. JAVASCR1f!'1 TO PASS THRU
...TCHNOlOGY BASEC oo
END USER GUIO. OR I AND FIREWAU
NElWORK CARTOGRAPHY
GENERAlEO PERIODICAUY
FOR EACH USER Oil EACH
fm
SEARCH ENGINE RESULTS
,__,~,--,..=-106______.
FIG. I
Figure 1 illustrates a preferred embodiment of the '057 patent's system. !d.
at 3: 18-20. Search engine 102 provides search results to a user including
some number oflinks. !d. at 3:55-59. The search engine also "generates a
code, preferably in the form of a number, utilizing a cookie." !d. at 3:60- 62.
"The number could be a serial number, a globally unique identifier (GUID)
or a pseudo-random number." /d. at 3:63-64. This code is stored by the
user' s device and it may be stored within "the end-user graphical user
interface device (for example, a web browser like Microsoft Internet
Explorer)." !d. at 4:1-4. The code could be modified at the user device and
4
103
Case: 17-2161 Filed 09/22/2017
CBM20 16-00008
Patent 8,671 ,05 7 B I
such "modifications to the code could include adding timestamp, identity

infonnation like MAC address of the device, other MAC addresses in the
subnet of the device or any changes made to the MAC addresses." !d. at
4: 11-14. In addition, or in alternative to such modifications, "'network
cartography may be generated periodically for each user based upon their
use of the search engine 102," and such cartography may include 'the user
device's IP and MAC address or the network route information between the
device and the pay-per-click system." !d. at 4:15-20.
When a user clicks a link in the search results, the code and any
network cartography infonnation will be sent to the search engine. !d. at
4:41--44. This infonnation Hwill be interpreted by pay-per-click system 120
to detennine various parameters like the frequency of clicks from that user
or device, interval between clicks etc." !d. at 4:44--47. "[B]y observing a
metric like the number of clicks for a given period of time, ... the system
can automatically determine if certain clicks are illegitimate. This allows
the search engine company to fairly invoice the merchants, thereby
preventing fraudulent over use." !d. at Abstract. The system will share
information about users or devices with merchants and a directory of
fraudsters also will be published. !d. at 4:50-52. '"This method is also
effective in identifying competitor fraud, where merchants employ humans
or machines to cause unnecessary clicks or impressions on a competitor's
link, thus resulting in excessive billing." !d. at 4:55-58.
Claim I of the '057 patent is the only independent claim and it is
illustrative of the claims at issue. It reads as follows:
1. A method for identifying invalid click(s) by a system
including at least one web page on a server side
computing device, the at least web page providing a
5
104
Cnse: 17-2161 Filed 09/22/2017
CBM20 16-00008
Patent 8,671 ,057 B 1
plurality of links associated with a plurality of other web

pages associated with a plurality of merchants, the
method comprising the steps of:
generating a first code on the server side computing device, the
first code identifying at least one device on a client side;
sending said first code to said at least one device over a
communication network;
obtaining from the device on the client side, a second code
when said at least one user perfom1s a first click on at
least one of said links associated with at least one of said
other web pages at a first time;
obtaining from the device on the client side, a third code when
said at least one user performs a second click on said at
least one 1ink associated with said at least one other web
page at a second time; and
determining, by the server side computing device, whether said
second click is invalid by examining a difference
between said first time and said second time.
!d. at 5:16- 37.
II. ANALYSIS
A. Grounds for Standing
Section 18 of the AlA created a transitional program, limited to
persons or their privies that have been sued or charged with infringement
of a "covered business method patent," which does not include patents for
"technological inventions." AlA 18(a)( 1)(B), 18(d)(1 ), Pub. L. No. 112-
29, 125 Stat. 284, 329- 331 (2011 ); see 37 C.F.R. 42.302. In light of the
recent decision in Unwired Planet, LLC v. Google Inc., 841 F.3d 1376 (Fed.
Cir. 20 16), we ordered the parties to provide additional briefing as to
whether the '057 patent is eligible for covered business method patent
review. Paper 45 ("PO CBM Brief'), Paper 46 ('"Pet. CBM Brief').
6
105
Case:Case:
17-2161 Page: 106 09/22/2017
CBM20 16-00008
Patent 8,671 ,057 B 1
1. Covered Business Method

A covered business method is a method or corresponding apparatus
for performing data processing or other operations used in the practice,
administration, or management of a financial product or service." AlA
18(d)(l); see 37 C.F.R. 42.301(a). A patent need have only one claim
directed to a covered business method to be eligible for review. See
Transitional Program for Covered Business Method Patents- Definitions of
Covered Business Method Patent and Technological Invention; Final Rule,
77 Fed. Reg. 48,734,48,736 (Aug. 14, 2012) (''CBM Rules") (Comment 8).
Patents directed to technological inventions, however, are excluded from
covered business method patent review. AlA 18(d)(1 ); see 37 C.F.R.
42.301(a).
The parties dispute whether the '057 patent is a '"covered business
method patent," as defined in the AlA and 37 C.F.R. 42.301. See Pet. 11 -
22; PO Resp. 27- 32, 92- 116. For reasons explained below, we conclude
44
that the '057 patent meets the definition of a COvered business method
patent."
2. Financial Product or Service

Petitioner bears the burden of demonstrating that the '057 patent
claims a method "'used in the practice, administration, or management of a
financial product or service." AlA 18(d)(1); 37 C.F.R. 42.304(a). In
making this detennination, our focus is on the claims. See 77 Fed. Reg. at
48,736 (Aug. 14, 2012 Final Rule). In addressing this requirement, the
Federal Circuit has construed covered business method patents as
encompassing '"a wide range of finance-related activities" and '"not limited
to products and services of only the financial industry, or to patents owned
7
106
Case:Case:
17-2161 Page: 10709/22/2017
CBM20 16-00008
Patent 8,671 ,057 8 I
by or directly affecting the activities of financial institutions such as banks

and brokerage houses." Versata Dev. G1p. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306,
1325 (Fed. Cir. 20 15). This definition, however, is not without limits. As
the court recently emphasized, under AlA 18( d), HCBM patents are limited
to those with claims that are directed to methods and apparatuses of
particular types and with particular uses 'in the practice administration, or
management of a financial product or service."' Unwired Planet, 841 F .3d
1376 1382.
Petitioner contends that claim 1 establishes that the '057 patent is
eligible for covered business method patent review. Pet. 11. Claim I is "'[a]
method for identifying invalid click(s) by a system including at least one
web page" and claim 1 further recites that the web page provides "a plurality
oflinks associated with a plurality of other web pages associated with a
plura1ity of merchants." Ex. 1001, 5:17-21. According to Petitioner, claim
1 satisfies the "financial product or service" prong for at least the foJlowing
reasons:
( 1) claim I is directed to a system for 'providing a plurality of
links associated with a plurality of web pages associated with a
plurality of merchants'; (2) claim 1 provides access to these
merchant web page through links, and (3) the stated goal of the
patent relates to web-based advertising schemes and pay-per-
click systems.
Pet. 12 (citing Ex. 1006 ~ 73). As noted in the specification, H[t]his

invention describes pay-per-click and pay-per-impression arrangements
periodically generating a code associated with the search-engine users." Ex.
1001,2:61 - 63. A pay-per-click ("PPC") system is one in which "advertisers
pay upon users actually clicking" and a pay-per-impression system is one in
which "advertisers pay based on [the] number of views." /d. at Abstract. In
8
107
Case: 17-2161 Filed 09/22/201 7
CBM20 16-00008
Patent 8,671,057 8 I
addition, Figure I of the '057 patent depicts a preferred embodiment of the

present invention, which includes sending an '"invoice to [an] advertiser's
website." ld. at Fig. 1.
Patent Owner disputes Petitioner's contention that the '057 patent
meets the financial product or service requirement. PO Resp. I 00- 11 I.
Patent Owner argues that the '057 patent is not eligible for covered business
method patent review because 'determination of invalid clicks is not 'used
in the practice, administration, or management of a financial product or
service.'" /d. at 101. Patent Owner explains that the invention of claim 1
could be used to detennine invalid clicks on web sites other than those
belonging to merchants. ld. at 102. Patent Owner also asserts that while the
specification describes using the claimed invention in the context of
advertising, the claims themselves are not limited to advertising. Jd. at 105.
Finally, Patent Owner argues that claim 1 does not meet the financial
requirement because there is no charge for detecting an invalid click. ld. at
I09.
Petitioner responds by pointing to the preamble of claim 1 which
recites "providing a plurality of links associated with a plurality of other
web pages associated with a plurality of merchants." Pet. CBM Brief2
(quoting Ex. I 001, 5: 17- 3 7). According to Petitioner, "[t]his limitation in
and of itself constitutes advertising by merchants." Id. at 3. Petitioner also
notes that during prosecution of the '05 7 patent, Patent Owner (who is also
the named inventor) "confirmed that the clainls are directed to advertising
systems by stating that the claims 'are directed to methods for identifying
fraudulent clicks in a web-based advertisement environment.'" Jd. (quoting
Ex. I 002, 118). Further, Petitioner asserts that the "clicks" in claim 1 are
9
108
Case:Case:
17-2161 Page: 109 09/22/20
17
CBM20 16-00008
Patent 8,671 ,057 8 I
themselves financial transactions because the amount of money paid for the
advertisement is based directly on the number of clicks. !d. In support of
this argument, Petitioner points to Patent Owner's statement during
prosecution that "it can be gathered that for web-based advertising
systems, one of the problems with the state of the art has been identified as
over-clicking on a particular link [that] would result in extra expenditure
by entities who host/sponsor such links." !d. at 4 (quoting Ex. 1002, 120).
Thus, Petitioner argues that claim I is financial in nature because (I) it
recites advertising which is a financial product or service and (2) it recites
clicks which are financial transactions. /d.
Upon consideration of the parties' contentions and supporting
evidence, we determine that Petitioner has established that claim I of the
'057 patent recites a method for performing data processing or other
operations used in the practice, administration, or management of a financial
product or service. Patent Owner' s arguments do not overcome the showing
made by Petitioner, and we detennine that claim I of the '057 meets the
financial requirement of CBM eligibility because it recites a financial
transaction. We do not reach Petitioner's argument that claim I is financial
in nature because it recites advertising.
In Unwired Planet, the subject patent claim recited "[a] method of
controlling access to location information for wireless communications
devices." Unwired Planet, 841 F.3d at 1377. The specification ofthe
subject patent noted that restaurants or stores could use this location
information so that "'relevant advertising may be transmitted to the wireless
device." !d. at 1378. In the underlying decision, the "Board determined that
the '752 patent was a CBM patent because the location service could involve
10
109
Case:Case:
17-2161 Page: 110 09/22/2017
CBM20 16-00008
Patent 8,671 ,057 B I
an eventual sale of services." Jd. at 1379. "Indeed, the finding that sales
could result from advertising related to the practice of the patent is the sole
evidence the Board relied on to find that the '752 patent is a CBM patent."
Jd. The Federal Circuit found this detennination to be in error because it
was based on an overly broad interpretation of the statute that relied on
legislative history in place of the terms of the statute. !d. at 13 80-81. The
Federal Circuit also cautioned that '[i]t is not enough that a sale has
occurred or may occur, or even that the specification speculates such a
potential sale might occur." ld. at 1382.
In Secure Axcess, LLC v. PNC Bank National Association, 848 F.3d
1370 (Fed. Cir. 20 17), the Federal Circuit again found it to be error to base
CBM eligibility on statements in the legislative history of the AlA and noted
that CBM eligibility "will not lie based on non-statutory phrases like
'incidental to' or 'complementary to' financial activity." 848 F.3d at 1381.
In that case, the subject patents were directed "to computer security, and
more particularly, to systems and methods for authenticating a web page."
!d. at I 373. The specification of the subject patents generally discussed
computer security but "'on occasion, the written description contain[ed]
references that might be considered to concern (at least facially) activities
that are financial in nature." !d. One such reference was the use of
"www.bigbank.com" as an exemplar of a web site that could use the claimed
invention. Jd. at 1374. In the underlying decision,
the Board reasoned that because "[ t]he '191 patent is directed to
solving problems related to providing a web site to customers
of financial institutions . . . the '19 1 patent covers the ancillary
activity related to a financial product or service of Web site
management and functionality and so, according to the
legislative history of the AlA, the method and apparatus of the
11
110
Case: 17-2161 Filed 09/22/2017
CBM20 16-00008
Patent 8,671 ,057 B 1
'191 patent perform operations used in the administration of a

financial product or service."
!d. at 1375. The Federal Circuit reversed the Board's detennination that the
subject patents were CBM eligible and stated that "'just because an invention
could be used by various institutions that include a financial institution,
among others, does not mean a patent on the invention qualifies under the
proper definition of a CBM patent." !d. at 1382.
The subject patents in both Unwired Planet and Secure Axcess,
contained claims that had an attenuated relationship to the alleged financial
product or service. In Unwired Planet, the CBM determination was based
on an "'eventual sale of services." Unwired Planet, 841 F.3d 1376, 1377.
Similarly, in Secure Axcess, one of the possible uses for the subject patents
could be to provide customers of financial institutions with confidence that
the financial institution's web page is authentic. Secure Axcess, 848 F .3d at
1376.
Here, we are not faced with an attenuated relationship between the
financial activity contemplated by the '057 patent and language of claim 1.
The preamble of claim 1 recites "'[a] method for identifying invalid click(s)
by a system including at least one web page on a server side computing
device, the at [one] least web page providing a plurality of links associated
with a plurality of other web pages associated with a plurality of merchants."
Ex. 100 I, 5: 16-21. This language from the preamble is key to the claim. It
provides antecedent basis for the links and web pages recited in the body of
the claim. See id at 5:26-31 (""when said at least one user performs a first
click on at least one of said links associated with at least one of said other
web pages"). In addition, it defines what links and web pages would meet
12
Ill
Case: 17-2I61 Fi led 09/22/2017
CBM20 16-00008
Patent 8,671 ,05 7 B 1
the limitations of the claim and thus, it ''recites essential structure [and] it is
'necessary to give life, meaning, and vitality' to the claim." Catalina Mktg.
Int'l, Inc. v. Coo/savings. com, Inc., 289 F.3d 80 I, 808 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
Thus, on its face, claim 1 is directed to identifying invalid clicks on the web
sites of merchants.
That leads to the question of what is an invalid click? The
specification states that the method of the '057 patent is for "protecting the
providers of pay-per-click services from multiple illegitimate usages.'' Ex.
100 I, I: 18- 20. As described therein,
[v ]arious providers of goods and services register their websites
with the search engine and these are provided to the user in a list
which is prioritized by the level of compensation which the
merchant will give the pay-per-click or pay-per-impression
company if the user is routed to their site. For example, using
such a system, if a user types in the keyword "'binoculars," the
pay-per-click or pay-per-impression system might return five
potential links or banners, with the most prominent one being
associated with that supplier of binoculars which wi11
compensate for a penny or a few cents more than the
links/banners presented below.
/d. at 1:37-47. Thus, as described in the '057 patent, the act of clicking a
link is one in which '"commercial enterprises" profit from by attaching an
"incremental monetary value" to that act. /d. at 1:28-31. Further, the
problem sought to be solved by the '057 patent
is that a user may cause an undesirable level of expenditure on
the part of the merchant by over-clicking on a particular link. In
some cases, it has been known that some users have done this
simply for the purpose of undermining a particular provider or
competitor. Since the existing .systems have no way of knowing
whether a link through is legitimate or bogus, the provider ofthe
goods/services winds up having to pay the pay-per-click provider
excess sums, with the fiaudulent perpetrator remaining un-
13
112
Case: 17-2161 Filed 09/22/201 7
CBM20 16-00008
Patent 8,671,057 B 1
reprimanded. Simi larly in pay-per-impression systems, the

fraudster would just keep searching for the same keyword so as
to have many unnecessary impressions. These fraudulent
impressions could adversely impact the com petitor's finances.
!d. at 1:48- 61 (emphasis added). The '057 sets out to "allow[] the pay-per-
click company to fairly invoice the merchants, thereby preventing fraudulent
over use, and also identify which networks the fraudulent users use." Jd. at
3:2- 5. Thus, as described in the specification, an invalid or illegitimate click
is one that should not be counted by the pay-per-click system and that click
should not be charged to the user. We are mindful of the caution that
limitations should not be read in from the specification, however, the claim
limitations are to be understood in light of the specification. Here, the '057
patent's title, abstract, drawings, and written description all place the claims
in the context of a detecting invalid click transactions in web-based
advertising. Further, when asked whether the '057 patent has any utility
outside of advertising, Mr. Zuili, Patent Owner and named inventor, did not
identify any other usage for this patent. See Tr. 79:21 - 81 :22. As such, we
find that the clicks recited in claim 1 are on their face financial transactions
because each valid click is a transaction for which the merchant is charged a
fee and each invalid click is a fraudulent transaction that should be deducted
from the merchant's invoice. We, therefore, agree with Petitioner's
argument that claim 1 of the '057 patent meets the financial requirement of
CBM eligibility because the c1icks recited in the claim are financial
transactions.
3. Technological Invention
Petitioner also must show that the '057 patent is not directed to a
"technological invention." To determine whether a patent is for a
14
113
Case: 17-2161 Filed 09/22/201 7
CBM20 16-00008
Patent 8,671 ,057 B I
technological invention, we consider "whether the claimed subject matter as

a whole recites a technological feature that is novel and unobvious over the
prior art; and solves a technical problem using a technical solution."
37 C.F.R. 42.30l(b). The fo11owing claim drafting techniques, for
example, typically do not render a patent a "technological invention":
(a) Mere recitation of known technologies, such as
computer hardware, communication or computer networks,
software, memory, computer-readable storage medium,
scanners, display devices or databases, or specialized machines,
such as an ATM or point of sale device.
(b) Reciting the use of known prior art technology to

accomplish a process or method, even if that process or method
is novel and non-obvious.
(c) Combining prior art structures to achieve the normal,

expected, or predictable result of that combination.
Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756,48,763- 64 (Aug.

14, 2012).
Petitioner argues that claim I recites technical features that were
known in the art prior to the time of application for the '057 patent. Pet. 17
(citing Ex. 1006 ~~ 72, 77-84). Petitioner also asserts that the claim as a
whole fails to recite a novel or nonobvious technical feature. I d. (citing Ex.
I 006 ~~ 77-84). Patent Owner disputes these contentions. PO. Resp. 111 -
116. Specifically, Patent Owner asserts that Petitioner has not argued that
the claim elements lack novelty. PO Resp. 112. We disagree with Patent
Owner. Petitioner has persuasively argued that the claim elements lack
novelty. Pet. 17 (citing Ex. 1006 ~~ 72, 77- 84 ). And we agree with
Petitioner. Claim I recites, in relevant part, a web page, server side
computing device, client side device, and a plurality of codes. Ex. 100 I,
15
114
Case: 17-2161 Filed 09/22/2017
CBM20 16-00008
Patent 8,67 I ,057 8 I
5:16-37. The specification describes each ofthese elements as existing in

the prior art. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 1:32-47 (describing prior art pay-per-click
systems), 1:63-2:57 (collecting prior art references regarding click fraud
detection), 3:62-64 (noting that a code "could be a serial number"), 4:25- 28
(noting that the user devices could be desktop or laptop computers, PDAs,
smartphone, other internet capable devices). The claimed subject matter
does not recite a technological invention, but instead, the recited elements
constitute "[ m ]ere recitation of known technologies" that, as noted in our
Trial Practice Guide, do not give rise to a technological invention. 77 Fed.
Reg. at 48,7 56.
Petitioner asserts that claim I does not solve a technical problem, but
rather it purports to solve the problem of overcharging merchant advertisers
for invalid clicks. Pet. 21 (citing Ex. I 001, 1:4-61 ). Patent Owner argues
that '~technology for detecting fraudulent clicks [was] not known before the
priority date of the claimed subject matter." PO Resp. 113. As evidence of
its assertion, Patent Owner argues that Petitioner experienced billions of
dollars in click fraud in 2005. Jd. at 114. Patent Owner contends that
"[n]one of the prior art or prior art combination[s] successfully [solved the
problem of click fraud.]" !d. at 115. According to Patent Owner, in order to
bring trust and credibility to web-based advertising, a technical solution was
required, and Patent Owner asserts that that technical solution to the
technical problem of click fraud is embodied in the '057 patent. I d. at 115-
1] 6.
Petitioner's arguments are persuasive. The specification states that

''[o ]ne problem with existing prior art systems, is that a user may cause an
undesirable level of expenditure on the part of the merchant by over-cJicking
I6
115
Case: 17-2161 Filed 09/22/2017
CBM20 16-00008
Patent 8,671 ,05 7 B I
the particular link." ld. at I :48-50. The cJaimed method purportedly solves
this problem by "allow[ing] the pay-per-click company to fairly invoice the
merchants, thereby preventing fraudulent over use, and also identify which
networks the fraudulent users use." Jd. at 3:2- 5. We find that this is a
business problem and not a technical problem. Thus, Petitioner shows that
at least claim 1 of the '057 patent is not directed toward solving a technical
problem using a technical solution. In view of the foregoing, we concJude
that the '057 patent is a covered business method patent under AlA
18(d)( 1) and is eligible for review using the transitional covered business
method patent review program.
B. Claim Construction
Consistent with the statute and the legislative history of the AlA, we
analyze patentability using the broadest reasonable construction of the
cJaims in light of the specification. 37 C.F.R. 42.100(b); Cuozzo Speed
Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2144-46 (2016) (upholding the use of
the broadest reasonable interpretation standard under 37 C.F.R. 42.1 OO(b)).
Neither party makes an explicit claim construction argument in the
proceeding. See generanv PO Resp., Reply. For purposes of this Final
Written Decision, we detem1ine that no claim tem1s require express
construction. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng'g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795,
803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) ("[O]nly those tenns need be construed that are in
controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.").
C. Asserted Ground Based on 35 U.S. C. 101

Petitioner argues that claims 1, 5, 9, and 11 are unpatentable under 35
U.S.C. 101. Pet. 45- 57. Upon review of Petitioner's arguments and
supporting evidence, we have determined that Petitioner has demonstrated
17
116
Case: 17-2161 Filed 09/22/2017
CBM20 16-00008
Patent 8,671 ,057 8 I
by a preponderance of the evidence that claims I, 5, 9, and 11 are directed to

patent-ineligible subject matter.
Our analysis begins with the statute. Patent eligible subject matter is
defined in 101 of the Patent Act, which recites
[w ]hoever invents or discovers any new and useful process,
machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and
useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject
to the conditions and requirements of this title.
There are, however, three limited, judicially created exceptions to the broad
categories of patent-eligible subject matter in 101: laws of nature; natural
phenomena; and abstract ideas. Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus
Labs., Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289, 1293 (20 12).
While an abstract idea by itself is not patentable, a practical
application of an abstract idea may be deserving of patent protection. Id. at
I 293-94; Bilski v. Kappas, 130 S. Ct. 3218, 3230 (20 I 0); Diamond v. Diehr,
450 U.S. 175, 187 (1981 ). To be patent-eligible, a claim cannot state simply
the abstract idea and add the words "'apply it." Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294.
The claim must incorporate enough meaningful limitations to ensure that it
claims more than just an abstract idea and is not merely a "drafting effort
designed to monopolize the [abstract idea] itself." See id. at 1297.
In Alice Cmp. v. CLS Bank International, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2355
(2014), the Supreme Court endorsed the use ofthe Mayo framework, "for
distinguishing patents that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena, and
abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible applications of those
concepts." First, "we determine whether the claims at issue are directed to
one of those patent-ineligible concepts." Id. Second, we consider the
elements of each claim both individually and as an ordered combination to
18
117
Case: I 7-216 1 Filed 09/22/2017
CBM20 16-00008
Patent 8,671,057 B 1
detem1ine whether the additional elements transform the nature of the claim
into a patent-eligible application. /d.
Step two of the analysis may be described as a search for an
'"inventive concept"-i.e., an element or combination of elements that is
sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more
than a patent upon the ineligible concept itself. /d. (citing Mayo, 132 S. Ct.
at 1294). Limiting the claims to a particular technological environment or
field of use, or adding insignificant pre- or post-solution activity, does not
constitute meaningful limitations. See Bilski, 561 U.S. at 609- 11; Diehr,
450 U.S. at 191-92; Parkerv. Flook, 437 U.S. 584,595 n.18 (1978). And,
even when a claim requires the use of a computer, the claim may
nonetheless be directed to patent-ineligible subject matter if it can be
perfonned using a pen and paper or in the human mind. See Versata, 793
F.3d at 1335; CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366,
1372-73 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
1. Abstract Idea Analysis

Petitioner contends that the challenged claims are "drawn to a patent-
ineligible abstract idea, specifically the concept of detecting invalid clicks
based on the time between two requests by the same device." Pet. 46 (citing
Ex. 1006 ~ 123. Petitioner argues that this is analogous to "[t]he concept of
determining whether requests are legitimate or invalid based on the time
between two requests from the same source." /d. Petitioner's declarant,
Stephen Gray, testifies that this concept can be implemented as a purely
mental process. Ex. 1006 ~58. He provides the example of a pharmacist
detennining whether a prescription request is fraudulent by examining when
a patient makes a request for a drug and flagging the request as fraudulent if
19
118
Case: 17-21 6f Filed 09/22/201 7
CBM20 16-00008
Patent 8,671,057 8 I
the patient asks for the same drug within a too-short period of time. !d. As
further support for its argument, Petitioner cites a Kentucky statute that
requires pharmacists to track a "'patient identifier" for each individual
requesting a controlled substance and the date that the medication was
dispensed. Pet. 47 (citing Ex. 1034 (Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. 218A.202(3),
(4)(a), (6)(e) (West 1999)). Petitioner asserts that a pharmacist could use
this information to determit1e whether a request for medication was valid
'"solely through the exercise of human intelligence." !d. For example "[i]f a
particular patient sought to fill a prescription for the same controlled
substance (such as OxyContin) twice in too short a period of time, it
indicates that the patient may be engaging in invalid activity to obtain the
controlled substance for abuse." !d. (citing Ex. 1006 ~ 124). Petitioner
argues that this is similar to what happens when determining the validity of
clicks in a PPC system. !d. According to Petitioner, a person using a
"purely mental process" could determine the validity of clicks by examining
a log of all clicks made over time in order to identify clicks that occur in
short periods of time that do not indicate a bona fide interest in the
underlying infonnation. !d. (citing Ex. 1006 ~ 125).
Petitioner also argues that the concept embodied in these claims is
abstract because it relates to the commercial activity of generating interest
by advertising. !d. at 48 (citing Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v.
Tells Fargo Bank, N.A., 776 F.3d 1343, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2014)).
"Advertising, like the practices of hedging in Bilski and intermediated
settlement in Alice, is a fundamental economic practice, and methods
associated with advertising inevitably address the 'human activity' of
generating market interest in products or services." !d. (citing Ultramercial,
20
119
Case: 17-2161 Filed 09/22/2017
CBM20 16-00008
Patent 8,671 ,05 7 B I
Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 715 (Fed. Cir. 2014)). Patent Owner
disputes these contentions and asserts that the claims of '057 patent, as a
whole, are not directed to an abstract idea. PO. Resp. 125.
Patent Owner contends that the claims are "directed towards
collecting click-through traffic infonnation to detennine traffic quality." !d.
at 126. Patent Owner argues that the challenged claims include a series of
specific steps in a specific order that are more than ''a mere abstraction, or a
mere mental idea, or an operation capable of being done by a human." !d. at
127. Further, Patent Owner contends that the challenged claims do not
preempt all click fraud detection techniques. Jd. Patent Owner also
contends that Petitioner over simplifies the '057 patent's claims in order to
make them appear to be an abstract idea. Jd. at 128- 129.
First, we review the challenged claims to ascertain the 'focus of the
claimed advance over the prior art" and to determine if the claim's
"character as a whole" is directed to excluded subject matter. Ajjini~v Labs
o,(Tex.. LLC v. DIRECTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2016). As
described in the specification, the ''invention relates generally to network
computing of the type which occurs over the Internet and World Wide Web,
for example, and, more particularly. to a method of protecting the providers
of pay-per-click services from multiple illegitimate usages." Ex. 1001.
1: 16-21. The method is described as follows:
This invention describes pay-per-click and pay-per-impression
arrangements periodically generating a code associated with the
search-engine users. This code, preferably in the fonn of a
number which could be encrypted or in clear, is compared to the
user of the website, such that by observing a metric like the
number of clicks for a given period of time. be it a short time or
a longer period, such as a day or a week, the system can
automatically determine if certain clicks are illegitimate. This
21
120
Case: 17-2161 Filed 09/22/2017
CBM2016-00008
Patent 8,671,057 81
allows the pay-per-dick company to fairly invoice the

merchants, thereby preventing fraudulent over use, and also
identify which networks the fraudulent users use.
ld. at 2:60- 3:5. Along these lines. claim l recites "[a] method for
identifying invalid clicks" the steps of this claim may be summarized as
follows: ( 1) generating a first code, (2) sending the first code to a device,
(3) obtaining a second code from the device when a user clicks a link at a
first time, (4) obtaining a third code from the device when the user clicks a
second link at a second time and (5) detennining whether the second click
was invalid by examining the difference between the first and second time.
Ex. 1001 , 5:16-37. Dependent claims 5, 9, and 11 recite additional
limitations including sending the second code to a device, storing the first
code on a cookie, and encoding the second and third codes. Ex. 1001, 6: 11-
12, 6:24-26, 6:32- 34. Based on our review of the claim language and the
specification we determine that the challenged claims are directed to method
for determining the validity of clicks based on the time elapsed between
clicks. Patent Owner's assertion that the claims are directed to ~collecting
click-through traffic information to determine traffic quality" is not
supported by the evidence. See PO Resp. 126. TI1e only detennination
made by the claims is whether a click is invalid based on an examination of
the time between clicks. See Ex. 1001,5:35- 37. Thus, Petitioner is correct
in asserting that these claims are directed to the concept of detecting invalid
clicks based on the time between two requests by the same device.
The question before us then is whether "the focus of the claimed
advance over the prior art," i.e., detecting invalid clicks based on the time
between two requests by the same device, renders the "claim's character as a
whole," id. (citation omitted), patent ineligible subject matter. See
22
12]
Case: I 7-216 1 Filed 09/22/2017
CBM20 16-00008
Patent 8,671,057 BJ
Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1325
(Fed. Cir. 20 17) (citation omitted). Thus, we must detennine whether the
claims are directed to "longstanding conduct that existed well before the
advent of computers and the Intemet." /d. at 1327. What we are presented
with is a system for marking the occurrence of two events and making a
detennination about the validity of the second occurrence based on the time
elapsed between occurrences. We find that this is a longstanding business
practice as exemplified by Petitioner's pharmacy example. See Pet. 47.
Patent Owner asserts that the '057 patent is different from the sort of fraud
detection that may be performed by a pharmacist because the challenged
claims are 'able to handle millions of clicks in real time whether from the
same or different users." PO Resp. 90. We do not agree. The claims recite
only two data points, a time associated with click one and a time associated
with click two. Thus, a pharmacist comparing the dates or times for two
prescription requests is performing the same comparison as the one recited
in the claims. There is no requirement in the claims that the system be able
to handle millions of data points. Further, there is no discussion of the
determination being made in real time and to the contrary the specification
states that "by observing a metric like the number of cl icks tor a given
period of time, be it a short time or a longer p eriod, such as a day or a week,
the system can automatically determine if certain clicks are illegitimate."
Ex. 100 I, 2:64-3 :2. In addition, while the claims recite the creation of codes
and encoded codes none of this is used by the claimed method to perform its
determination. That data merely is sent from one place to another while the
system marks the time associated with a click. The only information used in
the detennination is the time of the two clicks. The claims are not directed
23
122
Case: 17-2161 Filed 09/22/20 17
CBM20 16-00008
Patent 8,671 ,057 8 I
to improving the function of the computer or its associated software; instead,

they are directed to using a computer to perfonn a well-known business task.
See Bancorp Servs., LLC v. Sun L(fe Assurance Co., 687 F.3d 1266, 1278
(Fed. Cir. 20 12) ("'[T]he fact that the required calculations could be
performed more efficiently via a computer does not materially alter the
patent eligibility of the claimed subject matter.''). Therefore, we are
persuaded that the challenged claims are directed to a longstanding
economic task and not to an improvement to the computer functionality
itself. Cf Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1336 (Fed. Cir.
2016).
For all of the foregoing reasons, we find that Petitioner has established
that claims 1, 5, 9, and 11 are directed to an abstract idea.
2. Inventive Concept Ana~vsis

After determining that Petitioner has demonstrated that the claims are
directed to a patent ineligible concept, the elements of each claim are
considered "both individually and 'as an ordered combination' to determine
whether the additional elements 'transform the nature of the claim' into a
patent-eligible application." Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355. At this point we
examine whether the claims do significantly more than simply describe the
abstract method. Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 715 (citing Mayo 132 S. Ct. at
1297). In other words, we must examine whether the claims contain an
'"inventive concept" to "transform" the claimed abstract idea into patent-
eligible subject matter. !d. "A claim that recites an abstract idea must
include 'additional features' to ensure 'that the [claim] is more than a
drafting effort designed to monopolize the [abstract idea]."' Alice, 134 S.
Ct. at 2357 (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1297). Those "additional features"
24
123
Case: 17-2161 Filed 09/22/2017
CBM20 16-00008
Patent 8,671 ,057 B I
must be more than "well-understood, routine, conventional activity."

Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 715 .
.Petitioner argues, with supporting documentation and testimony from
Mr. Gray, that each challenged claim fails to recite meaningful limitations
that would transfonn the claim into something more than the abstract idea to
which it is directed. Pet. 49-57. According to Petitioner, "the claims merely
recite a technological environment (interaction between 'server side' and a
'client side' computing device) and conventional data-gathering methods for
obtaining information about conduct in that environment." Jd. at 49 (citing
Ex. 1006 ~ 126).
Petitioner asserts that the claims recite an environment where a server
interacts with a client and provides a plurality of links associated with other
web pages. Pet. 49 (citing Ex. 1001, 5: 17-37). In support of this
contention, Petitioner cites evidence from the specification, which we find to
be persuasive, showing that these elements were all in the prior art and thus,
could not be the inventive concept discussed in Alice. Id. at 49- 50.
Petitioner also argues that the claimed first, second, and third codes do not
transform the subject matter of the claims into patentable subject matter
"because they add nothing but conventional extra-solution activity,
specifically data-gathering using generic computer implementation." Jd. at
51 (citing CyberSource, 654 F.3d at 1370). Petitioner also contends that the
recited ''generating," "sending," and 'obtaining" steps are just "generic
functions to implement the abstract idea of detennining whether conduct is
legitimate or invalid based on a period of time between two events." ld. at
52. As to the "determining" step, Petitioner asserts that this is ''nothing
more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea to which the claims are
25
124
Case: I7-2161 Filed 09/22/2017
CBM2016-00008
Patent 8,671,057 8 I
drawn." !d. at 53 (citing Ex. 1006 , 133 ). Petitioner argues that nothing in
the claims either individually or viewed as an ordered combination supplies
an inventive concept sufficient to transform the embodied abstract idea into
a patent-eligible invention. See id. at 54.
Patent Owner argues that the challenged claims define "a specific
combination of technical computer functions'' that remove the claims from
the realm of mere abstract ideas. PO Resp. 138. Patent Owner asserts that
the step of sending a code to a first device "transfonn[s] the conventional
systems in the network computing to a different state to provide accuracy
and robustness in detecting the invalid click." !d. at 136. In addition, Patent
Owner contends that the step of obtaining a code 'transfonn[s] the
conventional systems in the network computing to a different state to
improve efficiency in detecting fraudulent clicks." /d. at 137.
Contrary to Patent Owner's arguments, the recited codes do not cause
any such '"transformation." As recited in claim 1, a first code is sent to at
least one device. After the code is sent, it is not referenced again in claim I.
There is no requirement in claim I that the code be received by any device,
and the code is not used to perfom1 any task. Claim 9 recites that the first
code is stored as a cookie, but it does not state whether this storage occurs at
the server or at one of the devices to which the code may have been sent.
Here again, the code is not used to perfonn any task. Thus, the first code
does not ''transform[ ]" the claim. As to the second and third codes, they are
obtained from a device and then they are not referenced again in claim I. In
claim 5, the second code is sent to at least one device, and in claim 1 I, the
second and third codes are encoded. This is not sufficient to ''transform" the
claim. The steps of obtaining, sending, and encoding data are conventional
26
125
Case: 17-2161 Filed 09/22/2017
CBM20 16-00008
Patent 8,671 ,057 B 1
activity, and there is no support for Patent Owner's assertion that these
conventional activities transfonn the claim into something patent eligible.
We determine that the subject matter of claims I, 5, 9, and II, when
the elements of each claim are considered individually and as a whole, does
not add meaningful limitations to the abstract idea of detecting invalid clicks
based on the time between two requests by the same device. We are
persuaded that the claimed methods do not require a particular apparatus
beyond a general-purpose computer. See Ex. I 001, 4:25- 28. Further the
steps of"generating," '"sending," and "obtaining" in claim I correspond to
"basic calculation, storage, and transmission functions" that are within the
capability of nearly every computer. See Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2360. In
addition, Petitioner has demonstrated that the underlying act of determining
whether a request is valid could have been accomplished manually. See Pet.
48 (citing Ex. 1006 ~ 125). Therefore, Petitioner has established that the
limitations in the challenged claims do not transfom1 the abstract concepts
embodied in those claims into patentable subject matter.
For the reasons above, and having considered Petitioner's arguments
and evidence and Patent Owner's Response, we detennine that Petitioner has
shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1, 5, 9, and 11 are
unpatentable as claiming patent-ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C.
101.
D. Asserted Grounds ofObviousness

Petitioner contends that claims I, 5, and 9 are unpatentable as obvious
over JAB 1 and lAB 2 and claims 5 and I I are unpatentable as obvious over
JAB 1, JAB 2, and Laurent. Pet. 27-45. We determine Petitioner has
demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1, 5, and 9
27
126
Case: 17-2161 Filed 09/22/2017
CBM20 I6-00008
Patent 8,67 1,057 B I
would have been obvious under 35 U.S.C. 103 over lAB I and lAB 2 and
that claims 5 and 11 would have been obvious over lAB 1, lAB 2, and
Laurent.
1. Overview ofJAB I and JAB 2

lAB I is a document containing online advertising reporting and
auditing guidelines that was developed and published by Interactive
Advertising Bureau {"lAB"). lAB I 's stated objective is to 'establish[]
detailed definitions for several key metrics used in Internet measurement and
provide[] certain guidelines for Internet advertising sellers ... and ad
serving organizations for establishing consistent and accurate
measurements." Ex. 1004. One portion of lAB 1 describes "Filtration
Guidelines." !d. at 8. These guideline are used to conduct [t]iltration of
site or ad-serving transactions to remove non-human activity [and this] is
highly critical to accurate, consistent counting." !d. One recommendation
in the guidelines is to use "activity-based filtration ("pattern analysis') to
identify robot-suspected activity." !d. In order to perform this pattern
analysis, log files are examined to ascertain the number of ads, clicks, or
pages accessed over a specified time period from one user. !d. One specific
recommendation is to examine the interval of time between c1icks or page/ad
impressions from a user in order to determine whether the clicks are from
robots. !d. at 9.
The guidelines found in lAB 1 are based on lAB 2, which is a study
that was conducted by Price Waterhouse. Ex. 1004, 2 C'[t]he definitions and
guidelines contained in [lAB 1] originated from Phase 1 of the Interactive
Advertising Bureau's (lAB's) Ad Campaign Measurement Project,
conducted from May through December 2001 ["lAB 2"]."). lAB 2 describes
28
127
Case: l 7-2161 Filed 09/22/201 7
CBM20 16-00008
Patent 8,671,057 B 1
the "Page Impression Delivery and Measurement Process." Ex. 1005, 39.
In this process the user accesses a web page and the web server renders
content to the user's browser and also creates or updates a cookie on the
user's device. !d.
The "'Click Request and Counting Process" also is described in lAB 2.
!d. at 31. The Figure reproduced below is from page 19 of lAB 2.
Click Request and Counting Process
la (c)tk reqwst CIUI1ed~ !

Plbbher M'CIId< Triii1SDCIJm s..r-
1 '
I I (til(); ruquos.tl
2 (dot\ """"""' 3021 I
Q I '
The Click Request and Counting Process is depicted in the Figure above. !d.
In this process, a user views an advertisement via a web browser and the
user clicks on that advertisement. ld. That browser click ''causes [the]
browser to request a target site from the Publisher Ad/Click Transaction
Server.'' Jd. The request sent to the Publisher Ad/Click Transaction server
typically includes the target site URL. !d. The Ad/CI ick Transaction server
records the click and responds to the browser by redirecting the browser to
the target site location. Jd.
29
128
Case: 17-2161 Filed 09/22/2017
CBM2016-00008
Patent 8,671 ,057 B 1
2. Ana~vsis of claims 1, 5, and 9 over JAB 1 and JAB 2

As to independent claim I, Petitioner asserts that the generation of the
first code is taught by the cited prior art's discussion of a "'cost-per-action
pricing model' that based revenue on click results." Pet. 30 (citing Ex. I 005,
8). This model is described as using cookies to track clicks. Jd. (citing Ex.
1004, 5). Petitioner's declarant testifies that these cookies are generated by
the web server and they uniquely identify the client on which the cookie has
been stored. !d. (citing Ex. 1006, 105). As to the second code, Petitioner
asserts that the request sent from the browser to the Publisher Ad/Click
Transaction Server typically also includes a target site URL. Jd. According
to Petitioner, "this step clearly shows that the second code [the target site
URL] is obtained from the client because it is included in the request from
the client device [the browser]." Req. Reh'g 5; see Ex. 1006, 108. As to
the third code, it is Petitioner's assertion that this code is also taught by the
target site URL. /d. at 32. Petitioner contends that Patent Owner has stated
that "if the codes identify the device, the two clicks from the same device
would result in the first code being the same as the second code, because
both codes identify the device being used by the user." ld. (quoting Ex.
1035, 1- 2 (Brite Smart's6 Opening Claim Construction Brief)). Petitioner
extends this analysis (that was based on claim construction arguments for a
related patent) to claim I 's third code by arguing that the third code would
be the same as the second code if the two clicks were on the same
advertisement. /d. Thus, Petitioner argues that lAB 2's disclosure of a
6
Brite Smart was the previous owner of the '057 patent. Subsequent to the
filing of that claim construction brief, the '057 patent was assigned to
Patrick Zuili.
30
129
Case: 17-2161 Filed 09/22/2017
CBM2016-00008
Patent 8,671 ,057 B 1
target site URL included in the communication with the Publisher Ad/Click
Transaction Server would have rendered obvious both the claimed second
and third codes that are obtained after the user clicks an advertisement at a
first and second time. Ex. I 006 ~ 109. Finally, lAB 1 and lAB 2 are
asserted to teach examining the difference between the first and second time
through its disclosure of filtering out invalid clicks by reviewing the interval
between clicks. Pet. 33-35 (citing Ex. 1004,6, 8-9, Ex. 1005, 18- 19,28,
36).
Claims 5 and 9 depend from claim I and, respectively, further recite
sending the second code to a device and storing the first code as a cookie.
Petitioner relies on lAB 2 to teach sending the second code to a device. Pet.
35-36. Specifically, Petitioner contends that the second code ("target site
URL") is sent to the user's browser by the Publisher Ad/Click Transaction
Server. This URL is part of the redirection request that is sent in response to
the communication sent to the server to facilitate the counting of clicks. /d.
at 35; see Ex. I 005, 19). As to claim 9, Petitioner relies on lAB 2's
disclosure of"[t]he web server respond[ing] to the user browser by checking
for an existing cookie and creating one if one does not exist" to teach storing
the first code as a cookie. Pet. 41 (quoting Ex. I005, 27).
Petitioner argues that the teachings of lAB 1 and lAB 2 would have
been combined because lAB 1 includes guidelines that were developed
based on the study results published in lAB 2. Pet. 29; See Ex. I004, 2
('"[t]he definitions and guidelines contained in [lAB 1] originated from
Phase 1 of the Interactive Advertising Bureau's (lAB's) Ad Campaign
Measurement Project, conducted from May through December 2001 [.. lAB
2"]."). This assertion also is supported by testimony from Stephen Gray
31
130
Case: 17-2161 Filed 09/22/2017
CBM20 I 6-00008
Patent 8,671 ,05 7 B 1
where he notes that lAB published lAB 1 and lAB 2 together and cites a
press release from lAB to support his testimony. Ex. 1006,93 (citing Ex.
10 I 1, I ("The full text of both the lAB Ad Campaign Measurement and
Audit Guidelines and the IAB/PWC Online Ad Measurement Study can be
found at www.iab.net.")).
Patent Owner asserts that the cited references do not teach "generating
a first code on the server side computing device ... sending said first code to
said at least one device over a communication network. PO Resp. 144.
According to Patent Owner, Petitioner "inconsistently pointed [] to cookies
as constituting a first code," and Patent Owner alleges that this is insufficient
because claim 1 does not discuss cookies. Jd. at I46. Patent Owner
contends that Petitioner has equated code generation with cookies and that is
improper because cookies are used only to store the code after it has been
generated. /d. We do not agree with Patent Owner's analysis. Petitioner's
declarant, Stephen Gray, asserts that "[c]ookies are set by servers that store
the cookie in the client. That cookie is then transmitted back from the client
to the server upon subsequent accesses by the user to the origin server that
set the cookie." Ex. I 006 , 60. Gray opines that one of ordinary skill in the
art would have known that '"when a user clicks a cookie-enabled website, a
cookie is generated on the server and this cookie is stored on the client
computer along with all of the information." Ex. 1006 , 105. We find that
this comports with lAB I 's description of measuring the number of visits to
a web site by using a ~~unique Cookie with Heuristic." Ex. 1004, 5. lAB I 's
server stores "a small piece of infonnation with a browser." /d. lAB 2 notes
that "[t]he web server responds to the user browser by checking for an
existing cookie and creating one ({one does not exist." Ex. 1005, 27
32
131
Case: 17-2161 Filed 09/22/20 17
CBM2016-00008
Patent 8,671 ,057 B I
(emphasis added). As described in the JAB references, cookies are designed

to be unique to each browser, or if possible, the cookies should be unique to
each user. Ex. 1004, 5, Ex. I 005, 21-22, 27. We find that these disclosures
from lAB I and lAB 2 would have taught one of ordinary skill in the art the
claimed first code.
Patent Owner contends that the target site URL described in lAB I
and lAB 2 does not teach the recited second and third codes. PO Resp. 87.
Petitioner's declarant testifies that "[t]he target site URL included in the
HTTP request corresponds to the 'second code' because it is obtained "from
the device on the client side ... when said at least one user performs a first
click on at least one of said links associated with at least one of said other
web pages at a first time," as recited in claim I." Ex. 1006 , 108 (citing Ex.
1001, 5:26-30. "Patent Owner argues that there is a huge difference
between Target site URL and second or third code. Second and third codes
are encoded in nature and at least includes network cartography, timestamps
and number of previous clicks." !d. We are persuaded by Petitioner's
arguments, and we disagree with Patent Owner's assertions because we find
that they are not supported by the claims or the specification.
Claim I recites that the second and third codes are obtained from a
device on the client side. Claim II recites that the second and third codes
are encoded. The claims provide no further description of the codes. We
do, however, glean from the specific recitation of encoding in dependent
claim II that the codes in claim 1 are not necessarily encoded. Thus, we
disagree with Patent Owner's assertion that the second and third codes "are
encoded in nature." See PO. Resp. 87; see also Ex. 1001, 2:63- 64 (noting
33
132
Case: 17-2161 Filed 09/22/2017
CBM20 16-00008
Patent 8,671 ,057 B 1
that the code is "preferably in the form of a number which could be

encrypted or in clear).
As to the other limitations that Patent Owner ascribes to the second
and third codes, we find that Patent Owner's assertions are not supported by
the specification. As described in the specification, "the search engine
generates a code, preferably in the form of a number, utilizing a cookie. The
number could be a serial number, a globally unique identifier (GUID) or a
pseudo-random number." Ex. 1001, 3:61-64. Thus, the codes as described
in the preferred embodiment could be a simple serial number without the
additional information asserted by Patent Owner. This is supported by other
portions of the specification. For example, the specification notes that the
code could be modified to "include adding timestamp, identity infonnation
like MAC address of the device, other MAC addresses in the subnet ofthe
device or any changes made to the MAC addresses." /d. at 4:12- 14. Thus,
the timestamp is an optional modification to the code, and we see no
limitation in the claims that would require a timestamp. Similarly, the
specification describes network cartography as including information, such
as a MAC address, and as noted above, the MAC address is an optional
modification to the code. See id. at 4:20- 24. In addition, the specification
states that "[ w ]hen the user clicks on a link within the browser 21 0, the code
240 with il?formation like network cartography, timestamps and number of
previous clicks, will be sent to the search engine 102 and will be interpreted
by the pay-per-click system 120 to determine various parameters like the
frequency of clicks from that user or device, interval between clicks etc."
Ex. 1001,4:41-47. We read this disclosure as meaning that the code may be
transmitted along with additional information. The claims, however, do not
34
133
Case: 17-2161 Filed 09/22/2017
CBM20 16-00008
Patent 8,67 I ,057 B 1
specify that any additional information be transmitted along with the code.
Thus, we do not agree with Patent Owner's assertion that the code "includes
network cartography, timestamps and number of previous clicks." See PO.
Resp. 87.
and evidence and Patent Owner's Response, we find that Petitioner has
shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims J, 5, and 9 are
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. l 03 as obvious over the teachings of lAB 1
and lAB 2.
3. Anazvsis ofclaims 5 and 11 over JAB 1, JAB 2, and Laurent

Petitioner chaJienges claims 5 and 11 over the teachings of JAB l,
JAB 2, and Laurent. Pet. 41-44. Claims 5 and 11 depend from claim 1.
Claim 5 further recites "sending said second code to said at least one
device.'' Laurent is a book authored by Simon St. Laurent that is titled
Cookies. Ex. 1009. Laurent discloses that cookies are a tool that may be
used to store infom1ation between web page retrievals and to provide a
context for transactions. !d. at 2. Laurent provides an example of a system
in which a target site URL is sent to a client in a redirect response. Pet. 42
(citing Ex. 1009, 101; Ex. 1006 ~ 120). Petitioner argues that this disclosure
when viewed in conjunction with the teachings of JAB 1 and lAB 2 would
have taught sending the second code to a device as recited in dependent
claim 5. Claim II depends from claim I and further recites that the second
and third code are encoded. Petitioner relies upon Laurent's disclosure of
encrypted cookies to teach this limitation. Pet. 43-44 (citing Ex. 1009, 22).
Petitioner persuasively argues that one of ordinary skill in the art
would have combined the teachings of lAB 1, JAB 2, and Laurent because
35
134
Case: 17-2161 Filed 09/22/2017
CBM20 16-00008
Patent 8,671 ,057 B 1
the references all Hdisclose using cookies and target site URLs and are
discussing the same functionality." Pet. 43 (citing Ex. 1009, 101; Ex. 1005,
19; Ex. 1006 ~ I 21 ). Gray testifies that Laurent discloses one option for
secure communications and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill to combine Laurent with the lAB references because the combination of
these references would ''ensure secure communication between the client
and the server disclosed in the lAB Study." Ex. 1006 ~ 122. He further
opines that ''the combination would have yielded nothing more than
predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. This modification
could be made with routine skill and without the expenditure of any
unreasonable resources." Ex. 1006 ~ 121. We are persuaded by Petitioner's
reasonable argument and supporting evidence.
In addition to the arguments discussed above in regards to the
challenges based on lAB 1 and lAB 2, Patent Owner asserts as to claim 5
that "[n]owhere does Laurent teach or suggest that a code has been sent to a
device." PO Resp. 15 8- 159. Petitioner contends that
Laurent discloses that "[t]he entryway to the maze checks to see
if the user already has a MazeiD cookie. If there is one, the
entryway redirects the user to the next page, submit.pl, which
presents a welcome to the maze." Ex. I 009 at 101. Thus,
Laurent explains that upon a subsequent visit to the same site that
set the "MazeiD" cookie, the server detects the cookie and
redirects the user by sending a target site URL to the user device.
See id. ("redirect ('http:l/ 127.0.0.1 /cgi-bin/maze/submit.pl');"
see also Ex. 1006, Gray Decl. ~ 120. Thus, Laurent explicitly
discloses sending a second code to said at least one device by
disclosing that a target site URL is sent to the client in a redirect
response.
36
135
Case: 17-2161 Filed 09/22/2017
CBM20I6-00008
Patent 8,671 ,057 B I
Pet. 42. We find Petitioner's explanation to be persuasive. As to the cited

portion of Laurent, Patent Owner asserts that ~~[c]learly, Laurent teach[es] or
suggest[s] that whether a user possesses a MazeiD, and in an event the user
has the MazeiD, user is redirected to the webpage." PO Resp. 158. Patent
Owner's assertions, however, overlook the import of the cited redirect
operation. Ex. 1009, 101 ("'redirect('http:l/127.0.0.1/cgi-
bin/maze/submit.pl')"). Petitioner cites the "redirect" as evidence that
Laurent sends the target site URL to at least one device. Ex. 1006 ~ I20.
We find that the redirect command contains the target site URL and that
target site URL ("second code") is sent to the client in order for the client to
navigate to the next web page. Thus, we are persuaded that Petitioner has
demonstrated that the disputed limitation is taught by the cited art.
and evidence and Patent Owner's Response, we detem1ine that Petitioner has
shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 5 and I1 are
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over the teachings of lAB I,
lAB 2, and Laurent.
Ill. CONCLUSION
Based on the arguments in the Petition, as well as the evidence of
record, we detennine that Petitioner has demonstrated by a preponderance of
the evidence that claims I, 5, 9, and II are unpatentable over 35 U .S.C.
I 0 I. Petitioner has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that
claims I, 5, and 9 would have been obvious over lAB 1 and lAB 2 and
claims 5 and 11 would have been obvious over lAB 1, lAB 2, and Laurent.
37
136
Case: 17-2161 Filed 09/22/2017
CBM2016-00008
Patent 8,671 ,057 B 1
IV. ORDER
For the reasons given, it is
ORDERED that claims I, 5, 9, and 11 ofthe '057 patent are
unpatentable;
FURTHER ORDERED that, because this is a final written decision,
parties to the proceeding seeking judicial review of the decision must
comply with the notice and service requirements of 37 C.F.R. 90.2.
PETITIONER:
Robert Pluta
Saqib J. Siddiqui
MAYER BROWN, LLP
rpluta@mayerbrown.com
ssiddigui@mayerbrown.com
PATENT OWNER:
Patrick Zuili
patick@ tenderbox.tv
38
137
Case: 17-2161 Filed 09/22/20 17
Trials@uspto.gov Paper48
Tel: 571-272-7822 Entered: May 5, 2017
GOOGLE INC.,
Petitioner,
v.
PATRICK ZUlLI,
Patent Owner.
Case CBM20 16-00021

Patent 7,953,667 B1
Before JAMESON LEE, GLENN J. PERRY, and MIRIAM L. QUINN,

Administrative Patent Judges.
LEE, Administrative Patent Judge.

35 U.S.C. 328(a) and 37 C.F.R. 42.73
138
Case: 17-2161 Filed 09/22/2017
CBM20 16-00021
Patent 7,953,667 B1
I. INTRODUCTION
A. Background
On December 17, 2015, Petitioner filed a Petition (Paper 1, "Pet.")
requesting covered business method patent review of claims 1- 3, 6, 10, 14,
15, 18, 19, and 21 ofU.S. Patent No. 7,953,667 B1 (Ex. 1001, "the '667
patent"), under Section 18 of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, Pub. L.
No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284, 329 (2011) ("AlA"). On June 1, 2016, we
instituted a covered business method patent review (Paper 11, "Inst. Dec.")
onthesolegroundthatclaims 1- 3,6, 10, 14, 15, 18, 19,and21 aredirected
to patent ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101. We did not
institute review of any claim on any other alleged ground ofunpatentability,
including alleged grounds of obviousness over prior art. In st. Dec. 46.
Subsequent to institution of review, Patent Owner filed a Patent Owner
Response (Paper 18, "PO Resp.") and Petitioner filed a Reply (Paper 28,
"Reply") to Patent Owner's Response.
After filing of Petitioner's Reply to Patent Owner's Response, the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a decision in Unwired
Planet, LLC v. Google Inc., 841 F.3d 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2016), which provided
new guidance on how to determine a patent's eligibility for covered business
method patent review. Given this new binding authority, we authorized
Patent Owner to submit additional briefing ''to discuss the issue of whether
the subject matter of at least one claim of the ['667 patent] is directed to a
method or corresponding apparatus for performing data processing or other
product or service, in light of the Federal Circuit's decision in Unwired
Planet, supra." Paper 30, 2. We also authorized Petitioner to file a response
139
Case: 17-2161 Filed 09/22/2017
CBM20 I6-0002I
to Patent Owner's submission. /d. Each party filed its submission. Paper
31 (Patent Owner submission); Paper 32 (Petitioner submission).
No oral hearing was held for this proceeding. Paper 39.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. 6. This Final Written
Decision is issued pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 328(a) and 37 C.F.R. 42.73.
For the reasons discussed below, we determine that Petitioner has shown by
a preponderance of the evidence that claims of the '667 patent are directed to
patent ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. I 01. 1
B. Related Proceedings
Petitioner indicates that the '667 patent was the subject of Brite Smart
C01p. v. Google Inc., No. 2:I4-cv-760-JRG (E.D. Tex.) (closed). Pet. 4.
Petitioner also identifies Brite Smart C01p. v. Google Inc., No. 5: 15-cv-
03962-BLF (N.D. Ca.) as a related matter. /d. Petitioner also has filed
petitions seeking covered business method patent review of two related
patents, U.S. Patent No. 8,671,057 Bl (CBM2016-00008) and U.S. Patent
No. 8,326,763 B2 (CBM2016-00022).
C. Asserted Ground of Unpatentability
Trial was instituted based on the following ground of unpatentability:
1
In its Reply, Petitioner notes numerous instances of non-compliance of the
Patent Owner Response with the pertinent rules involving certification, font,
and spacing requirements. Reply 2- 3. Given Patent Owner's prose status,
these violations are not sufficient to preclude us from considering the Patent
Owner Response. Petitioner also asserts that Patent Owner did not serve the
Patent Owner Response on Petitioner's counsel of record. /d. at 2.
However, the Patent Owner Response is accompanied by such a certificate
of service. PO Resp. 173. The content of the Reply also indicates that
Petitioner has received a copy of the Patent Owner Response. No action is
required.
3
140
Case:Case:
17-2161 Page: 141 09/22/2017
CBM20 I 6-00021
Patent 7,953,667 BI
References Basis ofUnpatentability Claims Challenged

Not Applicable lack of patent eligibility 1- 3, 6, 10, 14, 15, 18,
under 35 U.S.C. I01 19, and 21
Petitioner relies on the Declaration of Stephen Gray, filed in support

of the Petition. Ex. I 006. Patent Owner submitted an Affidavit of
Mr. Patrick Zuili, relied on, not in Patent Owner's Response, but in Patent
Owner's Renewed Motion to Exclude Evidence (Paper 33). Ex. 2012.
D. The '667 Patent

The '667 patent issued on May 31, 20 I 1, and is titled: "Method and
System to Detect Invalid and Fraudulent Impressions and Clicks in Web-
Based Advertisement Systems." Ex. 1001, (45), (54). The '667 patent
relates specifically to a method for protecting the providers of "pay-per-
click" services from illegitimate usages. Id. at 1:20- 23. A "pay-per-click"
system is described as follows:
In accordance with such [pay-per-click] capability, a user goes
to a website, and inputs the name of goods or services that they
would like the pay-per-click company to find. Various providers
of goods and services register their websites with the company,
and these are provided to the user in a list which is prioritized by
the level of compensation which the merchant will give the pay-
per-click company if the user is routed to their site. For example,
using such a system, if a user types in "binoculars," the pay-per-
click system might return five potential links, with the most
prominent one being associated with that supplier of binoculars
which will compensate for a penny or a few cents more than the
links presented below.
Id. at 1:36-48.
The '667 patent describes that "a user may cause an undesirable level
of expenditure on the part of the merchant by overclicking on a particular
link." Jd. at I:49-51. The '667 patent states that "it has been known that
14]
Case: 17-2161 Filed 09/22/2017
CBM20 16-00021
Patent 7,953,667 B 1
some users have done [overclicking] simply for the purpose of undermining
a particular provider or competitor." !d. at 1:51-53.
Figure 1 of the '667 patent is reproduced below:
PAY PER CliCK

PAY PER CLIC:K
120 COMPANY
r---i
130 122
VERIFY THAT THE SERIAL NUMBER
IS UNIQUE
uo
XML LINK
~~
XMl GET SEARCH ENGINE
COOKIE SRIAl NUMBER
lOCATED ON END
USER COMPUTR
SEARCH ENGINE WRITE AND ADD IT fO
A SERIAL NUMBER THE UNK. XNL
ON THE COOKIE VIA TECHNOLOGY PERMIT
ACJM)(. JAVA. JAVASCRIJ1!1 TO PASS lHRU
.TECHNOlOGY BASED Ort AREWAil
END USER GUID. OR I AND
NETWORK CARTOGRAPHY
GENERATED PERIODICALLY
FOR EACH USER ON EACH
SEAACH ENGINE
FIG. 1
Figure 1 illustrates a preferred embodiment of the '667 patent. Id. at 2:8- 10.
Search engine 102 provides search results to a user along path 104. /d. at
2:24-25. The search engine also "generates a code, preferably in the form of
a serial number utilizing a cookie via [A]ctive X, Java, Javascript, or any
other type of technology based upon the end-user's Global Unique identifier
142
Case: 17-2161 Filed 09/22/2017
CBM20 I6-00021
Patent 7,953,667 B 1
(GUID)." !d. at 2:30-33. The search engine writes the code into a memory
on the end-user's device, e.g., floppy disk I 06 shown in Figure I or a flash
memory. !d. at 2:37-40. The text in the description in Figure 1 along path
104 to the user device indicates that the code is retrieved from the user's
computer and added to the link provided to the user as a result of the user's
search request. Specifically, the code is concatenated with the link provided
as the search result. Id. at 2:40-43.
When a user clicks on a link provided by the search engine to website
122, the code or serial number is transmitted to company I20 along path
130. Jd. at 2:47- 50. The pay-per-click company will invoice website 122
only when the code or serial number has been received. /d. at 2:50-51. The
'667 patent describes: "if multiple requests are made by the same user, they
may be considered legitimate if they are sufficiently spaced apart in time to
be indicative of a legitimate as opposed to fraudulent access to the website
122." /d. at 2:54-58. In the Summary of Invention portion ofthe
Specification, the '667 patent describes: "[B]y observing a metric like the
number of clicks for a given period of time, be it a short time or a longer
period, such as a day or a week, the system can automatically determine if
certain clicks are illegitimate." /d. at 1:66-2:2. In that regard, the '667
patent further states: "This allows the pay-per-click company to more fairly
invoice the merchants, thereby preventing fraudulent over use." Jd. at 2:2-4.
The independent claims are claims 1, 10, 14, and 18, as reproduced
below:
1. A method for detecting fraudulent activity in a pay-per-click
system, comprising:
(a) providing a search engine on a server side;
143
Case: 17-2161 Filed 09/22/20 17
CBM2016-00021
b) receiving, at said server side, a search request from a

client;
c) generating a unique code on the server side, for
identifying said client;
d) transmitting said code to said client from the server side;
e) transmitting to said client from the server side, in
response to said search request, a plurality of links
associated with a plurality of websites associated with a
plurality of merchants;
f) generating website information regarding a website
selected by the client when said client clicks one of said
plurality of links;
g) transmitting said code and said website information
together from said client to said server side;
h) receiving said code and said website information at the
server side, and detecting fraudulent activity by
measuring the duration between clicks by said client to
said selected website by examining said code and website
information.
!d. at 2:61 - 3:16.
10. In an advertising system including a search engine on a
server side, the search engine providing a plurality of
links associated with a plurality of web pages to a user at
a device on a client side, the method for identifying fraud
comprising the steps of:
generating a code on the server side, the code identifying
said device on the client side;
sending said code to said device;
receiving data from said device, said data including said
code and information about one or more selections by the
user of at least one of said plurality of web pages;
determining from said data whether said at least one of said
selections of said at least one web page is fraudulent; and
144
Case: 17-2161 Filed 09/22/201 7
CBM20 16-00021
Patent 7,953,667 B 1
examining a duration between a time of one of said

selections of said at least one [web page] and a time of
another of said selections of said at least one [web page].
!d. at 3:46- 61. 2
14. A method for detecting fraud in an advertising system
including a search engine on a server side comprising the
steps of:
generating a code on the server side, the code identifying a
device on a client side;
generating on the server side, a plurality of links associated
with a plurality of web pages in response to a search
initiated at the device on the client side wherein at least
one of said links includes said code;
sending said plurality of links to the device;
receiving data from said device, said data including said
code and information about one or more clicks by the
user on at least one of said plurality of links associated
with the plurality of web pages;
determining from said data whether said at least one of said
clicks on said at least one link is fraudulent; and
examining a duration between a time of one of said clicks on
said at least one link and a time of another of said clicks
on said at least one link.
!d. at 4: 12- 30.
18. A method for detecting fraudulent activity in a pay-per-
click system, comprising:
a) providing a search engine on a server side;
b) receiving, at said server side, a search request from a
client;
2
The bracketed term "web page" was inserted by a Certificate of Correction,
to replace original term ''web site" as issued. Ex. I 00 I, 9.
8
145
Case: 17-2161 Filed 09/22/2017
CBM20 16-00021
Patent 7,953,667 B 1
c) generating a unique code on the server side, for

identifying said client;
d) transmitting said code to said client from the server side;
e) transmitting to said client from the server side, in
response to said search request, a plurality of links
associated with a plurality of websites associated with a
plurality of merchants;
f) receiving, on said server side, website information
regarding a website selected by the client together with
said code, when said client clicks one of said plurality of
links;
g) detecting fraudulent activity by measuring the duration
between clicks by said client to said selected website by
examining said code and website information.
/d. at 4:42- 60.
II. ANALYSIS
Section 18 of the AlA created a transitional program, limited to
persons or their privies that have been sued or charged with infringement of
a "covered business method patent," to seek covered business method patent
review. AlA 18(a)(I)(B), 18(d)(1), Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284,
329-331 (2011 ); see 3 7 C.F.R. 42.302. Petitioner represents that it has
been sued for infringement of the '667 patent in Brite Smart Corp. v. Google
Inc., No.2: 14-cv-760-JRG-RSP (E.D. Tex.). Pet. I 0; see Ex. 1007.
Petitioner also represents that it is not estopped from seeking covered
business method patent review of the '667 patent on the grounds it asserts.
Pet. I 0. Patent Owner does not dispute that Petitioner has been sued for
infringement of the '667 patent.
146
Case: I 7-216 I Filed 09/22/201 7
CBM20 I6-0002I
A "covered business method patent" is "a patent that claims a method

or corresponding apparatus for performing data processing or other
product or service, except that the term does not include patents for
technological inventions." AlA I8(d){l); 37 C.F.R. 42.30I(a). 3 We
refer to that part of the statutory definition of covered business method
patent, up to the clause beginning with the word "except," as the ''financial
product or service requirement," and the clause commencing with the word
"except" as the "technological invention exception."
A patent need have only one claim directed to a covered business
method to be eligible for covered business method patent review. See
Covered Business Method Patent and Technological Invention, 77 Fed. Reg.
48,734,48,736 (Aug. I4, 20I2) (Response to Comment 8).
I. Financial Product or Service Requirement

In the Institution Decision, we applied a definition for "covered
business method patent" that regards the financial product or service
requirement as capable ofbeing met by all activities that are ''incidental to a
financial activity or complementary to a financial activity." Inst. Dec. II.
Our reviewing court has ruled in a recent decision on appeal from a final
3
Patent Owner argues that a "software invention" is categorically not
subject to review as a covered business method patent under Section I8 of
AlA. PO Resp. IOI - 102. There is no such exception in the law. Rather, a
patent on a "software invention" is like any other patent, in that it may or
may not be a covered business method patent depending on an analysis
under appropriate standards applied on a case-by-case basis to the claimed
invention.
IO
147
Case: 17-2161 Filed 09/22/2017
CBM20 I 6-00021
Patent 7,953,667 B 1
written decision of the Board in a covered business method patent review

that the statutory requirement for a "covered business method patent" is not
that broad, and that applying the scope that broadly is not in accordance with
law. Unwired Planet, 841 F.3d at 1382. Accordingly, we conduct the
determination of whether the '667 patent is a covered business method
patent anew, based on the guidance we received from the Federal Circuit in
Unwired Planet, and also with consideration of each party's briefing on this
subject submitted after the issuance of the Federal Circuit's decision in
Unwired Planet.
A "covered business method patent" is a patent that "c1aims a method
technological inventions." AlA 18(d)( I); 37 C.F.R. 42.301 (a). The
Federal Circuit has made cJear that the statutory definition covers a wide
range of financial-related activities and is not limited in application to only
financial institutions. For instance, the Court has stated:
Blue Calypso asserts that its patents are not CBM patents because
they relate to a method for managing and distributing advertising
44
content, which is not a financial product or service" that
traditionally originated in the financial sector, e.g., banks,
brokerages, holding companies and insurance firms. These
arguments are forecJosed by our recent decisions in Versata Ifl 4 l
and in SightSound Techs., LLCv. Apple Inc., 809 F.3d 1307 (Fed.
Cir. 2015).
4
Versata Dev. Grp., Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1318- 23 (Fed.
Cir. 2015).
II
148
Case: 17-2161 Filed 09/22/2017
CBM20 16-00021
Patent 7,953,667 B 1
Blue Calypso, LLCv. Groupon, Inc., 815 F.3d 1331, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
The Court further stated: "Here, the Board declined to limit the application
of CBM review to patent claims tied to the financial sector. This
determination is consistent with our recent case law." ld.
The claimed invention in Blue Calypso involves a peer-to-peer
advertising system in which a "subsidy" is recognized for a subscriber after
an advertising-related token, first sent by an advertiser to the subscriber, is
forwarded by that subscriber to another device owned by a recipient who has
a relationship with the subscriber. !d. at 1336-133 7. The Board construed
44
Subsidy" as 'financial assistance given by one to another," which
4
construction was unchallenged. !d. at 1339- 1340. The Federal Circuit

determined: "Thus, under this unchallenged interpretation, the claims of the
Blue Calypso Patents are directed to methods in which advertisers
.financially induce 'subscribers' to assist their advertising efforts." !d.
at 1340.
4
For the '667 patent, we focus on claim 1, which recites: 'A method
for detecting fraudulent activity in a pay-per-click system." As we noted
above, the '667 patent is titled: "Method and System to Detect Invalid and
Fraudulent Impressions and Clicks in Web-Based Advertisement Systems."
Ex. 1001 [54]. Also as noted above, a Hpay-per-click" system is described in
the '667 patent as follows:
12
149
Case: 17-2161 Filed 09/22/2017
CBM2016-00021
Patent 7,953,667 B 1

!d. at 1:36-48. We find, as Petitioner has argued (Pet. 11- 12), and based on
the above-noted portions of the Specification, that a pay-per-click system
provides advertising of goods and services, for payment of money. Thus, we
find that a pay-per-click system is itself a financial product and provides a
financial service.
As noted above, the pay-per-click company that provides online
browsing services would present to its users information about various
merchant providers of goods and services, and would be paid monetary
compensation from a merchant for such presentation, if the presentation
triggers a click by a user to be routed to the merchant's website. Each click
in a pay-per-click system, that routes a user to a merchant's website,
obligates the merchant advertiser to pay a sum of money to the entity
presenting information about the merchant and a clickable link to users
searching for information online. As such, each click in a pay-per-click
system itself constitutes financial activity.
Our finding that a pay-per-click system provides advertising of goods
and services, for payment of money, is supported by the following testimony
of Mr. Gray: "Generally, advertising requires merchants to pay for display
of their ads and the web sites listing the ads are selling space on their
website to display the ads. Specifically, as the '667 Patent discloses, pay-
per-click systems allow advertisers to place ads on websites." Ex. 1006
~ 78. Further support stems from Mr. Gray's testimony that "pay-per-click
systems include the selling of website space, the act of sending an invoice,
13
150
Case: 17-2161 Filed 09/22/20 17
CBM20 16-00021
and exchange of money." Jd. Even Patent Owner in its submission

discussing the Federal Circuit's decision in Unwired Planet refers to a pay-
per-click system as an Hadvertising model" and the administrator of a pay-
per-click system as an Hadvertising platform operator" or an "advertising
operator." Paper 3I, 3- 5.
We are cognizant that a "pay-per-click system" is expressly recited
only in claim 1's preamble, and that a preamble recitation may not be
limiting. HWhether a preamble stating the purpose and context of the
invention constitutes a limitation of the claimed process is determined on the
facts of each case and in light of the overall form of the claim, and the
invention as described in the specification and illuminated in the prosecution
history." Applied Materials, Inc. v. Advanced Semiconductor Materials Am.,
Inc., 98 F.3d 1563, 1572- 73 (Fed. Cir. I996). In this instance, the recitation
of a "pay-per-click system" in the preamble of claim 1 is limiting, because it
is necessary to give life, meaning, and vitality to the subject matter of
claim I. See Symantic Cmp. v. Computer Assocs. Int '/Inc., 522 F.3d 1279,
I288 (Fed. Cir. 2008); Catalina Marketing Int 'I. v. Coo/savings. Com,
289 F.3d 80I, 808 (Fed. Cir. 2002); Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard
Co., I82 F.3d I298, 1305 (Fed. Cir. I999).
In the Summary of the Invention section, the Specification states:
HThis invention improves upon existing pay-per-click arrangements ...."
Ex. 100 I, 1:62- 64. The Specification describes no environment for the
disclosed invention other than in a "pay-per-click" system. The body of
claim 1 specifically recites a step of Hdetecting fraudulent activity by
measuring the duration between clicks by said client to said selected website
by examining said code and website information." !d. at 3:12- 15. The
14
151
Case: 17-2161 Filed 09/22/201 7
CBM20 16-00021
"fraudulent activity" referred to in the body of the claim depends on the

operations of a pay-per-click system to have meaning. For instance, the
potentially fraudulent activity related to the duration between clicks is a
problem, because the merchant has an obligation to pay for each click in a
pay-per-click system. Also in the Summary of the Invention section, the
Specification states that detennining if certain clicks are illegitimate "allows
the pay-per-click company to more fairly invoice the merchants, thereby
preventing fraudulent [overuse]." !d. at 2:1-4. Claim 1 expressly requires
the links provided to a client be "associated with a plurality ofwebsites
associated with a plurality of merchants." !d. at 3:2- 5. For all of these
reasons, we determine that the recitation of "pay-per-click system" in the
preamble of claim 1 is limiting. We determine, in particular, that the step in
the body of claim 1 for detecting fraudulent activity derives its meaning and
significance from being implemented in a pay-per-click system.
The data processing operations of claim 1 of the '667 patent are
financial activities the same as, if not even more so than, those held to be
financial in Blue Calypso. In Blue Calypso, a subsidy, construed to be
financial assistance, is provided to a subscriber for forwarding advertising to
a device possessed by a recipient related to the subscriber. In the case of the
'667 patent here, monetary compensation is made from the merchant
advertiser to the online search provider for presenting advertising to client
users who engage in online searching. The financial nature of the claimed
invention is even more clear in this case than it was in Blue Calypso,
because here the merchant advertiser is obligated to make monetary
payment, and not simply to provide a "subsidy" which has been construed as
44
financial assistance given by one to another."
15
152
Case: 17-2161 Filed 09/22/2017
CBM20 16-00021
Patent Owner states that its invention is a "'click fraud detection

system."' Paper 31, 5. Patent Owner argues: "[C]lick fraud is
always incidental therefore click fraud detection is incidental to the pay-per-
click advertising model." !d. at 3. Patent Owner again asserts: "Click fraud
is incidental to the pay-per-click advertising model and cannot be CBM
eligible." !d. at 5. Patent Owner's arguments are misplaced because they
stem from an incorrect reading of the Federal Circuit's decision in Unwired
Planet. According to Patent Owner, if an invention is deemed incidental to a
financial product or service, it cannot be regarded as CBM eligible. That is
not the law as articulated in Unwired Planet. In that decision, the Federal
Circuit clearly stated: "To be sure, claims that satisfy the PTO's [overbroad]
policy statement may also fall within the narrow statutory definition. See
e.g., Blue Calypso, 815 F.3d at 1337, 1340 (CBM patent's claim included
'recognizing a subsidy' step to 'financially induce' participant action)
(emphasis in original)." Unwired Planet, 84I F.3d at 1381. Here, we have
applied the narrow statutory standard to evaluate CBM eligibility of claim I.
Patent Owner argues that a "click fraud detection system" is not itself
a financial product, that its invention only perform a click reporting activity,
and that it is the decision of the advertising operator whether to charge
advertisers based on the click reports. Paper 3I, 4-5. The argument is
misplaced for several reasons. First, as discussed above, claim I recites a
method for detecting fraudulent activity in a pay-per-click system, and the
limitations of a pay-per-click system are essential to and required by claim I.
Second, whether the charges invoiced by the advertising operator to
merchants are reduced based on clicking reports does not alter the fact that a
pay-per-click system is itself a financial product and provides a financial
16
153
Case: 17-2161 Filed 09/22/2017
CBM20 16-00021
Patent 7,953,667 B1
service. Third, the financial product or service requirement of the statute

refers to "a method or corresponding apparatus for performing data
processing or other operations used in the practice, administration, or
management of a financial product or service." AlA 18(d)( 1); 3 7 C.F .R.
42.301 (a). Creating a clicking report on the basis of which an advertising
operator can decide whether fraud has occurred and whether advertising
charges to merchants should be reduced nevertheless constitutes activity in
the administration or management of the pay-per-click system as a financial
product or financial service, whether or not the effort actually results in
reduction of advertising charges.
Patent Owner argues that the invention of the '667 patent "could be
definitely [] used for almost any type of web search provider, search engines
including also online voting system." PO Resp. 27- 28. Patent Owner notes
also that in the Field of the Invention section of the Specification it is stated:
"[T]his invention relates generally to network computing of the type which
occurs over the Internet." !d. at 40. Patent Owner argues that although only
the pay-per-click system application is described in the Specification, the
Board should not limit application of the '667 patent to such a "single use."
!d. at 39-40. Specifically, Patent Owner notes that the invention of the '667
patent "can be used in an Online Polling System to detect invalid votes."
!d. at 40. Such arguments do not aid Patent Owner's assertion that the '667
patent does not satisfy the financial product or service requirement of the
statutory definition of a covered business method patent, because we focus
specifically on the subject matter of claim I.
As explained above, a pay-per-click system is specifically recited in
claim 1 as the application environment for the particular steps recited in the
17
154
Case: 17-2161 Filed 09/22/2017
CBM20 16-00021
Patent 7,953,667 B 1
body of the claim. Also, as explained above, the recited pay-per-click

system is necessary to give life, meaning, and vitality to the particular steps.
In the context of the '667 patent, where no other application environment is
described, the steps of claim 1, especially the step for detecting fraudulent
activity, derive their meaning and significance only from the recited pay-per-
click system. No other fraudulent activity related to duration between clicks
is mentioned in the Specification.
As determined above, claim 1 is limited to application of the recited
steps to a pay-per-click system. We observe, additionally, that if the
requirement of a pay-per-click system is deemed absent from claim 1, it
would become unclear what, if anything, the particular steps recited in the
body of claim 1 have to do with detecting fraudulent activity. In the context
of the Specification of the '667 patent, the potentially fraudulent activity and
the pay-per-click system are inextricably bound. It is also the '667 patent
itself which expressly recites in claim 1 the pay-per-click system as the
environment in which to detect fraudulent activity. We are not reading into
claim 1 an extraneous limitation from the Specification. In that regard, note
that an extraneous limitation is one that is added wholly apart from any need
for the addition. See Hoganas AB v. Dresser Indus., Inc., 9 F.3d 948, 950
(Fed. Cir. 1993); E./. duPont de Nemours & Co. v. Phillips Petroleum Co.,
849 F.2d 1430, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
For the foregoing reasons, we determine that the financial product or
service requirement of the definition of a covered business method patent is
met by claim I of the '667 patent.
18
155
Case: 17-2161 Filed 09/22/2017
CBM20 I6-0002I
Patent 7,953,667 B 1
2. Technological Invention Exception

a. Two Prongs of the Exception
The definition of "covered business method patent" in 18(d)( I) of
the AlA excludes patents for technological inventions. When determining
whether a patent is for a technological invention, we consider "whether the
claimed subject matter as a whole [I] recites a technological feature that is
novel and unobvious over the prior art; and [2] solves a technical problem
using a technical solution." 37 C.F.R. 42.30I(b). The first prong ofthe
inquiry is not about whether the claimed invention is novel or nonobvious.
Rather, even if the claimed method, as a whole, is novel and unobvious, the
use of known technology in conventional ways does not render a patent a
technological invention. See Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed.
Reg. 48,756, 48,764 (Aug. 14, 2012).
For the technological invention exception to apply in disqualifying a
patent as a covered business method patent, both prongs of the inquiry must
be met affirmatively, meaning that a negative answer under either prong
renders inapplicable the technological invention exception. Apple, Inc. v.
Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d I229, 1240 (Fed. Cir. 20I6) ("We need not address
this argument regarding whether the first prong of37 C.F.R. 42.301(b)
was met, as we affirm the Board's determination on the second prong ofthe
regulation-that the claimed subject matter as a whole does not solve a
technical problem using a technical solution."); see also Blue Calypso,
815 F.3d at 1341 (addressing only whether the claimed invention solves a
technical problem using a technical solution).
In this case, because the requirements of the first prong are not met, as
discussed below, we do not reach the second prong.
19
156
Case: 17-2161 Filed 09/22/20 17
CBM20 16-00021
b. First Prong - Technological Feature, Novel and Unobvious

The following claim drafting techniques, reciting technology,
typically do not render a patent a technological invention:


Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. at 48,763-64.

Petitioner argues that all technological features in claim 1 were known
at the time the application for the '667 patent was filed. Pet. 17. In that
regard, Petitioner's technical witness, Mr. Stephen Gray, testifies:
It is my opinion that the individual features described by
the claims ofthe '667 Patent, as well as the combination of those
features recited in the claims, were well known prior to February
2003. As discussed in detail above in paragraphs 45- 65, each of
the following components or features, and the combinations of
them, had been well-known and in use for many years before the
filing of the application: "websites" (including "merchant
websites"), "search engine[s]," "pay-per-click system[s],"
"server[s]," and "device[s] used by users of search engines.
Ex. 1006 ~ 77. With respect to the "code" recited in claim 1, Mr. Gray
testifies:
The '667 Patent specification states that an example of a code is
a serial number. Serial numbers (or other identifying
information) are not technological by nature but can be generated
20
157
Case: 17-2161 Filed 09/22/2017
CBM20 16-00021
Patent 7,953,667 B 1
mentally, using a pencil and paper without relying on any

computer. Other well-known, commonly used, and non-
technological examples of serial numbers include ( 1) a Universal
Product Code (UPC) that is a 12-digit bar code used on retail
packaging in the U.S.; (2) an International Standard Book
Number (ISBN) that is a unique commercial book identifier
included in bar codes on books; (3) Vehicle Identification
Number that is a unique code given to vehicles in the U.S.; and
(4) European Article Number (EAN) that is a 12 or 13-digit
product identification code used in Europe. All of these
examples indicate that generating a serial number was well
known prior to the '667 Patent.
!d. ~ 80. Mr. Gray notes further that claim 1 does not require using any
particular technology in connection with the recited code, e.g., generating
codes, returning codes to a device, or concatenating codes. /d. ~ 81. The
Specification of the '667 patent also indicates that the code can be written
into any type of storage. Ex. 1001 , 2:3 7-40.
Petitioner persuasively argues, and we do so find, that the
Specification makes clear that known and pre-existing technology can be
used to perform all of the steps recited in claim 1. Pet. 19. For instance, the
'667 patent (1) acknowledges that pay-per-click systems including a search
engine that lists links and provides website information associated with
merchant websites were known (Ex. 1001, 1:35-48); and (2) describes
Figure 1 as illustrating a pay-per-click system incorporating an embodiment
of the invention and indicates that it may include any combination of
hardware/software necessary to implement a particular function (Ex. 1001,
2:14-20). With regard to the step of detecting fraudulent activity by
measuring the duration between clicks, claim 1 does not recite or require the
use of any novel technology for that purpose. Nor does the Specification of
the '667 patent describe the use of any novel technology used for that
21
158
Case: 17-2161 Filed 09/22/2017
CBM20 16-00021
Patent 7,953,667 B 1
purpose. Mr. Gray testifies that "a time duration can be examined by a
human without using technology more complicated than a wall clock."
Ex. I 006 ~ 83. We understand Mr. Gray to be making the point that any
available technology could have been used. In any event, as noted above,
we have determined that claim I does not recite or require any particular
technology for measuring the duration between clicks.
Patent Owner argues that Petitioner's analysis is faulty because it does
not look at whether the claimed subject matter as a whole would have been
novel and unobvious. PO Resp. 90, 99. Patent Owner's contention is
misplaced. In analyzing the first prong of the technological invention
exception to a covered business method patent, the issue is not novelty and
unobviousness of the claimed invention as a whole, but of the technological
features of the claimed invention. Patentability of the claimed invention as a
whole over prior art pertains to a substantive challenge against the claims
and is not before us because we did not institute trial on any alleged ground
of unpatentability over prior art. As noted above, a patent is not deemed a
technological invention by reciting the use of known prior art technology to
accomplish a process or method, even if that process or method is novel and
non-obvious. Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. at 48,764.
Appropriately, Petitioner alleges that no combination of features that
comprise claim 1 yields a technological feature, in the context of claim 1 as
a whole, that is novel and nonobvious over the prior art. Pet. 16. In support
of that argument, Mr. Gray testifies "that the individual features described
by the claims of the '667 Patent, as well as the combination of those features
recited in the claims, were well known prior to February 2003." Ex. 1006
~ 77. Mr. Gray testifies that as discussed in detail in~~ 45- 65 of his
22
159
Case: 17-2161 Filed 09/22/2017
CBM20 16-00021
Patent 7,953,667 B 1
Declaration, the noted claim components or features, and combinations of

them, were well-known and in use for many years before the filing of the
'667 patent. !d. Even if the claimed method, as a whole, is novel and non-
obvious, the use of known prior art technology to accomplish that method
does not render the method a technological invention. Office Patent Trial
Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. at 48,764.
Patent Owner argues that the novel technological feature "was the use
of an intermediary click system to record and [identify] the clicks as invalid,
without requiring the use of special software by the user or search engine
provider." PO Resp. 89, 94, 103. The argument is unpersuasive for two
reasons. First, the elements of claim 1, either individually or in some
combination, do not reflect such a feature. Patent Owner does not explain
how it reads claim 1 to arrive at such a feature. Claim 1 is open-ended and
does not exclude the use of special software by the user or search engine
provider to record and identify invalid clicks. Second, what Patent Owner
purportedly has identified as a technological feature, i.e., recording and
identifying clicks as invalid, is overly generic to constitute a technological
feature. It merely is a stated goal to be accomplished or a function to be
performed. The claim does not recite or require any particular technology to
be used for reaching that goal or for performing that function.
Patent Owner argues that detecting invalid clicks was not known
technology prior to Patent Owner's invention. PO Resp. 86-87. Similarly,
Patent Owner argues that "the technology to examine said code and website
information" was not known. !d. at 87- 88. But, as determined above,
detecting invalid clicks is too generic to constitute a technological feature. It
merely is a stated goal to be accomplished or a function to be performed.
23
160
Case: 17-2161 Filed 09/22/2017
CBM2016-00021
Patent 7,953,667 B 1
Claim 1 does not recite or require any particular technology to be used for
reaching that goal or for performing that function. The same is true for
examining a code and website information. It is too generically stated to
constitute a technological feature. It also merely is a stated goal to be
accomplished or a function to be performed. The claim does not recite or
require any particular technology to be used for reaching that goal or for
performing that function.
For the foregoing reasons, we find that claim 1 as a whole does not
recite a technological feature that is novel and unobvious over the prior art.
Thus, the requirements of the first prong of the technological invention
exception to CBM subject matter eligibility are not met.
3. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the '667 patent is a
covered business method patent under AlA 18(d)( 1) and is eligible for
review in the transitional covered business method patent program. 5 We
also determine that Petitioner has standing to file the Petition for covered
business method patent review of the '667 patent.
B. Patent-Eligible Subject Matter under Section I 01

Petitioner asserts that claims 1- 3, 6, 10, 14, 15, 18, 19, and 21 are
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 101. Pet. 66-80. Upon review of
Petitioner's analysis and supporting evidence, and notwithstanding Patent
Owner's contrary arguments, we determine that Petitioner has established by
5
Even if not expressly discussed herein, al1 of Patent Owner's arguments
regarding the financial product or service requirement of a covered business
method patent and the first prong of the technological invention exception
have been considered but not deemed pertinent or persuasive.
24
16]
Case: 17-2161 Filed 09/22/2017
CBM20 16-00021
Patent 7,953,667 B 1
a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1- 3, 6, 10, 14, 15, 18, 19, and
21 are directed to patent-ineligible subject matter.
A patent may be obtained for "any new and useful process, machine,
manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement
thereof." 35 U.S.C. 101. The Supreme Court has held that this provision
contains an important implicit exception: laws of nature, natural
phenomena, and abstract ideas. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int 'I, 134 S. Ct.
2347,2354 (2014); Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc.,
132 S. Ct. 1289, 1293 (2012); Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 67 (1972)
("Phenomena of nature, though just discovered, mental processes, and
abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of
scientific and technological work."). Notwithstanding that a law of nature or
an abstract idea by itself is not patentable, a practical application of these
concepts may be deserving of patent protection. Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1293-
94; Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 610-11; Diamondv. Diehr, 450 U.S.
175, 187 (1981).
In Alice, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the framework set forth
previously in Mayo "for distinguishing patents that claim laws of nature,
natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible
applications ofthose concepts." Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355. The first step in
the analysis is to "determine whether the claims at issue are directed to one
of those patent-ineligible concepts." Id. Ifthe claims are directed to a
patent-ineligible concept, the second step in the analysis is to consider the
4
elements of the claims "individually and aS an ordered combination"' to
determine whether there are additional elements that 'Htransform the nature
of the claim' into a patent-eligible application." !d. (quoting Mayo,
25
162
Case: 17-2161 Filed 09/22/201 7
CBM20 16-00021
Patent 7,953,667 B 1
132 S. Ct. at 1298). In other words, the second step is to "search for an
'inventive concept'- . i.e., an element or combination of elements that is
'sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more
than a patent upon the [ineligible concept] itself.'" !d. (brackets in original)
(quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294). 6 The prohibition against patenting an
abstract idea '"cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the
formula to a particular technological environment' or adding 'insignificant
postsolution activity.'" Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. at 61 0-11 (quoting
Diamondv. Diehr, 450 U.S. at 191- 92); see also Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294.
1. First-Step - Abstract Idea Analysis
First, we determine if the claims at issue are directed to a patent-
ineligible concept, such as an abstract idea. The Supreme Court in neither
Alice nor Mayo explained, specifically, how to conduct that determination.
It is evident, however, that the presence oftechnical elements in a claim
does not preclude the claim from being directed to an abstract idea, because
the significance of these technical elements are determinable in the second
step of the two-step analysis. As already noted above, limiting the
application of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment and
adding insignificant post-solution activity are ineffective to bestow patent-
6
Patent Owner refers to a "Streamlined Eligibility Analysis" noted in the
USPTO's 2014 Interim Guidance on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility, 79
Fed. Reg. 74618, 74625 (Dec. 16, 2014). PO Resp. 119- 121. That analysis
is applicable to Examiners who are of the view that a claim clearly does not
have a subject matter eligibility problem. It is inapplicable to either
Petitioner or Patent Owner. The controlling law in this proceeding on patent
eligibility is the two-step test under Alice/Mayo as described above.
26
163
Case: 17-2161 Filed 09/22/2017
CBM20 16-00021
eligibility to subject matter that is otherwise patent-ineligible. Bilski,

561 U.S. at 610- 611.
Notably, the claims of Alice are not without recitation of technological
parts. Yet, they were determined as not directed to patent-eligible subject
matter. The same is true with a long line of cases decided by the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. E.g., In re TLI Commc 'ns LLC Patent
Litig., 823 F.3d 607, 611 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Mortg. Grader, Inc. v. First
Choice Loan Serv. Inc., 811 F.3d 1314, 1324-25 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Versata,
793 F.3d at 1335; Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo
Bank, 776 F.3d 1343, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu,
LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 712 (Fed. Cir. 2014); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc.,
765 F.3d 1350, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Accenture Global Servs., GmbH v.
Guidewire Software, Inc., 728 F.3d 1336, 1344-45 (Fed. Cir. 2013);
Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assur. Co. of Canada (U.S.), 687 F.3d
1266, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2012); Dealertrack, Inc. v. Huber, 674 F.3d 1315,
1333 (Fed. Cir. 2012); CyberSource Cmp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc.,
654 F.3d 1366, 1372-73 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
In Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Cmp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1338 (Fed. Cir.
2016), the Federal Circuit determined that the claims in that case are not
directed to an abstract idea, but "to an improvement in the functioning of a
computer." The Court expressly stated that those claims "are directed to a
specific improvement to computer functionality," and distinguished them
from the claims in Alice and Versata by noting:
In contrast, the claims at issue in Alice and Versata can readily
be understood as simply adding conventional computer
components to well-known business practices. See Alice, 134
S. Ct. at 2358-60; Versata Dev. G1p., 793 F.3d at 1333- 34
27
164
Case: 17-2161 Filed 09/22/2017
CBM20 16-00021
(computer performed "purely conventional" steps to carry out

claims directed to the "abstract idea of determining a price using
organization and product group hierarchies"); see also Mortgage
Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs. Inc., 811 F.3d 1314,
1324-25 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (claims attaching generic computer
components to perform "anonymous loan shopping" not patent
eligible); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA),
792 F.3d 1363, 1367-69 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (claims adding generic
computer components to financial budgeting); OIP Techs., 788
F.3d at 1362- 64 (claims implementing offer-based price
optimization using conventional computer activities);
Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709,714-17 (Fed. Cir.
2014) (claims applying an exchange of advertising for
copyrighted content to the Internet); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google,
Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1354-55 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (claims adding
generic computer functionality to the formation of guaranteed
contractual relationships).
Id. The claims here are not, by reasonable characterization, directed to an
improvement, in either hardware or software, to the functioning of a
computer. Thus, the claims here are unlike those in Enfish.
In determining whether the claims are directed to an abstract idea, we
must avoid oversimplifying the claim because "all inventions at some level
embody, use, reflect, rest upon, or apply laws of nature, natural phenomena,
or abstract ideas." Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1293. We consider the claims "in
light of the specification, based on whether 'their character as a whole is
directed to excluded subject matter."' Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1335 (citing
Internet Patents C01p. v. Active Network Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1346 (Fed.
Cir. 2015)). We determine whether the claims "focus on a specific means or
method that improves the relevant technology" or are "directed to a result or
effect that itself is the abstract idea and merely invoke generic processes and
machinery." McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299,
1314 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
28
165
Case: 17-2161 Filed 09/22/2017
CBM20 16-00021
Patent 7,953,667 B 1
Petitioner asserts that the challenged claims are directed to the abstract
idea of"detectingfraud based on the time between flvo requests by the same
client." Pet. 66 (emphasis added). Petitioner's declarant, Stephen Gray,
testifies that this concept can be implemented as a purely mental process.
Ex. 1006, 159. Mr. Gray explains, by analogy, that "a pharmacist may
suspect that a patient is making fraudulent prescription requests based on
whether the same patient asks for the same drugs within a too-short period of
time." /d. , 158. Mr. Gray further explains that "(a] pharmacist would
detect the fraud by merely identifying each patient and keeping track of
when each patient makes requests." !d. Mr. Gray further testifies that if a
patient sought to fill a prescription for the same controlled substance twice
in too short a period of time, it may indicate fraud, and that a pharmacist
"could make this determination solely through the exercise of human
intelligence." !d.
Based on the disclosure and claims of the '667 patent, as well as the
above-noted testimony of Mr. Gray, we agree with Petitioner's articulation
of what constitutes an abstract idea to which the claimed invention is
directed, i.e., "detectingfiaud based on the time between flvo requests by the
same client." That articulation is reasonably tied to the claims, and not an
over-generalization or over-simplification of the claimed subject matter.
Claim I recites "[a] method for detecting fraudulent activity in a pay-
per-click system," and "detecting fraudulent activity by measuring the
duration between clicks by said client to said selected website." Ex. 1001,
2:6I-3:15. Claim 18 is similar to claim 1 in that regard. !d. at 4:42- 60.
Claim I 0 recites "the method for identifying fraud comprising the steps of,"
"determining from said data whether said at least one of said selections of
29
166
Case: 17-2161 Filed 09/22/20 17
CBM20 16-00021
Patent 7,953,667 Bl
said at least one web page is fraudulent," and "examining a duration between
a time of one of said selections of said at least one web [page] and a time of
another of said selections of said at least one web [page]." !d. at 3:46-61.
Claim 14 is similar to claim 10 in that regard. !d. at 4: 12- 30. All other
challenged claims depend, directly or indirectly, from one of claims 1, 10,
14,and 18.
Petitioner's articulation of the abstract idea also is persuasive in light
of the Summary of the Invention portion of the Specification, which states:
This invention improves upon existing pay-per-click
search-engine users. This code, preferably in the form of a serial
number, is compared to the user of the website, such that by
observing a metric like the number of clicks for a given period
of time, be it a short time or a longer period, such as a day or a
week, the system can automatically determine if certain clicks
are illegitimate. This allows the pay-per-click company to more
fairly invoice the merchants, thereby preventing fraudulent
[overuse].
Ex. 1001, I :60-2:4. The above-quoted summary discusses no specific
improvement in any underlying technology, hardware or software, but
merely invokes generic processes and machinery, as do the claims. It is,
instead, substantively directed to a result or effect that itself is the abstract
idea identified and articulated by Petitioner, i.e., detecting fraud based on the
time between two requests by the same client.
Even if the advertising nature of the claims is considered, detecting
advertising fraud based on the time between two clicks by the same user is
no less of an abstract idea. Petitioner persuasively explains:
The concept at issue in the claims here is further shown to
be abstract by the fact that it relates to the commercial activity of
generating interest by advertising. See Content Extraction and
30
167
Case: 17-2161 Filed 09/22/2017
CBM20 I 6-00021
Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Nos. 2013-1588,

-1589, 20I4-I I 12, -I687, 2014 WL 7272219, at *3 (Fed. Cir.
Dec. 23, 2014) (explaining that claims directed to commercial
activity, such as "formation and manipulation of economic
relations" or "performance of certain financial transactions" have
been held to involve abstract ideas) (collecting cases).
Advertising, like the practices of hedging in Bilski and
intermediated settlement in Alice, is a fundamental economic
practice, and methods associated with advertising inevitably
address the "human activity" of generating market interest in
products or services. See Ultramercia/, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772
F.3d 709, 715 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (holding claims to "a method of
using advertising as an exchange or currency" were "directed to
an abstract idea"); Open TV v. Netflix, No. 14-cv-0 1525-RS, 2014
WL 7185921, at *6 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 16, 2014) (holding claims to
a method of targeted advertising implemented "'long prevalent'
concepts" associated with advertising).
Pet. 70.
Patent Owner argues that there is technology recited in the claims but
does not identify anything that is other than generic processes or machinery
used to carry out the abstract idea identified by Petitioner. As is evident
from our discussion of the second step of the Alice/Mayo analysis below,
Petitioner has shown that all recitations of technology in the claims are
directed to generic processes or generic machinery for carrying out the
abstract idea.
For the foregoing reasons, we find that the challenged claims are
directed to the abstract idea of "detecting fiaud based on the time between
two requests by the same client."
In the Decision on Institution, aside from the abstract idea specifically
articulated by Petitioner, we noted two other abstract ideas to which the
claims also may be deemed directed: distinguishing genuine customers from
loiters, and detecting abuse of discount coupons, e.g., certain discounts are
31
168
Case: 17-2161 Filed 09/12/20 I 7
CBM20 I 6-0002 I
offered only for a limited time and are restricted to a maximum number per
customer. Inst. Dec. 31. In this Final Written Decision, however, we do not
reach or consider those possible alternative abstract ideas, because neither
was articulated by Petitioner in its Petition, and because we already have
determined that the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea as
identified and articulated by Petitioner.
2. Second Step - Inventive Concept Analysis

Turning to the second step in the two-step Alice/Mayo analysis, we
note that a claim that recites an abstract idea must include "additional
features" to ensure that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to
monopolize the abstract idea. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2357 (citing Mayo, 132 S.
Ct. at 1297). We consider the claim elements "both individually and 'as an
ordered combination' to determine whether the additional elements
'transform the nature ofthe claim' into a patent-eligible application." Alice,
134 S. Ct. at 2355. We determine whether the claims include an '"inventive
concept,"' i.e., an element or combination of elements sufficient to ensure
that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent on the
abstract idea itself. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2357. The "additional features" must
be more than "'well-understood, routine, conventional activity."'
Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 715.
The Supreme Court in Alice cautioned that merely limiting the use of
abstract idea "to a particular technological environment" or implementing
the abstract idea on a "wholly generic computer" is not sufficient as an
additional feature to provide "practical assurance that the process is more
than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the [abstract idea] itself."
Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358 (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1297). The Supreme
32
169
Case: 17-2161 Filed 09/22/20 17
CBM2016-00021
Patent 7,953,667 B 1
Court in Bilski unequivocally stated that the prohibition against patenting an

abstract idea "cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the
formula to a particular technological environment." Bilski, 561 U.S. at 610-
11 (quoting Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. at 191- 92).
Petitioner persuasively argues:
Claims 1, 10, 14, and 18 do not recite any meaningful
limitations that transform the abstract idea of detecting fraud
based on the time between two requests from the same source
into a patent-eligible application of that idea. Ex. 1006, Gray
Decl. ~ 160. Instead, the claims merely recite a technological
environment (a "pay-per-click system" or "advertising system"
44
with "websites" and interaction between Server side," and a
44
device" on the ''client side") and conventional data-gathering
methods for obtaining information about user conduct in that
environment. /d. The claims add no other limitations before
concluding with the instruction to apply the claimed abstract
concept.
Pet. 71. It is manifestly evident that the claims limit the application of an
abstract idea to the technical environment of a pay-per-click system (claims
1 and 18) or an advertising system (claims 10 and 14). It is equally clear,
however, under the law determining patent subject matter eligibility, that the
prohibition against patenting an abstract idea cannot be circumvented by
limiting application of that abstract idea to a particular technological
environment. Bilski, 561 U.S. at 610-11; see also Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 23 58.
Claims 1 and 18, for example, each recite a pay-per-click system, a
search engine on the server side, a client making a search request that is
received at the server side, providing a plurality of links to the client that are
associated with websites associated with merchants, and generating and
transmitting website information regarding a website selected by the client
(claim 1) or receiving on the server side website information regarding a
33
170
Case: 17-2161 Filed 09/22/201 7
CBM20 16-00021
Patent 7,953,667 B 1
website selected by the client when the client clicks on a link (claim 18).
These elements are a part of a conventional, pre-existing, pay-per-click
system. Ex. 1001, 1:35-48; Ex. 1006 ~~ 72, 161. The '667 patent discloses
only a "typical configuration associated with a pay-per-click
implementation," and is said to "include any combination of
hardware/software necessary to implement a particular function." Ex. I 001,
2: 14-20; Ex. I 006 ~ 72. Claims 10 and 14 are similar to claims 1 and 18.
Rather than a pay-per-click-system, however, claims 10 and 14 recite an
advertising system. That variation reflects a difference without distinction,
because a pay-per-click system is an advertising system, and because the
claims recite no more technical details for an advertising system than they
do for a pay-per-click system.
The '667 patent states: "Engine 102 [search engine] may be any
existing or yet-to-be-developed system." Ex. 1001,2:26-27. The '667
patent also describes that the search engine generates a code "via [A]ctive X,
Java, Javascript, or any other type of technology." /d. at 2:30-32.
According to the Specification, the code is what identifies the user or client
who clicks on a link, and what permits the pay-per-click system or
advertising system to evaluate whether multiple clicks within a short period
stems from the same user or client and to determine, on that basis, whether
there is fraud. Ex. 1001,2:47-58. Regarding various limitations relating to
a "code," e.g., generating, transmitting, sending, and receiving a code,
Mr. Gray testifies:
34
171
Case: I 7-216 I Filed 09/22/2017
CBM20 16-00021
Patent 7,953,667 B 1

(4) European Article Number (EAN) that is a 12 or 13-digit
Ex. I 006 ~ 80. Mr. Gray testifies further that independent claims 1, 10, 14,
and 18 do not require using any particular hardware, software, or
combination of the two in connection with the recited code, e.g., generating
codes, returning codes to a device, or concatenating codes. !d. ~ 81.
Petitioner persuasively asserts (Pet. 73 ), and we so find, that the
various limitations regarding the generation, transmission, and concatenating
of codes add nothing but conventional extra-solution activity, specifically
data-gathering activity using generic computer resources. The same is true
for the steps of generating, transmitting, sending, and receiving other
information, such as website information. As for the respective recitations
of"server," "search engine," "website," "web page," "cookie," "pay-per-
click system," and data transfer over the Internet, Mr. Gray's testimony
establishes that they are conventional and generic constructs prior to 2003.
Ex. 1006 ~~ 45- 65.
Mere data gathering steps cannot make an otherwise non-statutory
claim statutory. CyberSource, 654 F.3d at 1370; In re Grams, 888 F.2d 835,
840 (Fed. Cir. 1989). The Supreme Court has regarded as "token
postsolution components" those well-known techniques that help to establish
35
172
Case: 17-2161 Filed 09/22/2017
CBM20 16-00021
Patent 7,953,667 B 1
inputs. Bilski, 561 U.S. at 612. The steps involved here are such
conventional data gathering steps. The steps recite nothing more specific
than generic generating, transmitting, and receiving, and the Specification
states that "any combination of hardware/software" may be used to
implement a particular function. Ex. 1001 , 2: 18- 20. Petitioner asserts that
these generating, transmitting, and sending steps are nothing more than
generically recited functions that can be performed by any conventional and
pre-existing means. Pet. 74. Mr. Gray testifies that "[t]hese generic
functions can be implemented by conventional use of a general purpose
computer." Ex. 1006 ~ 164. We find that no special hardware or software is
required to perform any of the steps recited in claims 1, 10, 14, and 18, and
that a general purpose computer would be sufficient.
As for the final detecting step of claims I and 18, and the final
determining and examining steps of claims I 0 and 14, Petitioner asserts that
they add nothing more than a statement to apply the abstract idea, citing the
testimony of Mr. Gray (Ex. I 006 ~ 166). Pet. 76. We agree. Claims 1 and
18 each recite: "detecting fraudulent activity by measuring the duration
between clicks by said client to said selected website by examining said
code and website information." Claims I 0 recites: "determining from said
data whether said at least one of said selections of said at least one web page
is fraudulent; and examining a duration between a time of one of said
selections of said at least one web site and a time of another of said
selections of said at least one web site." Claim 14 recites: "determining
from said data whether said at least one of said clicks on said at least one
link is fraudulent; and examining a duration between a time of one of said
36
173
Case: 17-2161 Filed 09/22/2017
CBM20 16-00021
Patent 7,953,667 B 1
clicks on said at least one link and a time of another of said clicks on said at
least one link."
These steps merely amount to applying the abstract idea to the data
that has been collected through the other steps in these claims. The
Specification discloses no particular hardware or software that is necessary
to perform the detecting, detennining, and examining functions. We find
that a general purpose computer is sufficient. The requirement of the use of
a general purpose computer does not transform a patent-ineligible abstract
idea into a patent-eligible invention. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358.
Petitioner persuasively asserts that even when the elements of claims
1, 10, 14, and 18 are considered not as individual elements but as an ordered
combination, the result of the analysis does not change. Pet. 76-77. In the
words of Petitioner, the combination is nothing more than the sum of its
parts. Jd. We are agree with Petitioner's assertion because there is nothing
unexpected in any combination of the elements. For example, to receive the
code, the code must have been transmitted; to transmit the code, the code
must have been generated; and to respond to a search request, a search
request must have been made. The ordered combination still is capable of
being carried out by conventional and pre-existing technology, and the
various steps still are capable of being performed by a general purpose
computer.
Claims 2, 3, 6, 15, 19, and 21 depend, directly or indirectly, from
claims 1, 10, 14, or 18. For reasons explained by Petitioner (Pet. 79), the
limitations these dependent claims add are insufficient to tum the claimed
subject matter into patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101. For
instance, claims 2 and 19 each recite "storing said code"; claims 3 and 21
37
174
Case: 17-2161 Filed 09/22/2017
CBM20 16-00021
Patent 7,953,667 B 1
each recite "storing said code in a cookie"; and claims 6 and 15 each recite
"said code is based on a global unique identifier." Mr. Gray testifies that
"using cookies and GUIDs [global unique identifiers] was well-known prior
to filing of the '667 Patent," and that "cookies were (and still are) a
commonly used means for storing information about user activity on a given
website for future use by the website." Ex. I 006 ~ I 6 7. Mr. Gray testifies
that these are routine implementations using techniques that were well-
known in the field of web design. /d. Mr. Gray further explains: "[S]erial
numbers and cookies were (and still are) a commonly used means for storing
information about user activity on a given website for future use by the
website. Thus, these limitations do not move the claims away from an
abstract idea to a concrete, patentable invention." /d. ~ 168. Storing of
information also constitutes a part of the data gathering that could be
implemented by a general purpose computer at the time of the effective
filing date of the '667 patent. The Specification does not describe the
requirement of any new technology to perform the storing of the code.
Patent Owner argues that novel software is required to carry out the
claimed invention. PO Resp. 148. But the evidence as discussed above does
not support the assertion. Patent Owner does not point to any discussion in
the Specification of new programming techniques. Nor does Patent Owner
specifically identify what recitation in the claims correspond to the alleged
technical improvement in software. The assertion also is inconsistent with
Patent Owner's contention, previously discussed, on pages 89, 94, and I 03
of the Patent Owner Response that the alleged novel feature of the invention
is the identification of invalid clicks "without" requiring the use of special
software.
38
175
Case: 17-2161 Filed 09/22/2017
CBM2016-00021
Patent 7,953,667 B 1
Patent Owner asserts that the claims here are like those deemed patent
eligible in DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir.
2014). PO Resp. 138- 141. We disagree. As is noted by Petitioner, in DDR
Holdings, 773 F.2d at 1257- 59, the claimed invention operates to send a
user to a hybrid webpage that combined visual elements of the first website
with the desired content from the second website that the user requested.
Reply 18. The Federal Circuit determined that "the claimed solution is
necessarily rooted in computer technology." DDR Holdings, 773 F.3d at
1257. Here, although the claims recite technology, as discussed above,
nothing in these claims reflects the adoption or use of the recited technology
beyond conventional and generic processes and machinery. The key to the
claimed solution here lies in recording who is making a request and
measuring the duration between two requests from the same source, using
conventional and generic processes and machinery. That is insufficient to
render the claimed invention patent eligible.
Patent Owner asserts that the claims here are like those in PNC Bank
v. Secure Axcess, LLC., Case CBM2014-00100, where the Board, according
to Patent Owner, found the claims to be patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C.
101. PO Resp. 137- 138. The argument is misplaced, because the Board
did not, in its Final Written Decision, determine that the claims there were
patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. CBM2014-00I 00, Paper 43. Patent
subject matter eligibility was not an issue for trial in that instituted
proceeding.
For the foregoing reasons, we determine that none of the challenged
claims includes an eligible "inventive concept," i.e., an element or
combination of elements sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice
39
176
Case: 17-2161 Filed 09/22/201 7
CBM20 16-00021
Patent 7,953,667 BI
amounts to significantly more than a patent on the abstract idea itself. Alice,
134 S. Ct. at 2357. The additional features in these claims are not more than
"'well-understood, routine, conventional activity."' See Ultramercial,
772 F .3d at 715 (citing Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1298).
3. Conclusion
Petitioner has established by a preponderance of the evidence that
claims 1- 3, 6, 10, 14, 15, 18, 19, and 21 are directed to patent-ineligible
subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
C. Patent Owner's Renewed Motion to Exclude

Patent Owner filed a Renewed Motion to Exclude Evidence, directed
to Petitioner Exhibits 1004, I005, 10IO, IOII, I013, I014, I032, and 1037.
Paper 33. None of these exhibits was relied on by Petitioner in support of
the sole ground on the basis of which trial was instituted in this proceeding,
i.e., subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, or in support of
Petitioner's arguments for establishing the '667 patent as a covered business
method patent eligible for covered business method patent review. Patent
Owner in its Reply to Petitioner's opposition to Patent Owner's renewed
Motion to Exclude asserts that the Board's Decision on Institution did rely
on the Declaration of Mr. Gray and that Mr. Gray's Declaration does refer to
Exhibits I 004, I 005, and 1037. Paper 40, 3. Mr. Gray's Declaration,
however, covers many subjects, and the portions of Mr. Gray's Declaration
cited to in the Decision on Institution do not rely on or refer to Exhibits
I004, 1005, 1010, 1011, 1013, 1014, 1032, and 1037.
We have not relied on any portion ofExhibits 1004, 1005, 1010,
I 01 I, I 0 I3, 1014, 1032, and I 03 7, in this Final Written Decision. Those
exhibits all relate to an alleged ground of unpatentability over prior art that
40
177
Case: 17-2161 Filed 09/22/2017
CBM20 16-00021
has not been instituted for trial and also were not referred to by Mr. Gray in
connection with his testimony regarding either patent subject matter
eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101 or whether the '667 patent is a covered
business method patent eligible for covered business method patent review.
Accordingly, Patent Owner's Renewed Motion to Exclude is
dismissed as moot.
D. Certain Other Arguments of Patent Owner

Patent Owner asserts that the Director of the U.S. Patent and
Trademark Office has an apparent conflict of interest with respect to
Petitioner on the basis of her once being a top executive for Petitioner and
her 9 years of employment by Petitioner. PO Resp. 33- 34. Patent Owner
asks whether the Board has ruled out any such conflict of interest. /d. at 33.
Patent Owner also questions the Director's involvement in appointing Board
members. /d. at 34.
As we stated in the Decision on Institution, ''The Director has
delegated her authority to institute all trials to the Board, and this panel has
executed that authority independently." Paper 11, 45 n. 7. Further as we
stated in the Decision on Institution, we are without authority to determine
"whether the Director is a disinterested person in this proceeding." !d. The
same answers are applicable now. Also, under 35 U.S.C. 328(a), it is the
Board which is charged with the issuance of a final written decision, not the
Director.
Patent Owner asserts that the rules governing trials are unfair because
Patent Owner is not permitted to present, in support of its Patent Owner
Response, any testimony from an expert or specialist. PO Resp. 34. We do
not understand Patent Owner's assertion. We are aware of no rule which
41
178
Case: 17-2161 Filed 09/22/2017
CBM20 16-00021
precludes a patent owner from relying on expert testimony to support its

patent owner response, and Patent Owner has cited none.
Patent Owner "requests the Board to take disciplinary action against
Mr. Siddiqui in view of [the] intimidating nature of his email to Patent
Owner Patrick Zuili." PO Resp. 36. According to Patent Owner, and
referring to an email communication which has been submitted as Exhibit
1042, "Mr. Siddiqui threatened Patent Owner Patrick Zuili to reimburse
what Google is spending in attorney fees for answering Patent Owner's
Objection and submitting supplemental evidences if Patent Owner does not
agree blindly to whatever Mr. Siddiqui is including in respect to the original
Exhibits and new supplemental Exhibits." /d. at 35- 36. Although phrased
as a request, the request is a motion for sanction. As such, prior
authorization from the Board is required to permit its filing. 3 7 C.F .R.
42.20(b) ("A motion will not be entered without Board authorization.").
No prior authorization had been obtained by Patent Owner with respect to
this motion for sanction. Thus, the motion for sanction is dismissed. 7
Patent Owner seeks authorization to file a motion to disqualify
Mr. Siddiqui as Lead Counsel for Petitioner. PO Resp. 36-37. The request
for authorization is based on ( 1) the assertion that Mr. Siddiqui threatened
Patent Owner as discussed above in the context of Patent Owner's request
7
In any event, we have reviewed Exhibit 1042 and find, in that regard, only
counsel's statement: "[W]e reserve our right to ask the board to order you to
reimburse our costs and attorney fees that we expended in responding to a
frivolous and baseless motion." Ex. 1042, 3. In general, it is not
inappropriate, under our Rules of Professional Conduct, for counsel to
express that the party he or she represents reserves its right to ask the Board
for relief from what is perceived as a frivolous position of the other party.
42
179
Case: 17-2161 Filed 09/22/2017
CBM20 16-00021
Patent 7,953,667 B 1
for sanction against Mr. Siddiqui, and (2) alleged failure of Mr. Siddiqui to
fulfill his duty of candor because he should have informed the Board "about
apparent tampering with Exhibits, robots.txt and modification of metadata."
!d. With regard to numbered item (1), we already noted that generally it is
not inappropriate, under our Rules of Professional Conduct, for counsel to
The request with regard to numbered item (2), on the other hand, amounts to
a request for authorization to file a motion for sanction where the proposed
sanction is disqualification of counsel as Lead Attorney for Petitioner and
where the alleged wrongdoing is based on purported tampering of certain
exhibits. We previously indicated to Patent Owner that its assertion of
tampering with exhibits is premature until we have ruled in Patent Owner's
favor on its Patent Owner's Motion to Exclude Evidence directed to those
exhibits. 8 Paper 25. That still remains the case. Patent Owner's Motion to
Exclude Evidence has been dismissed. Accordingly, Patent Owner's request
for authorization to file a motion to disqualify Mr. Siddiqui as Lead Counsel
for Petitioner is denied.
III. CONCLUSION
We conclude Petitioner has proven, by a preponderance of the
evidence, that claims 1- 3, 6, 10, 14, 15, 18, 19, and 21 ofthe '667 patent are
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 101.
8
We note further that Exhibit 1042 makes manifestly evident that Petitioner
does not share Patent Owner's view that there has been any tampering of the
evidence submitted in this proceeding.
43
180
Case: 17-2161 Filed 09/22/2017
CBM20 I6-00021
This is a final written decision of the Board under 35 U.S.C. 328(a).

Parties to the proceeding seeking judicial review of this decision must
comply with the notice and service requirements of 37 C.F.R. 90.2.
IV. ORDER
It is
ORDEREDthatclaims 1- 3,6, 10, 14, 15, 18, I9,and21 ofU.S.
Patent No. 7,953,667 B I are unpatentable.
44
181
Case: 17-2161 Filed 09/22/201 7
CBM20 16-00021
Patent 7,953,667 B 1
FOR PETITIONER:
Robert Pluta
Saqib J. Siddiqui
MAYER BROWN LLP
ssiddiqui@mayerbrown.com
FOR PATENT OWNER:

Patrick Zuili (pro se)
patrick@tenderbox.tv
45
182
Case: 17-2161 Filed 09/22/2017
Trials@uspto.gov Paper 48
Tel: 571-272-7822 Entered: May 5, 2017
GOOGLE INC.,
Petitioner,
v.
PATRICK ZUlLI,
Patent Owner.
Case CBM20 16-00022

Patent 8,326, 763 B2
Before JAMESON LEE, GLENN J. PERRY, and MIRIAM L. QUINN,

Administrative Patent Judges.
LEE, Administrative Patent Judge.

35 U.S.C. 328(a) and 37 C.F.R. 42.73
183
Case: I 7-2161 Filed 09/22/201 7
CBM20 16-00022
Patent 8,326,763 B2
I. INTRODUCTION
A. Background
On December 18, 2015, Petitioner filed a Petition (Paper 1, "Pet.")
requesting covered business method patent review of claims 1- 3, 5, 6, 10,
11, 14, 15, and 17 ofU.S. Patent No. 8,326,763 B2 (Ex. 1001, "the '763
patenf'), under Section 18 of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, Pub. L.
No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284,329 (2011) ("AlA"). On June I, 2016, we
instituted a covered business method patent review (Paper 11, "lnst. Dec.")
on the sole ground that claims 1- 3, 5, 6, 10, 11, 14, 15, and 17 are directed
to patent ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101. We did not
institute review of any claim on any other alleged ground ofunpatentability,
including alleged grounds of obviousness over prior art. Inst. Dec. 45.
Subsequent to institution of review, Patent Owner filed a Patent Owner
Response (Paper 19, "PO Resp.") and Petitioner filed a Reply (Paper 28,
"Reply") to Patent Owner's Response.
After filing of Petitioner's Reply to Patent Owner's Response, the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a decision in Unwired
Planet, LLC v. Goog/e Inc., 841 F.3d 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2016), which provided
new guidance on how to determine a patent's eligibility for covered business
method patent review. Given this new binding authority, we authorized
Patent Owner to submit additional briefing "to discuss the issue of whether
the subject matter of at least one claim of the '763 patent is directed to a
method or corresponding apparatus for performing data processing or other
product or service, in light of the Federal Circuit's decision in Unwired
Planet, supra." Paper 30, 2. We also authorized Petitioner to file a response
184
Case: 17-2161 Filed 09/22/2017
CBM20 16-00022
Patent 8,326, 763 B2
to Patent Owner's submission. !d. Each party filed its submission. Paper
31 (Patent Owner submission); Paper 32 (Petitioner submission).
No oral hearing was held for this proceeding. Paper 39.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. 6. This Final Written
Decision is issued pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 328(a) and 37 C.F.R. 42.73.
For the reasons discussed below, we determine that Petitioner has shown by
a preponderance of the evidence that claims of the '763 patent are directed to
patent ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. I 01. 1
B. Related Proceedings
Petitioner indicates that the '763 patent was the subject of Brite Smart
Cmp. v. Google Inc., No.2: 14-cv-760-JRG (E.D. Tex.) (closed). Pet. 4.
Petitioner also identifies Brite Smart Cmp. v. Google Inc., No. 5: 15-cv-
03962-BLF (N.D. Ca.) as a related matter. !d. Petitioner also has filed
petitions seeking covered business method patent review of two related
patents, U.S. Patent No. 8,671,057 B1 (CBM2016-00008) and U.S. Patent
No. 7,953,667 Bl (CBM2016-00021).
1
In its Reply, Petitioner notes numerous instances of non-compliance of the
Patent Owner Response with the pertinent rules involving certification, font,
and spacing requirements. Reply 2- 3. Given Patent Owner's prose status,
these violations are not sufficient to preclude us from considering the Patent
Owner Response. Petitioner also asserts that Patent Owner did not serve the
Patent Owner Response on Petitioner's counsel of record. /d. at 2.
However, the Patent Owner Response is accompanied by such a certificate
of service. PO Resp. 173. The content of the Reply also indicates that
Petitioner has received a copy of the Patent Owner Response. No action is
required.
3
185
Case: 17-2161 Filed 09/22/2017
CBM20 16-00022
Patent 8,326,763 B2
C. Asserted Ground of Unpatentability

Trial was instituted based on the following ground ofunpatentability:
References Basis of Unpatentability Claims Challenged

Not Applicable lack of patent eligibility 1- 3, 5, 6, 10, 11, 14,
under 35 U.S.C. 101 15, and 17
Petitioner relies on the Declaration of Stephen Gray, filed in support

of the Petition. Ex. 1006. Patent Owner submitted an Affidavit of
Mr. Patrick Zuili, relied on, not in Patent Owner's Response, but in Patent
Owner's Renewed Motion to Exclude Evidence (Paper 33). Ex. 2010.
D. The '763 Patent

The '763 patent issued on December 4, 2012, and is titled: "Method
and System to Detect Invalid and Fraudulent Impressions and Clicks in
Web-Based Advertisement Systems." Ex. I 001, (45), (54). The '763 patent
relates specifically to a method for protecting the providers of "pay-per-
click" services from illegitimate usages. !d. at I: I9- 22. A "pay-per-click"
system is described as follows:
!d. at 1:35-47.
186
Cnse: 17-2161 Filed 09/22/2017
CBM20 16-00022
Patent 8,326, 763 B2
The '763 patent describes that "a user may cause an undesirable level
of expenditure on the part of the merchant by overclicking on a particular
link." !d. at I :49- 5I. The '763 patent states that "it has been known that
some users have done [overclicking] simply for the purpose of undermining
a particular provider or competitor." !d. at 1:48- 50.
Figure I ofthe '763 patent is reproduced below:
PAY PER CLICK

PAY PER CliCK
120 COMPANY
~---4
130 122'
VERIFY THAT THE SERIAL NUMBER WEBSITE
IS UNIQUE
no
XML LINK
~
~
XML GET SEARCH ENGINE
LOCATED ON END
USER COMPUTtR
SEARCH ENGINE WRITE AHD ADO IT TO
A SERIAL NUMBER THE UNK. XMI.
ON THE COOK! E VIA TECHNOLOGY PERMIT
ACTM.X, JAVAt.JAVASCRIP!1 TO PASS THRU
..l!CHNOLOGr BASED Ort AREWALl
END USER GUID, OR I AND
NETWORK CARTOGRAPHY
QOfERATED PERIODICAllY
SEARCH ENGINE
Figure I illustrates a preferred embodiment of the '763 patent. !d. at 2:7- 9.

Search engine I 02 provides search results to a user along path 104. !d. at
187
Case: 17-2161 Filed 09/22/2017
CBM20 I6-00022
Patent 8,326, 763 82
2:23- 24. The search engine also "generates a code, preferably in the form of
a serial number utilizing a cookie via [A]ctive X, Java, Javascript, or any
other type of technology based upon the end-user's Global Unique identifier
(GUID)." !d. at 2:29- 32. The search engine writes the code into a memory
on the end-user's device, e.g., floppy disk I 06 shown in Figure 1 or a flash
memory. !d. at 2:36-39. The text in the description in Figure 1 along path
I 04 to the user device indicates that the code is retrieved from the user's
computer and added to the link provided to the user as a result of the user's
search request. Specifically, the code is concatenated with the link provided
as the search result. !d. at 2:39-42.
When a user clicks on a link provided by the search engine to website
I 22, the code or serial number is transmitted to company 120 along path
130. !d. at 2:46-49. The pay-per-click company will invoice website 122
only when the code or serial number has been received. !d. at 2:49- 50. The
'667 patent describes: "if multiple requests are made by the same user, they
may be considered legitimate if they are sufficiently spaced apart in time to
be indicative of a legitimate as opposed to fraudulent access to the website
122." !d. at 2:53-57. In the Summary oflnvention portion ofthe
Specification, the '763 patent describes: "[B]y observing a metric like the
number of clicks for a given period of time, be it a short time or a longer
period, such as a day or a week, the system can automatically determine if
certain clicks are illegitimate." !d. at I :65- 2: I. In that regard, the '763
patent further states: "This allows the pay-per-click company to more fairly
invoice the merchants, thereby preventing fraudulent over use." !d. at 2: 1- 3.
The independent claims are claims 1, 10, and I4, as reproduced
below:
188
Case: 17-2161 Filed 09/22/2017
CBM20 16-00022
Patent 8,326, 763 B2
1. A method for detecting fraudulent activity in a pay-

per-click system, comprising: (a) providing a pay-per-click
engine on a server side; b) receiving, at said server side, a
request from a client; c) generating a unique code on the server
side, for identifying said client; d) transmitting said code to said
client from the server side; e) transmitting to said client from
the server side, in response to said request, one or more links
associated with one or more websites associated with one or
more merchants; f) generating website information regarding a
website selected by the client when said client clicks on one of
said links; g) transmitting said code and said website
information together from said client to said server side; h)
receiving said code and said website information at the server
side, and detecting fraudulent activity by measuring the
duration between clicks by said client to said selected website
by examining said code and website information.
Jd. at 2:59- 3:8.
I 0. In an advertising system including a pay-per-click
engine on a server side, the pay-per-click engine providing one
or more links associated with one or more web pages to a user
at a device on a client side, the method for identifying fraud
comprising the steps of: generating a code on the server side,
the code identifying said device on the client side; sending said
code to said device; receiving data from said device, said data
including said code and information about one or more
selections by the user of at least one of said one or more web
pages; determining from said data whether said at least one of
said selections of said at least one web page is fraudulent; and
examining a duration between a time of one of said selections
of said at least one [web page] and a time of another of said
selections of said at least one [web page].
I d. at 3:3 7- 50. 2
2
The bracketed term "web page" was inserted by a Certificate of
Correction, dated August 19,2014, to replace original term "web site" as
issued. Ex. 3001.
7
189
Case: 17-2161 Filed 09/22/2017
CBM20 16-00022
Patent 8,326, 763 B2
14. A method for detecting fraudulent activity in a pay-

per-click system, comprising: (a) providing a pay-per-click
engine on a server side; b) receiving, at said server side, a
request from a client; c) generating a unique code on the server
side, for identifying said client; d) transmitting said code to said
client from the server side; e) transmitting to said client from
the server side, in response to said request, one or more links
associated with one or more websites associated with one or
more merchants; f) receiving, on said server side, website
information regarding a website selected by the client together
with said code, when said client clicks one of said links; g)
detecting fraudulent activity by measuring the duration between
clicks by said client to said selected website by examining said
code and website information.
!d. at 4:17- 30.
II. ANALYSIS
Section 18 ofthe AlA created a transitional program, limited to
persons or their privies that have been sued or charged with infringement of
a "covered business method patent," to seek covered business method patent
review. AlA 18(a)(l)(B), 18(d)(l), Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284,
329-331 (2011 ); see 37 C.F.R. 42.302. Petitioner represents that it has
been sued for infringement of the '763 patent in Brite Smart C01p. v. Google
Inc., No. 2:14-cv-760-JRG-RSP (E.D. Tex.). Pet. 8; see Ex. 1007.
Petitioner also represents that it is not estopped from seeking covered
business method patent review of the '763 patent on the grounds it asserts.
Pet. 8. Patent Owner does not dispute that Petitioner has been sued for
infringement of the '763 patent.
A "covered business method patent" is "a patent that claims a method
8
190
Case: 17-2161 Filed 09/22/2017
CBM20 16-00022
Patent 8,326,763 B2
technological inventions." AlA 18(d)(l); 37 C.F.R. 42.30l(a). 3 We
refer to that part of the statutory definition of covered business method
patent, up to the clause beginning with the word "except," as the "financial
product or service requirement," and the clause commencing with the word
"except" as the "technological invention exception."
A patent need have only one claim directed to a covered business
method to be eligible for covered business method patent review. See
Covered Business Method Patent and Technological Invention, 77 Fed. Reg.
48,734, 48,736 (Aug. 14, 20 12) (Response to Comment 8).
I. Financial Product or Service Requirement

In the Institution Decision, we applied a definition for "covered
business method patent" that regards the financial product or service
requirement as capable of being met by all activities that are "incidental to a
financial activity or complementary to a financial activity." Inst. Dec. 10.
Our reviewing court has ruled in a recent decision on appeal from a final
written decision of the Board in a covered business method patent review
that the statutory requirement for a "covered business method patent" is not
that broad, and that applying the scope that broadly is not in accordance with
3 Patent Owner argues that a "software invention" is categorically not

subject to review as a covered business method patent under Section 18 of
AlA. PO Resp. 101- 102. There is no such exception in the law. Rather, a
patent on a "software invention" is like any other patent, in that it may or
may not be a covered business method patent depending on an analysis
under appropriate standards applied on a case-by-case basis to the claimed
invention.
9
191
Case: 17-2161 Filed 09/22/2017
CBM20 16-00022
Patent 8,326, 763 B2
law. Unwired Planet, 841 F.3d at 1382. Accordingly, we conduct the

determination of whether the '763 patent is a covered business method
patent anew, based on the guidance we received from the Federal Circuit in
Unwired Planet, and also with consideration of each party's briefing on this
subject submitted after the issuance of the Federal Circuit's decision in
Unwired Planet.
A "covered business method patent" is a patent that "claims a method
technological inventions." AlA 18(d)( 1); 3 7 C.F .R. 42.301 (a). The
Federal Circuit has made clear that the statutory definition covers a wide
range of financial-related activities and is not limited in application to only
financial institutions. For instance, the Court has stated:
Blue Calypso asserts that its patents are not CBM patents because
they relate to a method for managing and distributing advertising
content, which is not "a financial product or service" that
traditionally originated in the financial sector, e.g., banks,
brokerages, holding companies and insurance firms. These
arguments are foreclosed by our recent decisions in Versata Ifl 41
and in Sight Sound Techs., LLCv. Apple Inc., 809 F.3d 1307 (Fed.
Cir. 2015).
Blue Calypso, LLCv. Groupon, Inc., 815 F.3d 1331, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
The Court further stated: "Here, the Board declined to limit the application
of CBM review to patent claims tied to the financial sector. This
determination is consistent with our recent case law." Id.
4
Versata Dev. G1p., Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1318- 23 (Fed.
Cir. 2015).
10
192
Case: 17-2161 Filed 09/22/201 7
CBM20 16-00022
Patent 8,326,763 B2
The claimed invention in Blue Calypso involves a peer-to-peer

advertising system in which a "subsidy" is recognized for a subscriber after
an advertising-related token, first sent by an advertiser to the subscriber, is
forwarded by that subscriber to another device owned by a recipient who has
a relationship with the subscriber. I d. at 1336-133 7. The Board construed
"subsidy" as "financial assistance given by one to another," which
construction was unchallenged. Jd. at 1339- 1340. The Federal Circuit
determined: "Thus, under this unchallenged interpretation, the claims of the
Blue Calypso Patents are directed to methods in which advertisers
financially induce 'subscribers' to assist their advertising efforts." Jd.
at 1340.
For the '763 patent, we focus on claim I, which recites: "A method
for detecting fraudulent activity in a pay-per-click system." As we noted
above, the '763 patent is titled: "Method and System to Detect Invalid and
Fraudulent Impressions and Clicks in Web-Based Advertisement Systems."
Ex. I 001 [54]. Also as noted above, a "pay-per-click" system is described in
the '763 patent as follows:
11
193
Case: 17-2161 Filed 09/22/2017
CBM20 16-00022
Patent 8,326, 763 B2
/d. at 1:35-47. We find, as Petitioner has argued (Pet. 9- 10), and based on
the above-noted portions of the Specification, that a pay-per-click system
provides advertising of goods and services, for payment of money. Thus, we
find that a pay-per-click system is itself a financial product and provides a
financial service.
As noted above, the pay-per-click company that provides online
browsing services would present to its users information about various
merchant providers of goods and services, and would be paid monetary
compensation from a merchant for such presentation, if the presentation
triggers a click by a user to be routed to the merchant's website. Each click
in a pay-per-click system, that routes a user to a merchant's website,
obligates the merchant advertiser to pay a sum of money to the entity
presenting information about the merchant and a clickable link to users
searching for information online. As such, each click in a pay-per-click
system itself constitutes financial activity.
Our finding that a pay-per-click system provides advertising of goods
and services, for payment of money, is supported by the following testimony
of Mr. Gray: "Generally, advertising requires merchants to pay for display
of their ads and the web sites listing the ads are selling space on their
website to display the ads. Specifically, as the '763 Patent discloses, pay-
per-click systems allow advertisers to place ads on websites." Ex. 1006
, 78. Further support stems from Mr. Gray's testimony that "pay-per-click
systems include the selling of website space, the act of sending an invoice,
and exchange of money." /d. Even Patent Owner in its submission
discussing the Federal Circuit's decision in Unwired Planet refers to a pay-
per-click system as an "advertising model" and the administrator of a pay-
12
194
Case: 17-2161 Filed 09/22/2017
CBM20 I 6-00022
Patent 8,326,763 B2
44
per-click system as an advertising platform operator" or an "advertising
operator." Paper 31, 3- 5.
We are cognizant that a "pay-per-click system" is expressly recited
only in claim I 's preamble, and that a preamble recitation may not be
limiting. "Whether a preamble stating the purpose and context of the
invention constitutes a limitation of the claimed process is determined on the
facts of each case and in light of the overall form of the claim, and the
invention as described in the specification and illuminated in the prosecution
history." Applied Materials, Inc. v. Advanced Semiconductor Materials Am.,
Inc., 98 F.3d 1563, I572- 73 (Fed. Cir. 1996). In this instance, the recitation
4
of a 'pay-per-click system" in the preamble of claim I is limiting, because it
is necessary to give life, meaning, and vitality to th~ subject matter of
claim 1. See Symantic Cmp. v. Computer Assocs. Int'l Inc., 522 F.3d 1279,
1288 (Fed. Cir. 2008); Catalina Marketing lnt 'I. v. Coolsavings.Com,
289 F.3d 801, 808 (Fed. Cir. 2002); Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard
Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
In the Summary of the Invention section, the Specification states:
"This invention improves upon existing pay-per-click arrangements ...."
Ex. 1001, I :61-63. The Specification describes no environment for the
disclosed invention other than in a "pay-per-click" system. The body of
claim I specifically recites a step of "detecting fraudulent activity by
measuring the duration between clicks by said client to said selected website
by examining said code and website information." !d. at 3:5- 8. The
''fraudulent activity" referred to in the body of the claim depends on the
operations of a pay-per-click system to have meaning. For instance, the
potentially fraudulent activity related to the duration between clicks is a
13
195
Case: 17-2161 Filed 09/22/2017
CBM20 16-00022
Patent 8,326, 763 B2
problem, because the merchant has an obligation to pay for each click in a
pay-per-click system. Also in the Summary of the Invention section, the
Specification states that determining if certain clicks are illegitimate "allows
the pay-per-click company to more fairly invoice the merchants, thereby
preventing fraudulent [overuse]." !d. at 2:1 - 3. Claim 1 expressly requires
the links provided to a client be "associated with one or more websites
associated with one or more merchants." /d. at 2:65-67. For all of these
reasons, we determine that the recitation of ''pay-per-click system" in the
preamble of claim 1 is limiting. We determine, in particular, that the step in
the body of claim 1 for detecting fraudulent activity derives its meaning and
significance from being implemented in a pay-per-click system.
The data processing operations of claim 1 of the '763 patent are
financial activities the same as, if not even more so than, those held to be
financial in Blue Calypso. In Blue Calypso, a subsidy, construed to be
financial assistance, is provided to a subscriber for forwarding advertising to
a device possessed by a recipient related to the subscriber. In the case of the
'763 patent here, monetary compensation is made from the merchant
advertiser to the online search provider for presenting advertising to client
users who engage in online searching. The financial nature of the claimed
invention is even more clear in this case than it was in Blue Calypso,
because here the merchant advertiser is obligated to make monetary
payment, and not simply to provide a "subsidy" which has been construed as
"financial assistance given by one to another."
Patent Owner states that its invention is a "'click fraud detection
system."' Paper 31, 5. Patent Owner argues: "[C) lick fraud is always
incidental therefore click fraud detection is incidental to the pay-per-click
14
196
Case: 17-2161 Filed 09/22/2017
CBM20 16-00022
Patent 8,326, 763 B2
advertising model." !d. at 3. Patent Owner again asserts: "Click fraud is

incidental to the pay-per-click advertising model and cannot be CBM
eligible." !d. at 5. Patent Owner's arguments are misplaced because they
stem from an incorrect reading of the Federal Circuit's decision in Unwired
Planet. According to Patent Owner, if an invention is deemed incidental to a
financial product or service, it cannot be regarded as CBM eligible. That is
not the law as articulated in Unwired Planet. In that decision, the Federal
Circuit clearly stated: "To be sure, claims that satisfy the PTO's [overbroad]
policy statement may also fall within the narrow statutory definition. See
e.g., Blue Calypso, 815 F.3d at 1337, 1340 (CBM patent's claim included
'recognizing a subsidy' step to 'financially induce' participant action)
(emphasis in original)." Unwired Planet, 841 F.3d at 1381. Here, we have
applied the narrow statutory standard to evaluate CBM eligibility of claim 1.
Patent Owner argues that a "click fraud detection system" is not itself
a financial product, that its invention only perform a click reporting activity,
and that it is the decision of the advertising operator whether to charge
advertisers based on the click reports. Paper 31, 4-5. The argument is
misplaced for several reasons. First, as discussed above, claim 1 recites a
method for detecting fraudulent activity in a pay-per-click system, and the
limitations of a pay-per-click system are essential to and required by claim 1.
Second, whether the charges invoiced by the advertising operator to
merchants are reduced based on clicking reports does not alter the fact that a
pay-per-click system is itself a financial product and provides a financial
service. Third, the financial product or service requirement of the statute
refers to "a method or corresponding apparatus for performing data
processing or other operations used in the practice, administration, or
15
197
Case: 17-2161 Filed 09/22/2017
CBM20 16-00022
Patent 8,326, 763 B2
management of a financial product or service." AlA 18(d)(I); 37 C.F.R.

42.30l(a). Creating a clicking report on the basis of which an advertising
operator can decide whether fraud has occurred and whether advertising
charges to merchants should be reduced nevertheless constitutes activity in
the administration or management of the pay-per-click system as a financial
product or financial service, whether or not the effort actually results in
reduction of advertising charges.
Patent Owner argues that the invention of the '763 patent "could be
definitely [] used for almost any type of web search provider, search engines
including also online voting system." PO Resp. 27- 28. Patent Owner notes
also that in the Field of the Invention section ofthe Specification it is stated:
44
[T]his invention relates generally to network computing of the type which
occurs over the Internet." !d. at 40. Patent Owner argues that although only
the pay-per-click system application is described in the Specification, the
4
Board should not limit application of the '763 patent to such a single use."
!d. at 39--40. Specifically, Patent Owner notes that the invention of the '763
44
patent Can be used in an Online Polling System to detect invalid votes."
!d. at 40. Such arguments do not aid Patent Owner's assertion that the '763
patent does not satisfy the financial product or service requirement of the
statutory definition of a covered business method patent, because we focus
specifically on the subject matter of claim I.
As explained above, a pay-per-click system is specifically recited in
claim I as the application environment for the particular steps recited in the
body of the claim. Also, as explained above, the recited pay-per-click
system is necessary to give life, meaning, and vitality to the particular steps.
In the context of the '763 patent, where no other application environment is
I6
198
Case: 17-2161 Filed 09/22/2017
CBM20 16-00022
Patent 8,326,763 B2
described, the steps of claim 1, especially the step for detecting fraudulent
activity, derive their meaning and significance only from the recited pay-per-
click system. No other fraudulent activity related to duration between clicks
is mentioned in the Specification.
As determined above, claim 1 is limited to application of the recited
steps to a pay-per-click system. We observe, additionally, that if the
requirement of a pay-per-click system is deemed absent from claim 1, it
would become unclear what, if anything, the particular steps recited in the
body of claim 1 have to do with detecting fraudulent activity. In the context
of the Specification of the '763 patent, the potentially fraudulent activity and
the pay-per-click system are inextricably bound. It is also the '763 patent
itself which expressly recites in claim 1 the pay-per-click system as the
environment in which to detect fraudulent activity. We are not reading into
claim 1 an extraneous limitation from the Specification. In that regard, note
that an extraneous limitation is one that is added wholly apart from any need
for the addition. See Hoganas AB v. Dresser Indus., Inc., 9 F.3d 948, 950
(Fed. Cir. 1993); E.I. duPont de Nemours & Co. v. Phillips Petroleum Co.,
849 F.2d 1430, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
For the foregoing reasons, we determine that the financial product or
service requirement of the definition of a covered business method patent is
met by claim 1 of the '763 patent.
17
199
Case: 17-2161 Filed 09/22/2017
CBM20 16-00022
Patent 8,326,763 B2
2. Technological Invention Exception

a. Two Prongs of the Exception
The definition of "covered business method patent" in 18(d)( 1) of
the AlA excludes patents for technological inventions. When determining
whether a patent is for a technological invention, we consider "whether the
claimed subject matter as a whole [ 1] recites a technological feature that is
novel and unobvious over the prior art; and [2] solves a technical problem
using a technical solution." 3 7 C.F.R. 42.301 (b). The first prong of the
inquiry is not about whether the claimed invention is novel or nonobvious.
Rather, even if the claimed method, as a whole, is novel and unobvious, the
use of known technology in conventional ways does not render a patent a
technological invention. See Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed.
Reg. 48,756, 48,764 (Aug. 14, 2012).
For the technological invention exception to apply in disqualifying a
patent as a covered business method patent, both prongs of the inquiry must
be met affirmatively, meaning that a negative answer under either prong
renders inapplicable the technological invention exception. Apple, Inc. v.
Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1240 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("We need not address
this argument regarding whether the first prong of 3 7 C.F .R. 42.301 (b)
was met, as we affirm the Board's determination on the second prong of the
regulation~that the claimed subject matter as a whole does not solve a
technical problem using a technical solution."); see also Blue Calypso,
815 F .3d at 1341 (addressing only whether the claimed invention solves a
technical problem using a technical solution).
In this case, because the requirements of the first prong are not met, as
discussed below, we do not reach the second prong.
18
200
Case: 17-2161 Filed 09/22/2017
CBM20 16-00022
Patent 8,326,763 B2
b. First Prong - Technological Feature, Novel and Unobvious

The following claim drafting techniques, reciting technology,
typically do not render a patent a technological invention:


Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. at 48,763-64.

Petitioner argues that all technological features in claim I were known
at the time the application for the '667 patent was filed. Pet. 15. In that
regard, Petitioner's technical witness, Mr. Stephen Gray, testifies:
It is my opinion that the individual features described by
the claims of the '763 Patent, as well as the combination of those
features recited in the claims, were well known prior to February
2003. As discussed in detail above in paragraphs 45- 65, each of
the following components or features, and the combinations of
them, had been well-known and in use for many years before the
filing of the application: "websites" (including "merchant
4 44
websites"), 'search engine[s]," pay-per-click system[s],"
"server[s ]," and "device[s] used by users of search engines.
Ex. 1006 ~ 77. With respect to the "code" recited in claim 1, Mr. Gray
testifies:
19
201
Case: 17-2161 Filed 09/22/2017
CBM20 I6-00022
Patent 8,326, 763 B2

technological examples of serial numbers include (I) a Universal
Product Code (UPC) that is a I2-digit bar code used on retail
Number that are unique codes given to vehicles in the U.S.; and
( 4) European Article Number (EAN) that is a 12 or I3-digit
/d. ~ 80. Mr. Gray notes further that claim I does not require using any
particular technology in connection with the recited code, e.g., generating
codes, returning codes to a device, or concatenating codes. ld. ~ 81. The
Specification of the '763 patent also indicates that the code can be written
into any type of storage. Ex. 1001,2:36-39.
Petitioner persuasively argues, and we do so find, that the
Specification makes clear that known and pre-existing technology can be
used to perform all of the steps recited in claim I. Pet. 17. For instance, the
'763 patent (1) acknowledges that pay-per-click systems including a search
engine that lists links and provides website information associated with
merchant websites were known (Ex. I 001, 1:34-47); and (2) describes
Figure 1 as illustrating a pay-per-click system incorporating an embodiment
of the invention and indicates that it may include any combination of
hardware/software necessary to implement a particular function (Ex. I 001,
2: 13-19). With regard to the step of detecting fraudulent activity by
measuring the duration between clicks, claim 1 does not recite or require the
use of any novel technology for that purpose. Nor does the Specification of
the '763 patent describe the use of any novel technology used for that
20
202
Case: 17-2161 Filed 09/22/201 7
CBM20 16-00022
Patent 8,326, 763 B2
purpose. Mr. Gray testifies that "a time duration can be examined by a
human without using technology more complicated than a wall clock."
Ex. 1006 ~ 83. We understand Mr. Gray to be making the point that any
available technology could have been used. In any event, as noted above,
we have determined that claim 1 does not recite or require any particular
technology for measuring the duration between clicks.
Patent Owner argues that Petitioner's analysis is faulty because it does
not look at whether the claimed subject matter as a whole would have been
novel and unobvious. PO Resp. 90, 98. Patent Owner's contention is
misplaced. In analyzing the first prong of the technological invention
exception to a covered business method patent, the issue is not novelty and
unobviousness of the claimed invention as a whole, but of the technological
features of the claimed invention. Patentability of the claimed invention as a
whole over prior art pertains to a substantive challenge against the claims
and is not before us because we did not institute trial on any alleged ground
of unpatentability over prior art. As noted above, a patent is not deemed a
technological invention by reciting the use of known prior art technology to
accomplish a process or method, even if that process or method is novel and
non-obvious. Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. at 48,764.
Appropriately, Petitioner aJleges that no combination of features that
comprise claim 1 yields a technological feature, in the context of claim 1 as
a whole, that is novel and nonobvious over the prior art. Pet. 14. In support
of that argument, Mr. Gray testifies "that the individual features described
by the claims ofthe '763 Patent, as well as the combination of those features
recited in the claims, were well known prior to February 2003." Ex. 1006
~ 77. Mr. Gray testifies that as discussed in detail in ~~ 45-65 of his
21
203
Case: 17-2161 Filed 09/22/201 7
CBM20 16-00022
Patent 8,326, 763 B2
Declaration, the noted claim components or features, and combinations of

them, were well-known and in use for many years before the filing of the
'763 patent. /d. Even if the claimed method, as a whole, is novel and non-
obvious, the use of known prior art technology to accomplish that method
does not render the method a technological invention. Office Patent Trial
Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. at 48,764.
Patent Owner argues that the novel technological feature "was the use
of an intermediary click system to record and [identify] the clicks as invalid,
without requiring the use of special software by the user or search engine
provider." PO Resp. 89, 93- 94, 102. The argument is unpersuasive for two
reasons. First, the elements of claim 1, either individually or in some
combination, do not reflect such a feature. Patent Owner does not explain
how it reads claim 1 to arrive at such a feature. Claim I is open-ended and
does not exclude the use of special software by the user or search engine
provider to record and identify invalid clicks. Second, what Patent Owner
purportedly has identified as a technological feature, i.e., recording and
identifying clicks as invalid, is overly generic to constitute a technological
feature. It merely is a stated goal to be accomplished or a function to be
performed. The claim does not recite or require any particular technology to
be used for reaching that goal or for performing that function.
Patent Owner argues that detecting invalid clicks was not known
technology prior to Patent Owner's invention. PO Resp. 86-87. Similarly,
Patent Owner argues that "the technology to examine said code and website
information" was not known. /d. at 87-88. But, as determined above,
detecting invalid clicks is too generic to constitute a technological feature. It
merely is a stated goal to be accomplished or a function to be performed.
22
204
Case: 17-2161 Filed 09/22/201 7
CBM20 16-00022
Patent 8,326, 763 82
Claim 1 does not recite or require any particular technology to be used for
reaching that goal or for performing that function. The same is true for
examining a code and website information. It is too generically stated to
constitute a technological feature. It also merely is a stated goal to be
accomplished or a function to be performed. The claim does not recite or
require any particular technology to be used for reaching that goal or for
performing that function.
For the foregoing reasons, we find that claim 1 as a whole does not
recite a technological feature that is novel and unobvious over the prior art.
Thus, the requirements of the first prong of the technological invention
exception to CBM subject matter eligibility are not met.
3. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the '667 patent is a
covered business method patent under AlA 18(d)( 1) and is eligible for
review in the transitional covered business method patent program. 5 We
also determine that Petitioner has standing to file the Petition for covered
business method patent review of the '763 patent.
B. Patent-Eligible Subject Matter under Section 101

Petitioner asserts that claims 1- 3, 5, 6, 10, 11, 14, 15, and 17 are
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 101. Pet. 67- 80. Upon review of
Petitioner's analysis and supporting evidence, and notwithstanding Patent
Owner's contrary arguments, we determine that Petitioner has established by
5 Evenif not expressly discussed herein, all of Patent Owner's arguments

have been considered but not deemed pertinent or persuasive.
23
205
Case: 17-2161 Filed 09/22/2017
CBM20 16-00022
Patent 8,326,763 B2
apreponderanceoftheevidencethatclaims 1- 3,5,6, 10, 11, 14, 15,and 17

are directed to patent-ineligible subject matter.
A patent may be obtained for "any new and useful process, machine,
manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement
thereof." 35 U.S.C. 101. The Supreme Court has held that this provision
contains an important implicit exception: laws of nature, natural
phenomena, and abstract ideas. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int 'I, 134 S. Ct.
2347, 2354 (2014); Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc.,
132 S. Ct. 1289, 1293 (2012); Gottschalkv. Benson, 409 U.S. 63,67 (1972)
("Phenomena of nature, though just discovered, mental processes, and
abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of
scientific and technological work."). Notwithstanding that a law of nature or
an abstract idea by itself is not patentable, a practical application of these
concepts may be deserving of patent protection. Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1293-
94; Bilski v. Kappas, 561 U.S. 593, 610-11; Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S.
175, 187 (1981).
In Alice, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the framework set forth
previously in Mayo "for distinguishing patents that claim laws of nature,
natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible
applications of those concepts." Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355. The first step in
the analysis is to "determine whether the claims at issue are directed to one
of those patent-ineligible concepts." !d. If the claims are directed to a
patent-ineligible concept, the second step in the analysis is to consider the
elements of the claims "individually .and 'as an ordered combination"' to
determine whether there are additional elements that '"transform the nature
of the claim' into a patent-eligible application." !d. (quoting Mayo,
24
206
Case: 17-2161 Filed 09/22/201 7
CBM20 16-00022
Patent 8,326,763 B2
132 S. Ct. at 1298). In other words, the second step is to "search for an
'inventive concept'- i.e., an element or combination of elements that is
'sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more
than a patent upon the [ineligible concept] itself."' !d. (brackets in original)
(quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294). 6 The prohibition against patenting an
abstract idea "'cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the
formula to a particular technological environment' or adding 'insignificant
postsolution activity."' Bilski v. Kappas, 561 U.S. at 610-11 (quoting
Diamondv. Diehr, 450 U.S. at 191- 92); see also Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294.
1. First-Step - Abstract Idea Analysis
First, we determine if the claims at issue are directed to a patent-
ineligible concept, such as an abstract idea. The Supreme Court in neither
Alice nor Mayo explained, specifically, how to conduct that determination.
It is evident, however, that the presence of technical elements in a claim
does not preclude the claim from being directed to an abstract idea, because
the significance of these technical elements are determinable in the second
step of the two-step analysis. As already noted above, limiting the
application of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment and
adding insignificant post-solution activity are ineffective to bestow patent-
6
Patent Owner refers to a "Streamlined Eligibility Analysis" noted in the
USPTO's 2014 Interim Guidance on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility,
79 Fed. Reg. 74618,74625 (Dec. 16, 2014). PO Resp. 118- 120. That
analysis is applicable to Examiners who are of the view that a claim clearly
does not have a subject matter eligibility problem. It is inapplicable to either
Petitioner or Patent Owner. The controlling law in this proceeding on patent
eligibility is the two-step test under Alice/Mayo as described above.
25
207
Case: 17-2161 Filed 09/22/2017
CBM20 16-00022
Patent 8,326, 763 B2
eligibility to subject matter that is otherwise patent-ineligible. Bilski,

561 U.S. at 610-611.
Notably, the claims of Alice are not without recitation of technological
parts. Yet, they were determined as not directed to patent-eligible subject
matter. The same is true with a long line of cases decided by the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. E.g., In re TLI Commc 'ns LLC Patent
Litig., 823 F.3d 607, 611 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Mortg. Grader, Inc. v. First
Choice Loan Serv. Inc., 811 F.3d 1314, 1324-25 (Fed. Cir. 20 16); Versata,
793 F.3d at 1335; Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo
Bank, 776 F.3d 1343, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu,
LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 712 (Fed. Cir. 2014); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc.,
765 F.3d 1350, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Accenture Global Servs., GmbH v.
Guidewire Software, Inc., 728 F.3d 1336, 1344-45 (Fed. Cir. 2013);
Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assur. Co. of Canada (U.S.), 687 F.3d
1266, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2012); Dealertrack, Inc. v. Huber, 674 F.3d 1315,
1333 (Fed. Cir. 2012); CyberSource Cmp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc.,
654 F.3d 1366, 1372-73 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
In Enfish, LLCv. Microsoft Cmp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1338 (Fed. Cir.
2016), the Federal Circuit determined that the claims in that case are not
directed to an abstract idea, but "to an improvement in the functioning of a
computer." The Court expressly stated that those claims "are directed to a
specific improvement to computer functionality," and distinguished them
from the claims in Alice and Versata by noting:
In contrast, the claims at issue in Alice and Versata can readily
be understood as simply adding conventional computer
components to well-known business practices. See Alice, 134
S. Ct. at 2358-60; Versata Dev. G1p., 793 F.3d at 1333- 34
26
208
Case: 17-2161 Filed 09/22/20 J 7
CBM20 16-00022
Patent 8,326,763 B2
(computer performed ''purely conventional" steps to carry out

claims directed to the "abstract idea of determining a price using
organization and product group hierarchies"); see also Mortgage
Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs. Inc., 811 F.3d 1314,
1324--25 (Fed. Cir. 20 16) (claims attaching generic computer
components to perform "anonymous loan shopping" not patent
eligible); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA),
792 F.3d 1363, 1367-69 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (claims adding generic
computer components to financial budgeting); OIP Techs., 788
F .3d at 1362- 64 (claims implementing offer-based price
optimization using conventional computer activities);
Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709,714--17 (Fed. Cir.
2014) (claims applying an exchange of advertising for
copyrighted content to the Internet); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google,
Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1354--55 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (claims adding
generic computer functionality to the formation of guaranteed
contractual relationships).
Id. The claims here are not, by reasonable characterization, directed to an
improvement, in either hardware or software, to the functioning of a
computer. Thus, the claims here are unlike those in Enfish.
In determining whether the claims are directed to an abstract idea, we
must avoid oversimplifying the claim because "all inventions at some level
embody, use, reflect, rest upon, or apply laws of nature, natural phenomena,
or abstract ideas." Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1293. We consider the claims "in
light of the specification, based on whether 'their character as a whole is
directed to excluded subject matter."' Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1335 (citing
Internet Patents C01p. v. Active Network Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1346 (Fed.
Cir. 2015)). We determine whether the claims "focus on a specific means or
method that improves the relevant technology" or are "directed to a result or
effect that itself is the abstract idea and merely invoke generic processes and
machinery." McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299,
1314 (Fed. Cir. 20 16).
27
209
Case: 17-2161 Filed 09/22/2017
CBM20 I6-00022
Patent 8,326, 763 B2
Petitioner asserts that the challenged claims are directed to the abstract
idea of "detecting jiaud based on the time between two requests by the same
client." Pet. 67 (emphasis added). Petitioner's declarant, Stephen Gray,
testifies that this concept can be implemented as a purely mental process.
Ex. I 006 ~ 161. Mr. Gray explains, by analogy, that "a pharmacist may
suspect that a patient is making fraudulent prescription requests based on
whether the same patient asks for the same drugs within a too-short period of
time." Jd. ~ 160. Mr. Gray further explains that "[a] pharmacist would
detect the fraud by merely identifying each patient and keeping track of
when each patient makes requests." I d. Mr. Gray further testifies that if a
patient sought to fill a prescription for the same controlled substance twice
in too short a period of time, it may indicate fraud, and that a pharmacist
"could make this determination solely through the exercise of human
intelligence." Jd.
Based on the disclosure and claims of the '763 patent, as well as the
above-noted testimony of Mr. Gray, we agree with Petitioner's articulation
of what constitutes an abstract idea to which the claimed invention is
directed, i.e., "detecting fraud based on the time between two requests by the
same client." That articulation is reasonably tied to the claims, and not an
over-generalization or over-simplification of the claimed subject matter.
Claim 1 recites "[a] method for detecting fraudulent activity in a pay-
per-click system," and "detecting fraudulent activity by measuring the
duration between clicks by said client to said selected website." Ex. I 001,
2:59-3:7. Claim 14 is similar to claim I in that regard. !d. at 4:17-30.
Claim I 0 recites: ''In an advertising system including a pay-per-click engine
on a server side," "the method for identifying fraud comprising the steps of,"
28
210
Case: 17-2161 Filed 09/22/201 7
CBM20 16-00022
Patent 8,326, 763 B2
"determining from said data whether said at least one of said selections of
said at least one web page is fraudulent," and "examining a duration between
a time of one of said selections of said at least one [web page] and a time of
another of said selections of said at least one [web page]." ld. at 3:38- 51.
All other challenged claims depend, directly or indirectly, from one of
claims 1, 10, and 14.
Petitioner's articulation of the abstract idea also is persuasive in light
of the Summary of the Invention portion of the Specification, which states:
This invention improves upon existing pay-per-click
search-engine users. This code, preferably in the form of a serial
number, is compared to the user of the website, such that by
observing a metric like the number of clicks for a given period
of time, be it a short time or a longer period, such as a day or a
week, the system can automatically determine if certain clicks
are illegitimate. This allows the pay-per-click company to more
fairly invoice the merchants, thereby preventing fraudulent
[overuse].
Ex. 1001, 1:61- 2:3. The above-quoted summary discusses no specific
improvement in any underlying technology, hardware or software, but
merely invokes generic processes and machinery, as do the claims. It is,
instead, substantively directed to a result or effect that itself is the abstract
idea identified and articulated by Petitioner, i.e., detecting fraud based on the
time between two requests by the same client.
Even if the advertising nature of the claims is considered, detecting
advertising fraud based on the time between two clicks by the same user is
no less of an abstract idea. Petitioner persuasively explains:
The concept at issue in the claims here is further shown to
be abstract by the fact that it relates to the commercial activity of
generating interest by advertising. See Content Extraction and
29
211
Case: 17-2161 Filed 09/22/2017
CBM20 16-00022
Patent 8,326,763 B2
Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Nos. 2013-1588,

-1589, 2014-1112, -1687, 2014 WL 7272219, at *3 (Fed. Cir.
Dec. 23, 2014) (explaining that claims directed to commercial
activity, such as "formation and manipulation of economic
relations" or "performance of certain financial transactions" have
been held to involve abstract ideas) (collecting cases).
Advertising, like the practices of hedging in Bilski and
intermediated settlement in Alice, is a fundamental economic
practice, and methods associated with advertising inevitably
address the "human activity" of generating market interest in
products or services. See Ultramercia/, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772
F.3d 709, 715 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (holding claims to "a method of
using advertising as an exchange or currency" were "directed to
an abstract idea"); OpenTVv. Netflix, No. 14-cv-01525-RS, 2014
WL 7185921, at *6 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 16, 2014) (holding claims to
a method of targeted advertising implemented '"long prevalent'
concepts" associated with advertising).
Pet. 70.
Patent Owner argues that there is technology recited in the claims but
does not identify anything that is other than generic processes or machinery
used to carry out the abstract idea identified by Petitioner. As is evident
from our discussion of the second step of the Alice/Mayo analysis below,
Petitioner has shown that all recitations of technology in the claims are
directed to generic processes or generic machinery for carrying out the
abstract idea.
For the foregoing reasons, we find that the challenged claims are
directed to the abstract idea of "detecting jiaud based on the time benveen
two requests by the same client."
In the Decision on Institution, aside from the abstract idea specifically
articulated by Petitioner, we noted two other abstract ideas to which the
claims also may be deemed directed: distinguishing genuine customers from
loiters, and detecting abuse of discount coupons, e.g., certain discounts are
30
212
Case: 17-2161 Filed 09/22/20 I 7
CBM20 16-00022
Patent 8,326,763 82
offered only for a limited time and are restricted to a maximum number per
customer. Inst. Dec. 30. In this Final Written Decision, however, we do not
reach or consider those possible alternative abstract ideas, because neither
was articulated by Petitioner in its Petition, and because we already have
determined that the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea as
identified and articulated by Petitioner.
2. Second Step - Inventive Concept Analysis

Turning to the second step in the two-step Alice/Mayo analysis, we
note that a claim that recites an abstract idea must include "additional
features" to ensure that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to
monopolize the abstract idea. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2357 (citing Mayo, 132 S.
Ct. at 1297). We consider the claim elements "both individually and 'as an
ordered combination' to determine whether the additional elements
'transform the nature of the claim' into a patent-eligible application." Alice,
134 S. Ct. at 2355. We determine whether the claims include an "'inventive
concept,"' i.e., an element or combination of elements sufficient to ensure
that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent on the
abstract idea itself. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2357. The "additional features" must
be more than "'well-understood, routine, conventional activity."'
Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 715.
The Supreme Court in Alice cautioned that merely limiting the use of
abstract idea "to a particular technological environment" or implementing
the abstract idea on a "wholly generic computer" is not sufficient as an
additional feature to provide "practical assurance that the process is more
than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the [abstract idea] itself."
Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358 (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1297). The Supreme
31
213
Case: 17-2161 Filed 09/22/2017
CBM20 16-00022
Patent 8,326, 763 B2
Court in Bilski unequivocally stated that the prohibition against patenting an

abstract idea "cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the
formula to a particular technological environment." Bilski, 56 I U.S. at 61 O-
Il (quoting Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. at I91 - 92).
Petitioner persuasively argues:
Claims I, I 0, and I4 do not recite any meaningful
limitations that transform the abstract idea of detecting fraud
based on the time between two requests from the same source
into a patent-eligible application of that idea. Ex. I 006, Gray
Decl. , 162. Instead, the claims merely recite a technological
44
environment (a "pay-per-click system" or advertising system"
with ''websites" and interaction between "server side," and a
44 44
device" on the Client side") and conventional data-gathering
methods for obtaining information about user conduct in that
environment. ld. The claims add no other limitations before
concluding with the instruction to apply the claimed abstract
concept.
Pet. 71. It is manifestly evident that the claims limit the application of an
abstract idea to the technical environment of a pay-per-click system (claims
1 and I4) or an advertising system (claim 10). It is equally clear, however,
under the law determining patent subject matter eligibility, that the
prohibition against patenting an abstract idea cannot be circumvented by
limiting application of that abstract idea to a particular technological
environment. Bilski, 561 U.S. at 610-11; see also Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358.
Claims I and I 4, for example, each recite a pay-per-click system, a
pay-per-click engine on the server side, a client making a search request that
is received at the server side, providing one or more links to the client that
are associated with one or more websites associated with one or more
merchants, and generating and transmitting website information regarding a
website selected by the client (claim I) or receiving on the server side
32
214
Case: 17-2161 Filed 09/22/2017
CBM20 16-00022
Patent 8,326, 763 B2
website information regarding a website selected by the client when the

client clicks on a link (claim 14). These elements are a part of a
conventional, pre-existing, pay-per-click system. Ex. I 001, I :34-47; Ex.
1006 ~~ 72, I63. The '763 patent discloses only a "typical configuration
associated with a pay-per-click implementation," and is said to include any
44
combination of hardware/software necessary to implement a particular

function." Ex. 1001, 2: 14-20; Ex. I 006 ~ 72. Claims 10 is similar to claims
1 and I4. Rather than a pay-per-click-system, however, claim 10 recite an
advertising system. That variation reflects a difference without distinction,
because a pay-per-click system is an advertising system, and because the
claims recite no more details for an advertising system than they do for a
pay-per-click system.
The '763 patent states: "Engine 102 [search engine] may be any
existing or yet-to-be-developed system." Ex. 1001, 2:25- 26. The '763
patent also describes that the search engine generates a code uvia [A]ctive X,
Java, Javascript, or any other type of technology." !d. at 2:30-31.
According to the Specification, the code is what identifies the user or client
who clicks on a link, and what permits the pay-per-click system or
advertising system to evaluate whether multiple clicks within a short period
stems from the same user or client and to determine, on that basis, whether
there is fraud. Ex. 1001, 2:46-57. Regarding various limitations relating to
4
a 'code," e.g., generating, transmitting, sending, and receiving a code,
Mr. Gray testifies:
33
215
Case: 17-2161 Filed 09/22/2017
CBM20 16-00022
Patent 8,326, 763 B2

( 4) European Article Number (EAN) that is a 12 or 13-digit
Ex. 1006, 80. Mr. Gray testifies further that independent claims 1, I 0, and
14 do not require using any particular hardware, software, or combination of
the two in connection with the recited code, e.g., generating codes, returning
codes to a device, or concatenating codes. !d. , 81.
Petitioner persuasively asserts (Pet. 73), and we so find, that the
various limitations regarding the generation, transmission, and concatenating
of codes add nothing but conventional extra-solution activity, specifically
data-gathering activity using generic computer resources. The same is true
for the steps of generating, transmitting, sending, and receiving other
information, such as website information. As for the respective recitations
of"server," "search engine," "website," 'web page," "cookie," "pay-per-
4
click system," and data transfer over the Internet, Mr. Gray's testimony
establishes that they are conventional and generic constructs prior to 2003.
Ex. 1006 ,, 45-65.
Mere data gathering steps cannot make an otherwise non-statutory
claim statutory. CyberSource, 654 F.3d at 1370; In re Grams, 888 F.2d 835,
840 (Fed. Cir. 1989). The Supreme Court has regarded as "token
postsolution components" those well-known techniques that help to establish
34
216
Case: I 7-216 I Filed 09/22/2017
CBM20 16-00022
Patent 8,326, 763 B2
inputs. Bilski, 56 I U.S. at 6I2. The steps involved here are such
conventional data gathering steps. The steps recite nothing more specific
than generic generating, transmitting, and receiving, and the Specification
states that "any combination of hardware/software" may be used to
implement a particular function. Ex. 100 I, 2: 17- 19. Petitioner asserts that
these generating, transmitting, and sending steps are nothing more than
generically recited functions that can be performed by any conventional and
pre-existing means. Pet. 74. Mr. Gray testifies that "[t]hese generic
functions can be implemented by conventional use of a general purpose
computer." Ex. 1006 ~ I66. We find that no special hardware or software is
required to perform any of the steps recited in claims I, I 0, and 14, and that
a general purpose computer would be sufficient.
As for the final detecting step of claims I and I 4, and the final
determining and examining steps of claims I 0, Petitioner asserts that they
add nothing more than a statement to apply the abstract idea, citing the
testimony of Mr. Gray (Ex. I 006 ~ 168). Pet. 76. We agree. Claims I and
I 4 each recite: "detecting fraudulent activity by measuring the duration
between clicks by said client to said selected website by examining said
code and website information." Claims I 0 recites: "determining from said
data whether said at least one of said selections of said at least one web page
is fraudulent; and examining a duration between a time of one of said
selections of said at least one web site and a time of another of said
selections of said at least one web site."
These steps merely amount to applying the abstract idea to the data
that has been collected through the other steps in these claims. The
Specification discloses no particular hardware or software that is necessary
35
217
Case: 17-2161 Filed 09/22/201 7
CBM20 16-00022
Patent 8,326,763 B2
to perform the detecting, determining, and examining functions. We find

that a general purpose computer is sufficient. The requirement of the use of
a general purpose computer does not transform a patent-ineligible abstract
idea into a patent-eligible invention. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358.
Petitioner persuasively asserts that even when the elements of claims
1, 10, and 14 are considered not as individual elements but as an ordered
combination, the result of the analysis does not change. Pet. 76-77. In the
words of Petitioner, the combination is nothing more than the sum of its
parts. !d. We agree with Petitioner's assertion because there is nothing
unexpected in any combination of the elements. For example, to receive the
code, the code must have been transmitted; to transmit the code, the code
must have been generated; and to respond to a search request, a search
request must have been made. The ordered combination still is capable of
being carried out by conventional and pre-existing technology, and the
various steps still are capable of being performed by a general purpose
computer.
Claims 2, 3, 5, 6, 11, 15, and 17 depend, directly or indirectly, from
claims I, 10, or 14. For reasons explained by Petitioner (Pet. 79- 80), the
limitations these dependent claims add are insufficient to turn the claimed
subject matter into patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101. For
instance, claims 2 and 15 each recite "storing said code"; claims 3 and 17
each recite "storing said code in a cookie"; claim 5 recites: "concatenating
said code with at least one of said links to said websites"; and claims 6 and
11 each recite "said code is based on a global unique identifier." Mr. Gray
testifies that "using cookies, concatenating strings, and GUIDs [global
unique identifiers] was well-known prior to filing of the '763 Patent," and
36
218
Case: 17-2161 Filed 09/22/201 7
CBM20 16-00022
Patent 8,326, 763 B2
that "cookies were (and still are) a commonly used means for storing
information about user activity on a given website for future use by the
website." Ex. 1006 ~ 169. Mr. Gray testifies that these are routine
implementations using techniques that were well-known in the field of web
design. !d. Mr. Gray further explains: "[S]erial numbers and cookies were
(and still are) a commonly used means for storing information about user
activity on a given website for future use by the website. Thus, these
limitations do not move the claims away from an abstract idea to a concrete,
patentable invention." Id.~ 170. Storing of information also constitutes a
part of the data gathering that could be implemented by a general purpose
computer at the time of the effective filing date of the '763 patent. The
Specification does not describe the requirement of any new technology to
perform the storing of the code.
Patent Owner argues that novel software is required to carry out the
claimed invention. PO Resp. 147- 148. But the evidence as discussed above
does not support the assertion. Patent Owner does not point to any
discussion in the Specification of new programming techniques. Nor does
Patent Owner specifically identify what recitation in the claims correspond
to the alleged technical improvement in software. The assertion also is
inconsistent with Patent Owner's contention, previously discussed, on pages
89, 93- 94, and 102 of the Patent Owner Response that the alleged novel
feature of the invention is the identification of invalid clicks "without"
requiring the use of special software.
Patent Owner asserts that the claims here are like those deemed patent
eligible in DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir.
2014). PO Resp. 137- 140. We disagree. As is noted by Petitioner, in DDR
37
219
Case: 17-2161 Filed 09/22/2017
CBM20 16-00022
Patent 8,326,763 B2
Holdings, 773 F.2d at 1257- 59, the claimed invention solved a problem in a
particular technical way, by sending the user to a hybrid webpage that
combined visual elements of the first website with the desired content from
the second website that the user requested. Reply 18. The Federal Circuit
determined that "the claimed solution is necessarily rooted in computer
technology." DDR Holdings, 773 F.3d at 1257. Here, although the claims
recite technology, as discussed above, nothing in these claims reflects the
adoption or use of the recited technology beyond conventional and generic
processes and machinery. The key to the claimed solution here lies in
recording who is making a request and measuring the duration between two
requests from the same source, using conventional generic processes and
machinery. That is insufficient to render the claimed invention patent
eligible.
Patent Owner asserts that the claims here are like those in PNC Bank
v. Secure Axcess. LLC., Case CBM2014-001 00, where the Board, according
to Patent Owner, found the claims to be patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C.
101. PO Resp. 136-137. The argument is misplaced, because the Board
did not, in its Final Written Decision, determine that the claims there were
patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. CBM2014-00IOO, Paper 43. Patent
subject matter eligibility was not an issue for trial in that instituted
proceeding.
For the foregoing reasons, we determine that none of the challenged
claims includes an eligible "inventive concept," i.e., an element or
combination of elements sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice
amounts to significantly more than a patent on the abstract idea itself. Alice,
134 S. Ct. at 2357. The additional features in these claims are not more than
38
220
Case: 17-2161 Filed 09/22/20 17
CBM20 16-00022
Patent 8,326,763 B2
"'well-understood, routine, conventional activity."' See Ultramercial,

772 F.3d at 715 (citing Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1298).
3. Conclusion
Petitioner has established by a preponderance of the evidence that
claims 1- 3, 5, 6, 10, 11, I 4, I 5, and 17 are directed to patent-ineligible
subject matter under 35 U.S.C. IOI.
C. Patent Owner's Renewed Motion to Exclude

Patent Owner filed a Renewed Motion to Exclude Evidence, directed
to Petitioner Exhibits I 004, 1005, I 0 I 0, I 0 II, I 0 I3, I 0 I4, I 032, and I 03 7.
Paper 33. None of these exhibits was relied on by Petitioner in support of
the sole ground on the basis of which trial was instituted in this proceeding,
i.e., subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, or in support of
Petitioner's arguments for establishing the '763 patent as a covered business
method patent eligible for covered business method patent review. Patent
Owner in its Reply to Petitioner's Opposition to Patent Owner's Renewed
Motion to Exclude asserts that the Board's Decision on Institution did rely
on the Declaration of Mr. Gray and that Mr. Gray's Declaration does refer to
Exhibits I004, 1005, and I037. Paper 40, 3. Mr. Gray's Declaration,
however, covers many subjects, and the portions of Mr. Gray's Declaration
cited to in the Decision on Institution do not rely on or refer to Exhibits
1004, I005, IOIO, I011, 1013, 1014, 1032, and I037.
We have not relied on any portion ofExhibits 1004, 1005, 10IO,
IOII, 1013, 1014, 1032, and 1037, in this Final Written Decision. Those
exhibits all relate to an alleged ground of unpatentability over prior art that
has not been instituted for trial and also were not referred to by Mr. Gray in
connection with his testimony regarding either patent subject matter
39
221
Case: I 7-216 I Filed 09/22/2017
CBM20 16-00022
Patent 8,326,763 B2
eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101 or whether the '763 patent is a covered

business method patent eligible for covered business method patent review.
Accordingly, Patent Owner's Renewed Motion to Exclude is
dismissed as moot.
D. Certain Other Arguments ofPatent Owner

Patent Owner asserts that the Director of the U.S. Patent and
Trademark Office has an apparent conflict of interest with respect to
Petitioner on the basis of her once being a top executive for Petitioner and
her 9 years of employment by Petitioner. PO Resp. 32- 33. Patent Owner
asks whether the Board has ruled out any such conflict of interest. /d. at 32.
Patent Owner also questions the Director's involvement in appointing Board
members. /d. at 33.
As we stated in the Decision on Institution, "The Director has
delegated her authority to institute all trials to the Board, and this panel has
executed that authority independently." Paper 11, 44 n. 7. Further as we
stated in the Decision on Institution, we are without authority to determine
"whether the Director is a disinterested person in this proceeding." !d. The
same answers are applicable now. Also, under 35 U.S.C. 328(a), it is the
Board which is charged with the issuance of a final written decision, not the
Director.
Patent Owner asserts that the rules governing trials are unfair because
Patent Owner is not permitted to present, in support of its Patent Owner
Response, any testimony from an expert or specialist. PO Resp. 33- 34. We
do not understand Patent Owner's assertion. We are aware of no rule which
precludes a patent owner from relying on expert testimony to support its
patent owner response, and Patent Owner has cited none.
40
222
Case: 17-2161 Filed 09/22/20 17
CBM20 16-00022
Patent 8,326,763 B2
Patent Owner "requests the Board to take disciplinary action against

Mr. Siddiqui in view of [the] intimidating nature of his email to Patent
Owner Patrick Zuili." PO Resp. 36. According to Patent Owner, and
referring to an email communication which has been submitted as Exhibit
1042, "Mr. Siddiqui threatened Patent Owner Patrick Zuili to reimburse
what Google is spending in attorney fees for answering Patent Owner's
Objection and submitting supplemental evidences if Patent Owner does not
agree blindly to whatever Mr. Siddiqui is including in respect to the original
Exhibits and new supplemental Exhibits." !d. at 35- 36. Although phrased
as a request, the request is a motion for sanction. As such, prior
authorization from the Board is required to pennit its filing. 37 C.F.R.
42.20(b) e'A motion will not be entered without Board authorization.").
No prior authorization had been obtained by Patent Owner with respect to
this motion for sanction. Thus, the motion for sanction is dismissed. 7
Patent Owner seeks authorization to file a motion to disqualify
Mr. Siddiqui as Lead Counsel for Petitioner. PO Resp. 36-37. The request
for authorization is based on ( 1) the assertion that Mr. Siddiqui threatened
Patent Owner as discussed above in the context of Patent Owner's request
for sanction against Mr. Siddiqui, and (2) alleged failure of Mr. Siddiqui to
fulfill his duty of candor because he should have informed the Board "about
7
In any event, we have reviewed Exhibit 1042 and find, in that regard, only
counsel's statement: "[W]e reserve our right to ask the board to order you to
reimburse our costs and attorney fees that we expended in responding to a
frivolous and baseless motion." Ex. 1042,3. In general, it is not
inappropriate, under our Rules of Professional Conduct, for counsel to
41
223
Case: 17-2161 Filed 09/22/20 17
CBM20 16-00022
Patent 8,326,763 B2
apparent tampering with Exhibits, robots.txt and modification ofmetadata."

I d. With regard to numbered item ( 1), we already noted that generally it is
not inappropriate, under our Rules of Professional Conduct, for counsel to
The request with regard to numbered item (2), on the other hand, amounts to
a request for authorization to file a motion for sanction where the proposed
sanction is disqualification of counsel as Lead Attorney for Petitioner and
where the alleged wrongdoing is based on purported tampering of certain
exhibits. We previously indicated to Patent Owner that its assertion of
tampering with exhibits is premature until we have ruled in Patent Owner's
favor on its Patent Owner's Motion to Exclude Evidence directed to those
exhibits. 8 Paper 27. That still remains the case. Patent Owner's Motion to
Exclude Evidence has been dismissed. Accordingly, Patent Owner's request
for authorization to file a ~otion to disqualify Mr. Siddiqui as Lead Counsel
for Petitioner is denied.
III. CONCLUSION
We conclude Petitioner has proven, by a preponderance of the
evidence, that claims 1- 3, 5, 6, 10, 11, 14, 15, and 17 ofthe '763 patent are
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 101.
This is a final written decision of the Board under 35 U.S.C. 328(a).
Parties to the proceeding seeking judicial review of this decision must
comply with the notice and service requirements of37 C.F.R. 90.2.
8
We note further that Exhibit 1042 makes manifestly evident that Petitioner
does not share Patent Owner's view that there has been any tampering of the
evidence submitted in this proceeding.
42
224
Case: 17-2161 Filed 09/22/2017
CBM20 16-00022
Patent 8,326, 763 B2
IV. ORDER
It is
ORDERED that claims 1- 3, 5, 6, 10, 11, 14, 15, and 17 ofU.S. Patent
No. 8,326,763 B2 are unpatentable.
FOR PETITIONER:
Robert Pluta
Saqib J. Siddiqui
MAYER BROWN LLP
FOR PATENT OWNER:

Patrick Zuili (pro se)
patrick@tenderbox. tv
43
225
Case: 17-2161 IIIIII Il HIIIIIIII~B~~~Iilllllllllllllllllllllllllll
US008671057BI
o2> United States Patent (IO) Patent No.: US 8,671,057 Bl

Zuili (45) Date of Patent: Mar. 11, 2014
(54) Mtnnon .:\ NI) SYSTE:\1 TO DETECT (56) Rl'fl'rcncc~ Cltl'd

IN\'AL(f) ASI> f'I{AUDUI .E~T 1;\Jili{ESSIO~S
AX I)< 'LICKS I~ WEH-U.\SEU U.S. PATENT DOCUMENTS
ADVEiffiSE:\lENT SCIIK\IES
6,452.609 Bl 9.'2002 K:uinskyclal ............... 715716
200:\ 0::!114!!2 ,\1 12 2001 Skrcpctos .... ................. 7{)<). 2~0
(75) Inventor: l'uhlck Zulli. Boca Ro.ll~ m . FL (US)
cited hy exmnincr
(73) Assigtll.'e: lllih~sm11tf Corp . 13oc<1 Ralon. FL (US)
l,rimary Emmina - D:uue Ravcui
( ) Notice ~ Suhjec\ In any <hsclainu:r. the term of this (74) ,.JJtmrrt')', .-I,~L' III. m firm- John R. Kaslw; Kelly 1.
paten\ is exlemled or adju~ted under 35 Kasha; Kasha Law LLC
U.S.C. 154(h) by II I I U'.i1ys.
(57) AUSTI{,\CT
(21) Appl. No. : 12/654,616
'll1is inventinn is related to web-lmllic and ust.-d in online
(22) l.'iled: Dl'c. 24, 2009 adwrtising. includmg. inler.Jctive TV. cellular lclephnnc or
Rl'lutl'd U.S .-\ppllcutlon l>utu Personal DigilalAssistanl J>DA. h discloscs:1 syslem to deW<.:\
im~1lid and lraudulent impressions and clicks and method of
(GO) Division of application Nu . II/7RL71G, filed on .Jul. pay-rer-click (when advertisers r<~Y upon users acttmlly
23. 2007. now P:~t . No . 7.953.667. which is a clicking.) and pay-per-impression (when :1dvcrtisers pay
Colllillllillion-in-purt or applicmion No . I0/3(i().6KK. basL-d on number of views) advertising arrangements. \\ hich
liled on Feb. 7. 2003. nnw 1'<1. No. 7.249.104. periodically g.enem\es " code assnciated with the sc:Lrch-
engine users. 'I11is code. prelcrahly in the lhm1 of a seri:1l
(51) Int. Cl. number. is comp:1red In the user of the website, such lim I by
GfJ6F 2//(Jtl (20B.Ol ) observing. a metric like the munhcr ofclicks fnr u given period
GfJ6Q lfJ/fJfJ ( 2012.01) of lime. he itil short time or a longer period. such as a day or
(52) u.s.n a WL'Ck. the system c:m automatic:1lly detenuine if certain
USI'C ............ .................... ............................ 705/50 clicks arc illq;itinmlc. 'l11is :1llows the search enginccompm1y
(5K) l'll'ld II r Cluss lticu lion Sl'lltCh tu liirly invoice the merchants. thereby preventing fmudulenl
USPC .... .. ........ 705/50, 16, 21, 59.71: 3K0/44. 262, over usc.
3R0/2 7K. 2 79
Sw applica tion Jile for complele se<~rch history. 12 Cluhns, 2 I>ruwln~ Sheets
PAY PER CLICK

120
VE~IFY THAT TH[ S(RIAL NUMB[R WEBSITE

IS UUIOUE
SEARCH ENGIIIE 104

102--.. SEARt H ENGI~E
~ 10
RESULT V.1TH PAY PER (Q)
CUCK liNK DifFERENT
FOR EACH IISER
Uf~K
SEARCH ENGINE GET

COOKIE S~R AL NUMlitR
LOCATED 01 END
USt R COMPUTLR
AND ADO IT TO
TH( UNK. XML
TECHNOLOGY PERMIT
TO PASS THAll
FIREWA~ l
226
Case: 17-2161 Filed 09/22/2017
U.S. Patent Mar. 11, 2014 Sheet 1 of2 us 8,671,057 81
INVOICE TO ADVERTISER'S WEBSITE

PAY PER CLICK
120
PAY PER CLICK
COMPA_N_Y- - f 0
30 122
VERIFY THAT THE SERIAL NUMBER WEBSITE
IS UNIQUE
SEARCH __
ENGINE
____,_ 104
102~ SEARCH ENGINE 110
RESULT WITH PAY PER (0)
CLICK LINK DIFFERENT
FOR EACH USER
LINK
~~
SEARCH ENGINE GET
LOCATED ON END
USER COMPUTER
SEARCH ENGINE WRITE
A SERIAl NUMBER AND ADD IT TO
ON THE COOKIE VIA THE LINK. XML
ACTIVEX, JAVA, JAVASCRIPT, TECHNOLOGY PERMIT
...TECHNOLOGY BASED ON TO PASS THRU
END USER GUID, OR I AND FIREWALl
NEnNORK CARTOGRAPHY
GENERATED PERIODICALLY
SEARCH ENGINE RESULTS
106
FIREWALL
FIG. 1
227
Case: 17-2161 Filed 09/22/20 17
U.S. Patent Mar.11,2014 Sheet 2 of2 US 8,671,057 Bl
200
210 USER DEVICE

\.
WEB BROWSER
2_f0
TOOLBAR
23 0~
'-2. CODE
--
__.
l 5;'
f;-240
NETWORK
250./ (IPt MACt ETC)
...._ STORAGE _..
FIG. 2
228
Case: 17-2161 Fi1ed 09/22/2017
US 8,671,057 B I
1 2
METIIOI) .\~D SYSTEM TO I>ETECT !act, tl1e method in 11/244.467 diller.; frum the present invcn
1~\'ALID ANI> FRAUDULENT 1:'\JPitESSIONS lion bt.'Cause it relics on cnmrutin~:; rroh:tbiliti~.-:. of occur
A~D CLICKS I~ WEB-UASEI> renccs of click C\'cnts.
AU\'EIUISEME~T SCIIEMES U.S. patent <trplication Ser. Nu. 11/234.47(, ("Chck fmud
5 resiswnt !C'.trning ofclick thmugh rate"}: Although thb appli
CROSS REFERENCE TO RELATED c:ll ion t:tlks about cumputing click through r.llc. the method
AI'I'I.. ICA'I'ION empluy~.xt isdillcrcnl and it docs not in\'olvc the gcncr:llionof
two codes un the server side and the cnncuh:n:llion ur those
'lltis applicmion is a divisional ~tpplic~llion of U.S. putent <.'odes as recill.x! in the main claim or the present invclllion.
:t(l(llication Ser. No. 1117RI ,715, liled Jul. 23,2007, which is tn U.S. Pat. No. 7.0-H.471: Although this p:llcnt mentions
:1 eontimmtion in pun of U.S. patcnt aprlication Ser. No. click fi';ntd detection, it docs not explain how click fraud is
I0/360,<iRR. Jilcd Feb. 7. 2003. U.S.I'at. No. 7.249.104. dctt.'Cted. 'lllcrcl\1re. it do~-s not disclose many elements ofthc
main claim of the present invention. including the gcncr..ttinn
FIELD OF TilE INVENTION of two codes on the server side and 1he enncatenat ion o fl hose
15 codes.
'lltis invention rellllcs gcncmlly to network computing or U.S. Pat. No. 7.020.<i22 and PCT lnlcntatiomtl J>ublie<ttion
the tyrc which occurs over the lntcmct and World Wide Web. Number WO 021091225 :\3: Each of these public:1tions dis-
f(lr exam ric. and, more panicularly.to a mcthml of rmt~'Ct ing clllSC the tr:tcking of user activity on Ill<.! Web including. inter-
the providers of pay-~r-click scrvict.'S from multiple illegiti- actions with Web png1.'S rutd click-thmug.h na' ig:nion In sck>cl
mate US<JI!,I.'S. :m Web sites wl~<:rc purchases cmt be exccutt.xl. II dnc~ not dis-
close the g~'llcrJtion of two codc.'S on the server side and the
BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION conc;~tenation of those codes as r~'CiKxl in the nwin cla im of
the present invention. Indeed. each or the systems nf lhi.'Se
Over the lust few years in particular. the cap:thilitics of the prior art puhlic:1tions do1.-s not apply to the same context as
Internet have grown dr.unatically, with the intmductinn or ~~ that of the present invention. Both these prior arts apply to a
tww pmtocols (i.e .. XML). adv:mc1.xl browsers. cl~'Ctronic cle:tring-lwuse and :~lliliate nelwurk. Th~ rcl:Jiion between
cnnum:rce &:ap<tbilities. and other IC.llurcs. the clcuring-house und the atlili:ttes allmv users' ucllvities to
Numen1us cnmmercial enterprises me nnw allempling to be tmckcd. In cuntmsl. the rrcscnl invention applies to a
somehow prnlil thmugh this new inrrastmcture. in m<lll)' ~card1 engine and the web sites nfadvcrtiscrs In that c(lntcxt.
cuscs by providing services that auach a smaller incrementul ;lo the scmch engine c:numl tmck the :tctivitic$ of users while
monewry \'alue to a pnrticulnr tmnsuction. th1.')' uccess the advertisers' web sites.
One such type or cupability is the pay-per-click (S()IOC V.Anupam,A. Muycr. K. Nissim.IJ.I'inkas. and M. Rdtcr,
limes mcludmg pay-pcr-impression) search engine popular- On the s~~.:urity olJ>ay-Per-Cii~:k :md Other Web Advertising
i:red by (ioogh: Inc and othcrcomranics. In ac~:"nrd:ll!cc with Schenu.-s. In J>roce~xlings urthe R'1' lntcnlilliouul Conlcr~ncc
such :1 cupahility. a user goes In a search ~ngine. and inputs the :l5 lll\ World Wide Web. pages I 091-11 ()()_ 1999: 'lltis paper
name of gt1ods ur services :ts keywurds that they \\Uultl like dt.-scribcs the dcti.'Ction :md prevent inn ur un :tltnck on a pay-
the search engine In lind. v:1rimL~ providers uf g.oods and rer-click uctwurk using u rcl~'l'n:r :md JmaScript. It dues nut.
services register their \\ehsit1.'S with the sc::trch engine ami however. disclose the gencmtinn ufl\\u cud1.~ 1111 a server :md
these ure rmvided to the user in a list which is prioritized by the concaten:tlion ufllwse codes <l~ r~'Cit~.'tl in the main claim
the Jcvcl or compensation which the merchant WIJI l!,i\'e the 40 ll f the pri.'SCnl liWention.
pay-per-did. nr pay-per-impression company if the user is c. Blundn and s_Cimatu, S.\WM: :\ 'Jhnl filr Sl.-cUre und
muted to the1r sllc. rorcxamplc. using. such a system. if a user Authentic:tll.'tl Web Metering. In J>nx:e~.'tlmgs of the 14th
types in the k1.')'Word "binoculars." the pay-per-click or pay- _\CM SFKF lntcrn.ational Con terence on Sol\ ware Engim.'Cr
per-nnprcssion system mig.ht return live potentinl lmks or ing. ami Knowledge Fng.in~'Cring. pugcs 641-6411. 21KI2:
bunners, with the most prominent nne being. :tssm:iated with 4:i :\I though this p:tpcr rel:ttcs In click fmud detection. it docs not
that surplierofbinncul:u-s which\\ ill compensate lont pem1y disclose tlw generation of two .codc..-s on a server :111d the
or u few cents more than the links/banners rrescntcd bclll\\. cnncatenutinn of those codes as r~'Cit1.xl in the main claim (If
One rrublcm "'ith existing systems. is that u user may the present invention. Rather. it uses a system inmlving.
cause :111 undesirable level or expenditure on the pan tlf the en~ryption with a secret key ~md a plug-in Ihut executes on the
mcrch:ull b) over-clicking on a particular linl...ln some<.uses. ~~~ client side.
it hus been known that some users have done this simply lilr Jakobsson. 1'- MucKen:rie. and J_ Stem. S...'Curc und Light-
the purpose of undermining a p:u1i~::ular prm ider or compcti- weight :\dwrtising on the Web_ In irocc~'titngs of the !!th
tor. Since the cxistmg. S)SICIUS have no way ur knowing International Conference on World Wide Web. pages IIIli
\\ hetiH..'I' a link through is legitimate nr bogus. II~<: pnwider ul 1109. 1999: 'll1is !l.lfli.'T docs nut dtsclnsc til<.! gener:llion of a
the gnodslSCI'\'IC(..'S Winds Up having. (0 p;ty the !lU)perdicJ.. ~~ SI.'Cond code and the cunc<ttctmtion to a previously gcnl.'l'at~.xl
pnwidcr excess sums. with II~<: fmudulcnl perpetrator rcm.tin- code :IS rl'Cit<..xJ in the main d:tint of' the present in\'Ctllion.
ing un-reprimandcd. Similarly in pay-per-impression sys- Rather. it disduscs the usc nf ck'Ctnmic coupons.
tems. the fr:tUdster would just I..I.'Cfl searching lor Ill<.! same
keyword so Js tolwve many unn~'Ccssary impressions. I hcsc SUMM. \RY or Tl IE INVEN liON
fraudulent impressions t:ould adversely imp<~cl the compcti 6
tors finances. This invention describes pay-per-click and pay-rer-im-
Search has rcvcnkxlthe li1llnwing related un. prcssion urr:mgemcnts pcriodic<~lly generating a code associ
U.S. p:~tent applicatinn Ser. No. ll/244,4<i7 ("Pay-per a led with the seurch-enginc users. lltiscode. rrcli:mbly in the
click I ruud l'rotl.>clion"): llte method dcscrih~.xt in this appli ftmn nf u number \\hich could be encrypted or in clear. is
c:tlinn is different because it docs not dtsclose the gencmlion t;~ cump:trcd to the user of the wcb~ite. such that by observing :1
of I\\ u cotk'S on the server side and the concutcn:ll inn o fthose metric like the number ofclicks lilr a given period of time, he
codes as recited in the main claim ofthc present inventinn.ln it a shon time or a Iunger period, such as 11 day or :1 week. the
229
Case: 17-2161 Filed 09/22/20 17
US 8,671,057 8 I
3 4
syslem can :mtum:llic:~lly llelemline if certain clicks ure ille 'l11c code cnulu be stored via ActiveX. Jav<~. Ja\':tScript.
gilim:~lc. 11tis allows the Jmy-per-click company In lilirly browser tool bar. or uny nlhcr lypc nftcdmolng.y based\\ ithin
invoice !he merchants, !hereby prcvcllling lraudulcnl over the end-user g.r.IJ'Ihic<~luscr inlerlicc dc\'icc (li1r example, a
usc, :.mll also idenlily which networks the fraudulent users web brows~:r like Micrusoli lntemet J.:xplorcr).l'or cx;unple,
usc. 5 !he browser toolbarcun inlcrccptthe dick made on a link and
make appropriate modilicalinns In the request being made to
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF TilE DRAWINGS the search engine. The tnolh<Jr can usc technologies like
ActivcX and J:~vaScript. Such tnolbars already exist fbr
So that I he munncr in which the abo\'C rccilcd lcuturcs of browsers like Internet Explnrcr. Also. too]burs could be of
!he present invention ~:an be undcr.Hllod in detaiL a more tn vurious types like P2Jllonlbar. remote-conlrulled tonlbar and
particuh1r description of the invcnliun, briclly summurizcd 1'2P centralized tnolhar. '!11e modificutinns to the code could
above, may be had by rclcrcncc to embodiments, some or include adding timeslmnp, identity inli1rnmtion like M ,\C
which arc illustrawd in tlu: appended drawings. It is In he address of the device, other MAC addresses in the suhm:t of
noted, howc\cr, !hal the uppcnlled drawings illustr.1te only the device or any chang\.-s made to the MAC :~ddr\.-sses.
typicul embodimenls oflhis invention and arc therefore not to 15 In addilion, or as ;m alt~rnativc. network cartography m:~y
be considered limiting of its scope. for the invention m::~y be generated pcriodic<~lly Ji1r each user based upon their usc
admil In other cquully elk-ctive embodiments. of the search engine 102. nlC network cartography could
FIG. I is :1 di:tgram which illustralcsa per-per-click sys\em include the user device's IP and MAC address or the nctwnrk
incorporating :1 prclcrrcd embodiment of the present inven- mute inlornmtion bctW\.'Cil the device :md the pay-per-click
lion. 20 system. Network curtogr:tphy is a gcncrul term that dcscnbes
FIG. 2 is a diagram which illustmtes the various compo- the nu\pul of three sets or commands: tm~:c mule. ping :md
nents of a user device that imer:~cts with the scmch engine. rc\'crse DNS. Nelwork cartogmphy provides inlimnation
While the invenlion is described herein by wuy of example about the mtlurc of the network such :1s nmtcrs' loc:J!ion :md
using several embodiments and illuslrativc dmwings, those SflC\.'(Iof the packels to lravcl!he path.
skill\.'<.! in !he :~rt will recognize that the invention is not 25 FIG. 2 illustmtcs v:~rious componenls in a uscrdc\'icc 2011.
limit\.'<.! to the embodiments or drawing or dmwings 'l11c user device 21UI could be a user desktop. luptop. l'DA.
d~scribed. It should he understood tlwt the drawings :md smurl phone. phone with hllcrncl cup:tbililics. intcmctive 'IV
delailcd description thereto arc not intended to limit the ur nlhcr devices Cafl'tblc of connecting to the hllemet. In one
invention to the partkular li.mn disclosld. btll unthc contrary. or the embodiments the user dc\'icc 200 conlllins a \Wb
the imcntion is to cover ull modilication. equivalents and .111 browser 210 thut is capable ofconnecting and hnn"sing wcb-
alternatives lhlling within the spirit and scope uf the present ~ilc~ :md search engine~. Exumplc or a web hrow~cr is
invention as delincd by \he appcntlcd claims. The headings Microsoli lntemct Explorer. The web bn1w~er 210 can cnn
used herein arc li1r mgani:t11tinnal purposes only ami arc not lain a tnolbur 2211 that can add to the l'unctionality or the
meant to be used to limil the scope nJ'thc description or the browser. For example. the toolb:~r 220 can fii\Wide dir\.-ct
claims. :\s used throughou\ this application. the word "may" .l 5 intcrlhce to u ~curch engine whereby the ~carches could be
is used in a pcrmissi\'c sense (i.e . meaning h:tving the poten- perlimned dirc~:tly. 'l11c toolb:tr 2211 c:u1 :tlso intercept any
tial to ~. mthcr than the mand:llol)' sense (i.e., meaning must). request made hy the bn1\vscr and pcrlimn additional process-
Simililrly, the \H1rds "im:ludc." "including," and "includL-s" ing on the TL'qucst. The user device 2110 also comprises of
mean including, but not limited ln. Further, the word "a" storage 2.:lll and a network 250. The stomge 230 could be usL'<.I
means "at least one". and the word "plur.llity" meuns one or 40 by the browser 210 and toolbar 220 to store code 240.
more. unk-ss otherwise mcnlioned. When the u~er clicks on a link within the browser 2111. the
code 240 with inlimnatimt like nelwork ~:artngr.tphy. limes-
DET:\11 FD DJ..SCRIPTION OF THE INVENliON tamps und number nf previous clicks, will he sent to the
search engine 102 and'" ill be interprek'<.l by the ray-per-click
Rclcrcncc is made to FIG. I which illustmtcs a typic:~] .~~ syslem 120 to determine various par.uueters like the Ire
conllguration associated with a pay-per-click implcmcnta qucncy of clicks from that user or device. interval between
tion. It is noted that althnug.h the diugram includes certain click~ etc. These p:trmuc\ers c:m be laycrl'<.l un top of each
intcn:onnect~:d gr.tphil:al blod.s. lhese arc not taken In mcilll other with e<1d1 l:1yer limning a ~epur.111: li<md discovery
"hurdware" or "solhHtrc." but muy include uny comhinalion crileria and hence could be USL'(l In determine the lrm1dulent
of hard\\<trcisolh\ar~: nec~:ss:sry \o implcmenl a purtitular ~n clicks, lnllmllalion about users, dcdccs and lhmdulcnt clicks
Junction . In <Jddition. uhhnngh lines :src drawn between the could he sh<lr\.-d with the merchants <Jnd also published in a
v:trious components. this is till\ meant to imply that they arc public nr rriv:llc directory oflhtudslers. n,e actual hilling to
n\.-ccssarily implement\.'<.! in close pruximily In one anotlu:r, the merch:mls would be dune by considcr.ttion of all these
since in many C:1scs thc~c cupabilitic~ will be remote. p:tr.unetcrs by both the p;~rtics.
'!11e search engine 102 pnwidcs a result along J'lilth 1114 !> ~ This method is ;~lso cf!i..'Ctive in idcntil)'ing competitor
which is indiciltivc of u link associ:~tcd with dillcrentuscrs. lraud, where merchants employ humans or machines to cause
Fngine 102 may he any ~:xisting or yet-to-be-developed sys mmeccssal)' clicks or imprL'Ssion~ on a competitor's link. thus
tcm. including Findwhat.com. Googlc'~ Adwmds. YJhoo. resulting in exccssi\'C hilling. Using the method describL'<.I
I .ooksmart, Kanoodlc. Msn, Ask.com. and so lbrth. previously. the code could he installed within a merclmnt's
In addition to the result generated alnng. p:nh 104. :~ccord 60 comruting cnvimnmcnt by the pay-per-click system. 'lltis
ing In this invention. the search engine gencr.ttcs a code. code could then be us\.'<.! to determine if that merchant is doing
prcfer.thly in the limn nf a number. utilizing u cookie. 'J11e lraud wilh another mcrch:ml hy identifying network. MAC
number could be a serial number. a globally unique identilier :tddrcsscs. and subnct mapping. The code could also be
(GUID) or a pseudo-mndom number. This number could he allowed to m:1ke appropriate checks during the logon process
gcncrJtcd using an algorithm like a pseudn-mndnm number 6~ of the merchant's buck-nllice device.
genemtor, a OUID gcnemtor. an encoding technique like Although the encoded number is shown being wriuen to u
basc64 ilnd :m cncl)'ption algorithm . lloppy disk 106, again. it will be appreciated by those or
230
Case: 17-2161 Filed 09/22/20 I 7
u~ 8,671,057 B1
5 6
skill~'<!in the :u1that any type of stomge capability, such as a fhnning a gn1up of <I plurality or codes comprising at least
!lash memo!)'. cacht:d memo!)'. n hard disk. u compact disc said second code and said first code.
(CD). a digital versatile disc (DVD) and so fonh mu~ alter- 3. The method lor identil)ing imalid click(s)as claimc.'<l in
natively be utilized. The number genen1ted by the search claim 1 fhrthcr comprising the steps of;
engine along. path 1 US is cnncahmuted with the re~uh along fonning a gmup of a plurality or codt.'S comprising at least
path 104 thmugh XMl link 110 or n:gulur HrJV link using s;1 id I hirtl code and s;~ id second ~.:ode.
pon HO. Given the number pro\'idt.'<lthrough the cookie, this 4. '111e method li.lT identifying invalidclick(s)as cluim~'<l in
a lim\ s the concahmationto occur through llrewalls and other claim J lurther comprising the steps of:
d~vices which may olhenvise block the transmission as unuu-
fonning a gmup oJ' a plurality or codes comprising at least
thori7.cd.
said I hirtl code and said first code.
While the li.lreg.ning. is directt.'<l to embodiments of the
5 , The method fi.1r identif)ing invalid click(s) as cluimc.'<l in
present i1wention. other and further embodiment~ ol' the
clotim J lurther comprising the step of:
invention may be de\iscd witho ut departing from the basic
scope thereot: and the scope thereof' is determint.'<l hy the sending said second code to suid at lc;stone dt.vicc.
claims that fbllow. 1.5
6. ll1e method fi.1r identil)'ing invalidclick(s)as daimt.'<l in
What is claimed is: claim 1 1i111her comprising the step of:
1..\ method fur identifying in.,.lid click(s) hy a system sending said third codc to said at least one device.
including ;~t least unc \\ ch page on" server side computing 7. The method for identil)ing invalidclick(s) :1s cl<Jil1lt.'f.l in
d~vkc, the at lcust web page providing u plurality of links d:1im 1 wherein suid first code is :1 serial number.
associat~'<l with a plurality of'other \\eb pugcs :1ssociated with ~~ 8. 'I11e method for idcntif)'ing iiWlllid click(s) :1s d<1imt.'<l in
a plumlity of merch:mts. the method comprising the steps ul: claim J li1rther l'tlmprising the step ol:
general ing u first code on the server side compul ing dcvkc, storing said first code using ut least u script executing
the first code identifying at lcastonc de\ice on a client within a hnmser interfilce.
~ide; 9. The method l'or identifying invalid click(s) as claintt.'<l in
sending said first code to said at least onc dcvke over a !!< claim 1 further comrrising.thc step of:
communication network: storing said first code as a cookie.
obtaining lrum the dcvicc unthc client side, u s1.:cond code 111. 'll1c method fbr identilying invalid click(s) as claimt.'<l
when said i.lt lcast one u~er performs a first dkk on at in claim 1 lurther comprising the step of:
least one nfsald links assm:iated with atle:1~t one1.1f said prL'\'e nting access to said at least one other weh page ifsaid
other wcb pages at :1 first time. second click on suidut\cusl one link <Jssoci:Jted with said
obtaining from the device on the client side. u third code
ut least one other web p;~ge is determint.'<lto be invalid.
when said at lea ~\ one user pcrlimns a second click 1.1n
II. n1e method fnr identifying invalid click(s) us clainwd
said at lellst nne link as~ocbted with said at least one
in ch1im I wherein the sccond code :md the third code :1re
other weh page :11 a Sl'Cnnd time; and
detennining. hy the server sidecmnputing de, ice. whether J5 cm:odcd.
said second click is in,'alid hy examining a dincrence 12. 'I11c method li1r identif)'ing invalid click(s) as clainiL'<l
hetwwn said lirsttime and said s~'\.:ond time. in cluim 1 wherein ~aid code is b;~sc.d on u unique idcntilicr
2. The method fi1r identifying im'<llid click(s) as daimed in uhtaincd fn11n the device on the clicntur user side.
cl:1im 1 further comprising the steps of:
231
Case: 17-2161 Filed 09/22/201 7
CERTIFICATE OF CORRECTION
PATENT NO. : 8,671.057 Bl Page I of 1
APPLICATION NO. : 12/654616
DATED :March II, 2014
INVENTOR($) : Patrick Zuili
It is certified that error appears in the above-identified patent and that said Letters Patent is hereby corrected as shown below:
In the Specification:
Column 5, line 7. "80'' should be changed to --80--.
In the CI:Jims:
Column 5. line 19, insert the word --one-- after "least".
Column 5, line 27. replace "the device" by --the said at ie:Jst one device--.
Column 5, line 28, replace "when said at le:Jst one user'' by --when m least one user--.
Column 5. line 31. replace "the device" by --the said at le:Jst one device--.
Column 5, line 39, replace "steps" by -step--.
Column 6, line 4. replace "steps" by --step--.
Column 6, line 8. replace "steps" by --step--.
Signed and Sealed this

Sixteenth Day of September, 20 14
~~i~hdlc K I c~
/),p11~1 /Jinrlrrr nttfl,. l 'nitt:J $ 1<1te. Pa/t:lll tmJ 1i'<IJtmarA O.J!in
232
Case: 17-2161 IIIIII lllllllllm lll~lllii~HIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
US007953667B I
(12> United States Patent (IO) Patent No.: US 7,953,667 Bl

Zuili (45) Date of Patent: *May 31, 2011
(54) Min lion A!\'() SYSTE:\1 TO ()ETECT 6,125.3~2 A 9 2000 r ranklin cl a!

INVALID ANU FRAllDULENT JMPitESSIO~S 6,211~.'.lN7
Bl 11'2001 Roth ct al
6,775.N11 Bl II 2004 Carr:~s~o .:1 al
Ai'"J> CLICKS IN WER-HASEJ) 7.020,622 1\1 3 2006 Mcss.:r
. \J>VEirt'ISI~ME!'I:T S\'STims 7,043.471 B2 ~ . 2006 Clwung ct ;JI.
7,t:l6,!i60 B2 II '2006 Doliov
(75) lnv~ntnr. Jutrick Zulli. Boca Rolon. Fl (US) 200 I 00070!)7 A1 72001 Kim
2001 0017'H4 AI 1 I 2001 lshikmm
(73) As~ig.Ju.:c ; llrltcsmurl C'orp.. Boc;~ Raton. FL (US) 20010216930 AI II 2001 Dunham cl a\
2006 -0041 ~05 A I 22006 Fnyarl _ ............... ......... 70~ 40
( *) Notice: Suhj~'Ctto :my disclaimer, the tennofthis
patcut is extended or adjusted under 35 OTIIFR PUBLICA.IIONS
u.s.c. 154(b) by nl days. M ulhall. "I hl\\ Rc.1l a Thrc;~t Docs Comrutcr Crime Rcrrcscnt'!".
This pulent is suhj..>cl to tcmlimd dis- Au~ . I, 1996, Comrutcr formul & S..~urity Bullctm.
claimer.
(Contimu.:d)
(21) Appl. No .: 1Jnlli,7Hi
(22) riled ,Jul. 23, 20117

p, it1111ry Emmi11er M<Jr)' Cheung
(74 ) AlloriiL'\'..l~eut, or l"irm .lnlm R. Kashu; Kasha Law
IMlllld U.S. ,\pplh:utlon J)utu LI C
(63) Contmuatiou-in-part of applic:uiun No. I 0/360/Nil.
filed on Feb. 7. 2003. llt\\lo l':~ t . No. 7.249. 104. (57 )
(51) lnt.CJ. "JlliS in\'entinn illl]'lnWCS upon existing {lily-per-dick urr.lllge-
GflfW 11/fJfl (2006.01) lliCJI]S periodically gcner.lling a code assndat~'<.l "'ith the
(52) u.s. ("1 .................................................. ....... 705/52 se:m:h-cnginc users . 'I11is code. rrclcrably in the li.mn of a
(58) Held ofClussificutlon Scurch .............. 705/26 27. serial number, i~ compared to the user of the website. such
705/52 54. (i4 67. 75 71-1; 713/168 169; that by observing. a metric like the number ol'cli~;ks fi.)ru given
7071705 - 7!!8; 726/1 - 5. 26- 30 period of time, he it :1 short lime or :rlnngcrperind. such as :1
SL'C application lile lbr complete se:1rch history. d:ry nr a week. the sysh:m can :mtnmatically dctcnninc if
certain clicks arc illcgitinwte. 'l11is :llnw!> the pay-per-click
(56) ltcfcrcnns Cllcd cnmpuny to more fuirly invoice the mcrclmnts, thereby rre-
venting lhllldulent over usc.
U.S. PATENT DOCUMENTS
~.!i4N,J96 :\ 12 199S Gem~.:
~.991.740 " II 1999 ~lesser 26 Cl11lms, I l>ruwlug Sheet
233
Case: 17-2161 Filed 09/22/2017
US 7,953,667 Bl
Pag~ 1
an IER PUBLICATIONS Who's Clicking\\ ht1'! \1cmh.:rship IX1atls. hllp \\~harchivc org
Anuram. Vinml. cl :~1.. On I he Scc.:urily of fl:lYrcr-clid; nnd olh.:r w.:b120020907125231 '''"'"'' \\hosdtJ..cing\\ho.~ orn :mdtlor hind
\\'cb:ulvcrtising sclt.:mcs. Compul.:r l\clworks 31 ( 1999)1091-ll 00.
l\Y lnh:mel \\'tlrld ( onvcnrion. I .}'CIIS lnSIIc .\ dhuycr l'rngr:un.
Llick fr:md. hllfl' web :trt.hl\c.org web 20021204202939 www
JaJ..ohswn. Mnrku~. cl nl .. s~'CIIrCOUltllighlwcig.hl ;ulvcrtisingun I he submilexp1css.com
Web, Cnmfllllcr :-lclworks 31 (I 999) 110 111 09. \\'ht>'sCiic.:king\Vho? . mn, P:ty-1\:r-Chd ,\udiling Scrvrc.:c.
Sherman, Chri~. ,\sk the Search Eng.inc: Coping with Fmudulcnl WCWRcporter !'PC Trnffic ,\udil Rcp<ll1, hllp weh.arclu\'c Otl,\
l'nyl'.:r<"lic.:k 'I mffic.:. ,\pr. III, 2002. wch'211U2l2241 ()~115 l!oW\\ "hnscli~:kinJ.!I!o hn.c.:nm wcw rcp011er
Tu:t.hilin. Alexander. The L:tnc's Gill,. Goog.le Hcport
Blundo. Carlo. .:1 al. SAW~!: A 'lito! lor S.:curc ami Aulhcnricnlcd
Wch ~kh.: rinl,!. SEKE 2002. .Jul. 15-ICJ,Ischia. haly. cited by ~xamincr
234
Case: 17-2161 Filed 09/22/2017
U.S. Patent May 31, 2011 US 7,953,667 Bl
INVOICE TO WEBSITE LINK TO REAl CLICK USAGE

PAY PER CliCK
PAY PER CliCK
120
..._ __ COMPANY
___. 130
VERIFY THAT THE SERIAL NUMBER
--.....,.j
122
WEBSrTE
JS UNIQUE
110
XML LINK
~~
XMl GET SEARCH ENGINE
COOKIE SERIAl NUMBER
LOCATED ON END
USER COMPUTER
SEARCH ENGINE WRITE AND ADD IT TO
A SERIAL NUMBER THE LINK. XML
ACTlVEX, JAVAt.JAVASCRH'! TO PASS THRU
.. TECHNOLOG T BASED Oil FIREWAI.l
END USER GUID~ OR I AND
NETWORK CARTOGRAPHY
GENERATED PElliODiCALLY
SEARCH ENGINE
106
FIREWALL
FIG. 1
235
Case: 17-2161 Filed 09/22/20 17
US 7,953,667 B I
1 2
1\lETIJOI) .\~()SYSTEM TO UETECT d;~y or a wcck. the S)Stcm can autom<~ticallv dctcnnine if
IM'ALII> ANH H~\UUULENT ll\WIU~SSIONS certain clicks nrc illc.:gitimBte. 'lltis ullnws th~ pay-per-click
A~J) CLICKS I~ WEB-RASED company to more h1irly invoice the merclwnts, thcn:h) pre-
AJ)VEIUISEi\1E~T SYSTD1S venting fraudulent over usc,
CROSS RErERENCE TO RELATED BRII;Ji IJI .SCRIPTION OF THE DRAWIN<.iS

APPLICATION
FIG. I is a dia~,;ram which illuslro~tcs ;1 per-per-click syst..:m
'lltis application is a cnntinuation-in-p;1rt nf U .S. patent incorpunting a pn:lcrrcd embodiment of the present invcn-
application Ser. No. 10/360.6RK. entitkd "Pay-per-click sys- ltJ linn.
tem nnd method that determine whether a n:qucstcd link to a
DET\IJ.ID DliSCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION
merclmnt website is lcgilim;ne nr lraudulent" llled Feb_ 7.
20<n. now U.S. Pal. Nn. 7.249.104 and naming as imentors
Rclcrcnee is m;Jdc to FIG. I whidl illustr.ltL'S ;1 typical
Patrick i'uili. which is incorporated hy rclcrence in its
ennliguration assnciall.'d with u pay-per-click implcmcntu-
entirety for all purposes as if completely and tully set lhnh 1s
tion. It is noted tlmt although the diagmm includes certain
herein.
intcrconncctcd g.mphical blocks. these arc not taken to mean
FIELD OF TilE INVENTION "lmrdwarc" or "soft\\Un:," but may include any cnmbin<.~tiun
of lmrdwarcisoftwarc nL-cessary to implement a particular
~ n limction. In addition. although lines un: dmwn between the
'11tis invention rcl:ncs generally to network computing of
various components. this is not meant to imply that they arc
the type which occurs over the Internet. lhr example, and.
more particularly. to u method of pmtecting the providers of nccc..>ssarily implemcn!L'd in close pmximity to one another.
pay-per-click servicL'S lrom muhipl~.: illegitimate usages. since in many cases these c;~p:1hilities will he remote.
The search engine 102 provides :1 result ulong. pulh 104
BACKGROUND OF TilE INVENTION ~' which is indicati\e of a link <~ssoci;l!c..-d with dillcrcnt users.
Engine I 02 may be any existing. or yet-to-be-developed sys-
Over the last few yems in pm1icuh1r. the cupabilitics orthe tem, including. lindwhat.com. Gnog.lc ,'\d\\urds, overture.
lntentel h:l\'e grown dranmticaiJy, with the introduction of looksmart.com. kanoodlc.c..'Um, and so lonh.
IlL'\\ protocols (i.e.. XML). :.dvancL'd browsers. ek-ctronic In addition to the result gener.ttL'd along p;~th J04. m:cnrd-
commerce capabilities. and other JC.nurcs. 1u ing to this invention. the scan:h engine gencr.1tcs a code.
Numerous commercial enterprises arc now attempting to prclcmhly in the !Lmn oru seriul number utilizing ucookie via
somehow profit through this new infrastmcturc. in many active X. J:~v;1, J11vascript. or any other typc of technology
cases by providing services th;ll attach a smaller incrcmen\:1] basLxl upon the end-user's Global Unique ldcntillcr (GUID).
monetary value tn a p01niculartmnsactiun. In ;~ddilion. or liS an <lltcmative. network curtogmphy nmy he
One such type of capability is the p:~y-pcr-dick search l> gencratcd periodic;11ly li1r c;~ch user based upon their usc of
engine popularized by Gong.lc und uthcrcompmties. ln accor the se:.rch engine I 112 _
dance with such a capability. a user goes to a website. and Although the encodc..xl serial number is shown being \Hit-
inputs the n:nnc of' goods or services thut they would like the ten to a llnppy disk Jllfi. again. it will he appn.-ciated by those
pay-per-click company In lind . Various providers of goods of skill in the art th:n any type ofstoragccapuhility, such as a
and s..:rviccs register their wehsites with the comp:111y. :md o~n flash memory, und sn forth may altcrm1tivcly he utili;rcd. The
these arc pnwidcd to the user in a list which is prioritized hy code (e.g. . a serial number) generated by the search engine
the level of compensation which the merchant will give the along path lOS is concutenaiL'd with the result along. path I 114
pay-per-click cnmp;my ifthc user is muted to their site . For through XMI link I HI. Gi\cn the serial number providL'd
example. usingsud1 a system. if a usertyp~s in"hinoculars," through the cookie. this ullows the t'(lllCatenation Ill occur
the J'l<l)'per-click system might n:tum live potcnti:~l links. 4~ through firC\\alls and other dL'Vices which may otherwise
with the most pmminent one being. ussm:iutL'd with thnt sup- block the tr.msmissiun as ummthoritLxl.
plicrnfhinoculars which will compensate lilT a penny nra fi.."\v As the pay-per-click company 1211. inli.Jrn\alion is r..:ccivL'd
cents more than the links prescntt'd below. rc.."garding a click to website 122. hut at the same time. the
One problem with existing systems. is !lull a user nmy serial number is transmittL'd to the company 1211 along. puth
cause an undesirable level of expenditure on the part of the 50 130. This allows the pay-per-click company 120 to invoice
mcrclmnl by ovcrclicking on a particular link. In some caSL'S. the websi lc 122 only ''hen the serial num hers received.
it has been knmvn that some users have done this simply lilr Act;ording to the invention. a lcgitimateseri<~lnumhcr may he
the purpose of undct:mining. a particul:1r provider or competi- gcncmtetl in dillcrcnt ways. including the lirsl usc ur" diF
tor. Since the existing. systems have no way of J...nowing lcrcnt user having a unique IP address. or, ifmuhiplc requests
whether a link through is legitimate or hl1gus. the pmvidcr of ~5 arc m<Jdc hy the same user. thL'Y may heconsiden:d lcgitimuh:
the goods/scr\'iCt'S winds up having to pay the pay-per-click it' they arc sullkicntly spacLxl :~part in time to he indicative or
pnJViderexccss sums. with the lraudulcnt perpetrator rcm:tin- a IL"gitimulc as opposL'd to li-o~udulcnt access to the \\chsite
ing unrcprinmndcd. 122.
SUMMARY OF Tilt: INVENTION 60 What is claimed is:

LA method fordctt.:cting. fmudulcnt activity in a pay-per-
'l11is invention impnwcs upon existing pay-per-click click systcm. comprising:
nmmgcmenls pcrindic:~lly g.encr.ning u Clxie assnciutL'd with (<~)providing a search engine on a server side:
thL' search-engine users. 'lltis code. preferably in the lhnn of h) TL-cching. at said server side. a search TL'qUcst from a
u serial number. is compan:d to the user of the website. such 6~ client:
that hyohserving:1 metric like th..: numbcrofclicks ltlra given c) generating a unique code on the server side. lilr idcnti-
period of time. he it a short time or a Jong.cr period. such as a J)"ing said client:
236
Case: 17-2161 Filed 09/22/20 I 7
us 7,953,667 81
3 4
d) tmnsmilling s:1id code to said clielll from the server side; 12. In an mlvenising system including a s.:urch engine on a
c) tr.Jnsmilling In said client lrom the server side. in server side. the search engine pnwiding a plurality of links
response to said search n.-quc..-st. a plurality of links asso- associated with a plurality of web pages to :1 user at a device
ciated with a plurality of wcbsiH.-s ussociated with a un :~client side. the method lir identi(ying lruud as in ci:Jim
plurality of men:hants: 5 Ill wherein said code is b:1s.:d on a network cartography nf
I) g.encmting website inlim1mtiun regarding. a website said client.
sclectLd by the client when said dicnt clkks nne nf said 13.ln an advcnising system including a search engine on a
plumlity of links: server side, the sean:h engine pnl\iding a plur:~lity of links
g) transmiuing said code and s:.id website inlimmtion nssodated with a plunllity of web pages to a user at a device
l!l on a cliclll side. the method lir identifying Jraud as in claim
together lhnn said client to s~1id server side:
Ill wherein suid code is a serial number.
h) receiving said code und said website inlhmlation at the
14. A method l(u detc..-cting lbud in un advertising system
server side, and detecting lhudulent activity by measur-
including. a search engine on a scrwr side comprising the
ing the durulion bctw1.:cn cli..:ks by suid dicllt tu said steps of:
selected website by cxmuining said code and website 15 gencr.lling a code on the server side. th.: code identil)'ing. u
inlilm1:tiun. device on u client side:
2. A method l'i1r dclL'Cting lhmdulent activity in a puy-pcr- gcncmtingon the server side, :1 pluwlity oJ'Iinks :1s~nciutcd
click system as in claim I further comprising the step ol: with a plurulity of web page!> in response In :1 search
storing said code at said client. initiuh:d at the device on the cli.:nt side wherein :11 least
3. A method lilr detc..'Cting lr:mdulcnt activity in a pay-per- ~n one of said links includes said code;
click system as in claim I further comprising the step ol: sending said plumlity oJ'Iinks to the device:
storing said code in a cookie. r~'Ceiving data from said device. s:1id data including suid
4. A method li1r detc..'Cting fraudulentuctivity in a pay-per- code and inlimuation about one or more click~ by the
click system :1s in claim 3 wherein s:1id storing step is per- user on at least one of said plurality of links as!>oci:IL'd
l(mm.-d using at least one of the lillowing: active. Java. and ~; with the plumlity of web pages:
.la\'ascript. detenuining lium s:tid data\\ hether said at least nne of said
5. :\ method li1r dell'Ciing li'audulent activity in a puy-per- clicks on said ;II least one link is fraudulent: and
click system as in claim I further comprising the step of: or
cxumining. a duration between a time one of said clicks
concatenating said code with at least one of said links In on said at least one link and a time nf unother of s:id
suid websitcs. ~ 11 clicks on said at least on.: link.
1S. A method lbr detc..-cting fmud in an adwrtising system
6. A method li.1r dell'Cting lhllldulent uctivity in a pay-per-
including a search engim: on a server side as in cluim 14
click system as in cbim I wherein said code is lmscd on a
wherein s:id code is basc..-d on a globul unique identilier of
globul unique identifier of s:1id client.
said device.
7. A method lir dct~:cling. lr<Judulent :~cth ity m a p:1y-pcr- _, 5 16. A method lhr dctc..'Ciing fraud in an :~dwrtising system
dick system as in claim I wherein said code is based on a including a search engin.: on a serwr side as in cluim 14
network c;~nngraphy nf said dicnt. wherein said code is b:tsed on u network c:Jrtogn1phy of said
H. A method lilr detL'Cting lhllldulent uctivity in a pay-per- client.
click system as in claim I wherein said code is a serial num- 17. A method f(r dctc..-cting lnllld in an advertising system
ber. 4<1 including :1 search engine on :1 scn.:r side as in claim 14
9. A method li1r dell.:cting lr:mdulent :~cti\ ity ina pay-per- wherein s:1id code is a serial number.
click system <~S in claim I li.1rther compri~ing the step of: IIi. A method l(lrdetecting lraudulcnt activity in a pay-per-
prc..'Vcnting u click-thmugh to m lc:~st one of s:1id wcbsitcs click system. comprising:
associated '' ith nwrch:uus if lrmJdulelll :tcti\'ity is (a) pmviding. a scurch engine on a server side:
de!L'cted . b) rc..'Cciving., at S<tid server side. a search request lium a
IO.In :m ad\'Cnising system including a search engine on a client:
server side. the s~1rch engine providmg a plumlity of links c) generating a unique code on the server side, li.lr id.:nti
:tssociat~-d \\ ith a plurality of web p:tges to a user at u device lying said client :
on a client side, the method lir idcntil)'ing lhmd comprising d) transmittings;~idcndc to s<idc:lient Ji"nmthc server s ide;
the steps of: e) transmilling tu s:id client from the server side, in
generating a code on the server side. the ~:ode identil)'ing response to suid se:rch request." plurality oft inks asso-
suid de\ icc on the client side: ciated with a plurality of '1\ebsit.:s associated "ith a
sending s:lid code Ill said device: plumlity ofmcrch:mts;
receiving data fmm s:~id device, said data including said I) r~-ceiving. nn said scn'er side. website inllmnation
code and inlimnation about nne or more selections by ~~ regarding a website selr..'Cted by the client together with
the user of at least nne of said phmdity of weh pages: said code,'\\ hen said client clicks one of said plurality of
dctcnnining from said data whether suid at l~st nne of suid links:
sekctionsofsaid at least one web p;ge is lraudu]ell\; und g) detecting fraudulent :1ctivlty by mc.1suring the dumtion
exllmining ll dumtion between :1 time of one of said sek'C bct\\L'Cil clicks by said client to said scleciL'<I websit.: by
lions of said at least nne web site and a timeofmmther of ~j ' exumining said code and website inlimnalion.
suid selections of suid ut le:~st one web site. 19. A method li1r detecting fruudulcnt activity in a pay-per
II. In an:~dn:rtising sptcm including a se:udu:ngineon a dick system as in claim HI ll.nher comprising the step of:
ser\'er sid.:, the s~u-ch engine providing u plurality of links storing said code at s:tid client.
associ:Jtc..-d \\ith il plur.lity of web pages to llllser at a device 20./\ method fordetecting.lhmdulcnt activity ina p:~y-per-
on a client side. th.: method ti'r identifying frJud as in claim 65 click system us in claim 19 \\herein said storing step is per-
I II wherdn said code is ba s~-d on u global unique identifier of Ji) mJL-d using at l.:ast nne nl' the li.)llowing: uctive. .lu\ :1. :tnd
said device. Juvascript.
237
Case: 17-2161 Filed 09/22/20 I 7
US 7,953,667 B I
5 6
21 . A method for detecting li-.mdulcnt activity in:~ pay-per 25. A method furdct1.:cting frmK.lulent :ctivity in a pay-per-
clil:k system as in claim 18 further comprising the siL'Jluf: click system as in cl:tim 18 wherein said code is a serial
storing. said code in :1 cookie. number.
22. A method fi>r detecting Jhmdulcnt activity in a ray-per- 26. A method li1f detecting lraudulent :tctivity in il pay-per-
did. sy~tcm a~ in cl;.~im 18 further comprising the stL'Jl tlf: click system :ts in cl<.~im 18 ti.Jnher comprising the step ot:
concatcn.1ting said code with nt least one ul said lmks to
said \\ eh~itcs. prc..vctuing a click-through to :11 least one of s:~id "L'bslles
:~ssociated \\ ith mcrclmnts if lhJUdulcnt m:ti\ity is
23. A method for detecting fr.lllduleut activity in u pay-per-
cli~:k system:~~ in d:tim 18 wherein s:tid code is hasl.'d on a dcto..'Cicd.
global unique identifier of ~11id dil.'nt.
24. A ml.'thod li1r dctl.'cting lraudull.'nt :1ctivity in :1 pay-per-
click system (JS in cl:1im 18 wherein suid code is h:tsed on a
network cartography of suid client. *
238
Case: 17-2161 Filed 09/22/20 17
Disclaimer
7,953,667-Palrick Zuih. Bo~.:a Ra10n, FL (US); METIIOD AND SYSTEM TO DETECT INVALID AND
FRAUDULENT IMPRESSIONS AND CLICKS IN WEB-BASED ADVERTISEMENT SYSTEMS . Pah:nt
dated May J I. 20 II. Disclaimer filt!d May 26, 20 II, by the Assignee, Brilesman Corp.
The term of this paten!, subsequent to the patent number 7,249,104 has been disclaimeu.
(Official Gazette Janm.ll)' 24, 2012)
239
Case: 17-2161 Filed 09/22/2017
PATENT NO. : 7.953.667 81 Page I of 1
DATED :May 31,2011
It is certified that error appears in the above identified patent and that said Letters Patent is hereby corrected as shown below:
Column 2, line 32. ''active x should be change to --ActiveX--.
Column 3. line 25. "active"' should be changed to --ActiveX--.
Column 4. line 66. "active"' should be changed to --ActiveX--.

Nineteenth Day of February, 2013
_;;;::_/~~~_)
Teresa Sl:mck Rca
,/,till!; /JitTI"I"roftlu l '11ited ~/<11<'.' l'alt"lll am/7iwltmad O{fir <'
240
Case: 17-2161 Filed 09/22/2017
UNJTED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
PATENT NO. : 7,953.667 Bl Page I of 1
APPLJC ATION NO. : 111781 716
DATED :May 31.2011
INVENTOR(S) : Patrick Zuili
It is certified that error appears in the above-identified patent and that said Letters Patent is hereby corrected as shown below:
In the Claims:
Column 3. line 60. replace "web site" by --web page--.
Column 3. line 61, replace "web site'' by --web page--.
Column 4. line 6. replace "clienf' by --client side-.
Column 4. line 38. replace "client" by --client side-.

Twelfth Day of August, 2014
Ylichdlc K. I cc
/),pull Dir<'l' lr>r llj'lht ( luitcd .\tulc.f Palcllfalld 1i'ttd<mmk OjJir <'
241
Case: 17-2 161 I~~I ~llllllllllei,DII US008326763B2
I,IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII~lllll~ 11111111
(12) United States Patent (IO) Patent No.: US 8,326,763 B2

Zuili (45) Date of Patent: *Dec. 4, 2012
(54) MEl'IJOJ) ANI> .S\'STE\1 TO UETI~C'T (56)

IN\'ALin ANI> FI{AUJ)ULE11iT IMf>IU:SSIO~S
Allin CLICKS IN WEU-It\SEI) U.S.I'AI'I N r IX:>CUMPNTS
:\I)VEIHISEMI<:NT SYSTE~IS ~.K4S.J'J6 A 12 IIJ'JX Cicraw ........... .. ........ 70~ 7 'l'l
5.991.740 A 11 1999 M~"SSl'f ........ .... ...... 705 14 :?9
(75) Invcnlor: Pu1rlck Zulli. Boca R:tlon. FL (US) 6.125.J:'i2 ,\ IJ 2000 Fr:mklin ct al. .......... 70~ 2(>H
6.21l:'i.9X7 nt 9 2001 Roth ct al. .. .... ..... 70~ 14 71
6.775.!01 B1 X-2004 ('nrrasc<>el al. ........ 71X.IIXl
(D) Assign~oc: Hrl1~sm11rt Corp. Boc:t Rulon. Fl. (US) 7.020.622 B I 'l 2006 ~fesser ........... .. ...... 70~ ~(i 44
7,114:1.471 B:? 5 21106 Cheung cl nl. ... - ........ 1I
( ) Nlllicc: Subjccll<l any uiscl:timcr. th~ t~rm of this 7. D6.!i60 B:? II 2()()(> Dolio\ ...... ... ........ I I
palcnl is extended or :K.Ijustcd under 35 21)(}1/0007097 AI 7 21)(}1 Kim ................. ........... 70'> 14
U.S.C. 154(b) by Odays. 21)(}1/00J7JI4 At II 2001 lshik.1\\-:l ......... .. ......... 70'i 67
:!OO:liO:!IMJO ,\I II 20111 l>unham ct ~1. .. .. ........ 705 I
This palcnl is subject to :1 tcnninal di~ 20U6'1Kl-l1 505 A I 2 .:!()(}(, Eny:ut .............. ........ 7U'i 40
claimcr. 01'1 IFR PIJBLICATIONS
(21) Appl. No.: 13/117.929 :-.1ulhall. l!nw Real a I'Jucat Docs Computer Crime Represent?~.
r\ug. I. 19')(>, Computer I mud & Security Bulletin
(22) Filed: Muy 27, 2011
cited by ~xamincr
(65) l'rlor l'uhlkutlon Uutu Prilllfl0' l::wmina Mary Cheung
US 201110231249 A I scr. 22. 201 1 (74) AlltmtL')'. ..!gem, or rum John R.l\asha; 1\uslm L:t\\
LLC
Uclutcd U.S, Appllcntlon 1>11111
(57) AUSTI{ACT
(til) Cnntinu:ttiun nfnpplication No. 1117RJ.7 16. filed on
This in\'cntinn imrmvcs U(Xlll existing payp~r-click armngc-
Jul. 23. 2007. now Pat. No. 7.1)53.667. \\hkh is a
m~tlls pcrindically gcnemtmg a ~ndc :associated \\ ith the
,onlinuation-inrnrl of ;..pplication No. I 0/360.6RR.
lilcd on reb. 7. 2003. now Pat. N~l. 7 ,249, 104.
~c:trch-cngine users. '11tis <:ode. rrclcrably in the llmll a ur
~erial number. is cmnp:trcd to the user of the website. such
(51) ln1. <"1. that by nbscrvinga metric like the numherofclicks lllr a g.i\'cn
Gt/6/-' 2 /Ifill (200G.tH)
period oftime. he it a short time or a lonllcr rcriod, such liS a
day nr \\eel.. the system can :automatically delcnuinc if
(52) ll$. Cl ........................................ ................. 705/52
ccrtilin dicks ;.trc illegitimate. 'lltis allows the payrcrclkk
(5!\} Field ufCIIIsslticutlun S\'urda .............. 705/2(1 27, company to more finrly inmicc the merchants. thereby pre
705/52 54. (l-4 C17, 75 ?R; 7 I 3/ICiR 169; vcllling lhmdulcntovcr usc.
707/705 7RR; ?2611 5, 26 30
s~oc :1pplicmion lile for ~nmpletc s~:trch history. 20 Clulms, I l>ruwlng Sht!~t
PAY PER Clltl
242
Case: 17-2161 Filed 09/22/2017
U.S. Patent Dec.4,2012 US 8,326,763 B2
INVOICE TO WEBSITE LINK TO REAL CUCK USAGE

PAY PER CliCK
PAY PER CLIC-K
120 COMPANY
130 122
YERlFY THAT THE SERIAL NUMBER WEBSITE
IS UNIQUE
110
XML LINK
~
~
XML GET SEARCH ENGINE
COOKIE SERtAL NUMBR
LOCATED ON END
USER COMPUTER
SEARCH ENGINE WRITE AND ADO IT TO
A SERIAL NUMBER THE LINK. XML
ACllVEX, JAVAl}AVASCRIP!1 TO PASS THRU
..TECHNOLOGr BASED Or. fiREWAll
END USER GUID. OR I AND
NETWORK CARTOGRAPHY
GENERATED PERIODICAlLY
SEARCH E~GINE
FIREWALL
243
Case: J 7-2 16 1 Filed 09/22/20 17
us 8,326,763 82
I 2
METIIOI> o\~1> SYSTEM TO mnECT certain clicks ure illegitimate. '11tis allows the pay-per-click
1~\',.\LH> ,\I'll> FJUUI>ULI~NT ll\JilRESSIONS company to mofl..' li1irly in\'oice the ml..'rchants, thereby pre-
A~ I> CLICKS I~ WEU-RASED venting l'ruudulcnt over usc.
AI>VEIHISEl\lEIW SYSTEMS
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF TilE DRAWINGS
CROSS REFERENCE TO RELATED
APPLICATION FIG. I is a diagr.un \\ hid1 illustr.Jt~s a pl..'r-per-clkk system
incorporating a prclcrred embodiment of the present inven-
'lltis upplication is a continuation application or u.s. tiun.
patent ap(llic:~tinn Scr. No. li/7KI.716. lilt..-d Jul. 23, 2007. Ill
DE'I:\ ILFIJ l>l :scRIPTlON OF 'lllE INVENTION
nm\ U.S. P;1t. No. 7,CJ5:..667. which is <I continuation-inpJrl
<~Jlplication of U ~"i. ptent applicmion Scr. No. 10i360.6KK.
filed Feb, 7. 20in. now U.S. Pat. No. 7.249, 104. All of the Relcrencc is nwde Ill FIG. I which illustr.Jh..'S a typical
above mentioned application$ :1re incorpomtcd by reference conliguration ussodl!tt:d with a pay-per-click implemenw-
herein in their entireties. 15
tion. h is noted that although the diagram includes certain
interconnected gr.tphical blncl.;s. these arc not taken tomem1
FU:LD OF THE INVENTION "hardware" or "snliware." but may include ml)' combination
of hardw;m!lsoflw:re necessury to implement a particular
'll1is invent ion relates generally Ill network computing of limctinn. lnnddition, :lthough lines nrc dmwn between the
the type which occurs over the In!Cmet, for ex:unple, :utd, ~n \'urious components. this is not me:mt to imply that they arc
more purticu]ur]y. to a method or protecting the pnwiders or IJI..'CC..'Ssarily implement~'(] in dose pmximily to one llllother.
puy-per click Sl..'rvi~:c> liom multi(llc ilkgitimutc usages. $incc in muny c;scs these cu(labilities will he remote.
The sew:ch engine 102 pnwidcs a result along puth 1114
BACKGROUND OF TI IE INVENTION \\hich is indicati\'e of a link associated with dilli:rl..'nt users.
~'i Engine I 02 muy be uny existing ur yet-to-be-developed sys-
0\cr the lust lew years in(larticular. the capabilities of the tem. including limlwhat.com, Google Adwurds. overture.
Internet lmvc grown dmmatically. with the intmduction of looksmarl.com. bnoodle.com. und MJ liJrth.
n~w pnJ\ocol~ (i.e., XML), :Jd,:mccd browsers. ch.'Ctronic In :1dditiuntothe fl..'sult gen~ratc..-d along path 104. u~:cord-
cummerce ~:up;bilitics. and other IC.llurcs. ing to this invention. the search enginl..' generates u code.
Numcnms cnnuncrciul enterprises :1re now au~mpting to 10 prelcmbly in thcllmn of u serial number uti li1.ing a cookie via
somehow profit through this llL'W infrastm~ture. in many <~ctivc X. Java, Javascript. or :my other type of technology
cases by pro\'llling scrvicl..'s th;~t al\ach a smaller increment;,) I base.'<.! upon the l..'nd-usl..'f'~ Ciloha\ Unique ldcntilier (GUID).
munetury \';du~: to a parlicular tr.ms<Jction. In addition, or us an nlternutive. network cartugmphy nwy be
One sm:h type of capability is the pay-p~:r-click search genemtcd periodically for cuch user bused upon their usc or
engine pupukrit.cd by Gougle and other companies. In accor- J5 the scurch engine I 02.
dunce with such a cupubility. a user goes to a \\ebsite. m1d Although the en,odc..-d seriul number is shown being writ-
inputs the mune of goods or senices that they would like the tl..'ntn a llnppy disk 106. ugain. it will he:pprwiated by those
p:y-pcrcliek comp:my to lind. Vurious pmviders nf ~;onds of ~ki II in the art that any type nr stor.gc c:pubi lity. such us u
und services rL-gistcr th~:ir wcbsites with the company. und llash memory, and sn fnrlh may ultcrnatiwly he utili:red. The
these arc pm\'ided to the user in a list which is prioriti:r.ed by 4'J code (e.g., a seri:1lnumber) genemtcd by the seurch engine
the level or compensation which the ml..'rchant \\ill give the ulong p;1th 105 is ~:un~ulenutL-d with the result along pi.!th I 04
puy-per-clkk compuny if the usl..'r is mutl..'d to their site, For through XML link 1111. Given the serial number provide.'<.!
example, using such a system, ifa user types in"binocula~." through thl..' cookie. this llows the cor~~:utcnation to occur
the p:lypcrclick system might retum Jive polential Jinks, through lircwulls :md other devices which may otherwise
with the most pmmitll..'nt one being nssoci:1h..-d with th:u sup- 4~ hlock the tr.msmbsion us unauthorizL-d.
plierofhimKulars which will cumpens<te fi1ru pcnny(1ra li."l\' As the pil)'-perclick comp:my 120. inli.lfmation is receive.'(]
cents more than the links prescnll-d below. regarding a click to website 122. but <II the same time. the
One pn1hlem with existing systems. is that a usl..'r llli.IY serial number is tnmsmiuc..-d to the company 120 along (lath
cause an undesirable level of expenditure on the part o f the 130. '[his allows the pay-per-click comp:uty 120 lo invoice
mere hunt by mwclicking on u particular link. In some ca~l.'S. 5 the website 122 only whl..'n the seri:l numbers received.
it has been known that some us,..rs lmvc done this simply lor According to t[w invention. :lcgitimatesLrial number may be
the purpose of undermining a particulaqmwider orcompeti- gcnemh:d in dillcfl..'nt w;1ys. including, th,.. first usc of a dif-
tor. Since the existing systems lwve no w:} (lf knowing lcrentuscr huvinga unique IP uddrL-ss. or. if multiple requests
\\hether a link through is legitimate or bogus. the pnwidcr or are m;de by the smuc user. thc..-y may be considefl..'d legitimate
the g,oods/servict:s wmds up lwving to puy the pay-pcrdick .~ .~ ifthl.')' arc sullici,..ntlysp;lcL-d :1pa11 in time to be indicative of
priwidcrcxccss sums, with the lhmdull..'nt perpetrator remain- a k-gitimate as opposL-.:1 to Ji-,mdu!cnt access to the wehsile
ing unreprim;utded . 122.
Wlwt is claimed i~ :
SUMM.'\ RY OF TilE IN\'l;N rJON I . A method fi1r detc..-cling fraudulent acti\'ity in u pay-per-
6'~ clkk syst,..m. comprising: (u) providing a p:1y-per-click
ntis inwntion impnwcs upon ~xisting puypcr-click engine on a scrwr side: h) receiving. at said server side. u
arrangements P""riodically gencmting a code Hssociatc..-d with request J:rom :1 client: c) gcnerJting :1 unique code on the
the searchl..'ngine users. This code, prclcrably in the limn of sener side. li1r idcntilying suid client; d) tnJJtsmitting said
a serial number. is compared to the user of the \\Cbsitc. such code to said client lromthe server side: c) tr.msmitting hl s;lid
thllt byobsl..'rvinga ml..'tric like thenumbcrofclicks lhrn giwn rt.'i client Jromthe server side, in response to suid rL'qliL'St, one or
period of time. he itu slmrltunc or a longl..'r period. sw:h us a more links associated with one or more websites associ:UL-d
day or ll week the system can automaticHlly detemtin,.. if with nne or more merchants: I) gcncmting website inli1m1u-
244
Case: 17-2161 Filed 09/22/2017
us 8,326, 763 82
3 4
tion regurding a website se]ech:d by the client when ~aid II. In an :tdvertising. system including a pay-per-click
client clicks one of said links: g) tr:.msmilling. said code and engine on u server side, the puy-pcr-click engine pmviding
said website inli.lmlation together Jium suid client to suid one nr mnrl! links associ<Jted with one or more web p:1g~-s to a
sen'L'r side: h) rL'Cciving said code uml suid website inromm- user at :t device on a client side. the method for identifying
tion at the server side. and deh..'cting lruuduh:nt uctivity by 5 lrm1d us in cluim l 0 wherein said code is bused on u global
unique idenlilier of said device.
measuring the durution between clicks by ~id client to s:1id
12. In :m :tdvertising system including a pay-per-click
selL'Cted website by exumining suid code and website inlilr engine on u server side. the pay-per-click engine pmviding
mation. one or more links llSSocinlcd with one tlr more web pages to a
2. A method Jbrdeh.."Cting fraudulent activity in a pay-per
:~~:da~;\~~~~~~~ 1:1 '~\~!~~;ns!~~d ~:~~~~~~~~c~l:~.~~let1~~~:~~
01 11
111
click system :.s in claim I liJrther L'mnprising the step oJ:
storintt ~aid code ut said client. cartngmphy of said client.
3. A method li1r dctL'Ciing fhJUdulent uctivity in a p<~y-pcr 13. In un udvertising system including a pay-per-click
click system as in claim I lhrther comprising the step ol: engine on :1 server side, the p:ty-pcr-click engine pnl\'iding.
storing suid code in u cookie. one nr more links associated with nne nr more \\ch p:1ges to u
15 user at :1 device nn a client side. Ute method for idL."lltifying
4. A method li1r deh.."Cting li'audulent :tclivity in 01 p:y-per-
lraud us in cl:1im 10 wherein said code is encodL-d.
cliek syslcm us in claim 3 wlu.-rcin said storing step is pcr- 14. A method li1r delecting lhmdulent <Jctivity in a p:.~y-per
l(lmtL-d u~ing. utleusl one oflhe lbllowing: <~ctiv~:..l:tv<J, ;utd click system. comprising: (a) pnwiding a pay-per-click
Juvuscripl. engine on a server side: b) J'l>ceiving., ut suid server side. a
5. A ml!thod li1r detl'Ctinttliotudulent uetivity in a p:1y-pcr- ~n requesl lrmn a client: c ) genemting a unique code on the
click system as in cluim I li.Jrther comprising the step of: server side, for identifying said client: d) tr:.~nsmitting s:tid
concatenaling suid code with :~tle<Jst one of said links to said code to suid clientlrmnthe serwr side: c) tr.msmitting to ~id
wcbsiles. clientlrmn the server side. in response to s:1id rL'qliL"SI. one or
6. :\ method li1r deh.."Cting lhmdulent :1ctivity in a p:1y-pcr- more links assodated "ith one or more websites assnciull-d
click system as in cluim I wherein suid code is bused on a ~' with one or more merchants; I) receiving, on suid server side.
global unique identifier or said client. website inlhrmalion fl'gardi ng :t \\ ehsite selected by the clicn t
7.:\ method li1rde!L'Ciing fraudulent uctivity in a p:y-per- together with said code, \\hen suid client clk-ks one of ~id
click system :1s in claim I wherein s:id code is based on a links; g) dctl.'cl ing. fraudulent act ivily by meusuring !he dum-
network curtngr:phy nf s:tid client. linn between clicks by said client to suid selected website by
1o examining said code mtd website inlimnation.
8. :\ method li.1r dell'Ciing fr:mdulent :1ctivity inn p:y-per-
IS. A method lordelecting fr.mdulent :tctivity in a paypl.'r~
click system us in claim I wherein said code is encoded.
click syslem as in cluim 14 furlher comprh;ing the ster of:
9. A melhnd for dell'Ciing lhmdulent activity in a pay-per-
s111ring said code :11 suid client.
click syslem :ts in cl:1im I lilrther comprising the slep ot:
16. A mel hod for detecting lhntdulent activity in a pay-pcr-
preventing :t click-through to at lcust one of ~id wehsiles
J5 click system us in cl:.~im IS wherein said sloring step is per-
associ;Jtl-d with s:tid merchants if lhmdulenl activity is
lhrnu.-J using at least nne of the filllnwing: active. Jma. and
detL'Cled.
J<J\'USCript.
10. In un udvertising syslem including a pay-per-click
17. A llli!thnd for detecting tr.mdulenl activity in :t pay-per-
engine on a server side, the pay-per-click engine providing
click syslcm as in claim 14 further comprising !he slep tlf:
one or more links associat~-J with nne or more web puges \o u
o~n storing s:1id code in :1 cookie.
user :1\ a device on :t dienl side, the method lhr identifying
18. A 1111!\hnd lor detecting lhmdulent nctivity in a pay-per-
Jhmd comprising the steps ol: gencr.l\ing a code on the server
click system us in cluim 14 fur!lter cumprising the step nl:
side. the code identilying said dL-vice on the clienl side; send-
CllliCutenuting suid code with utleast one of said links Ill suid
ing s:tid code to said d~vice; rL'Cciving data Jrom said device.
webs ilL'S.
suid data includin"r: said code und inlbm1ation about one or -~~ 19. A method li.1r detecting lbudulent activity in u pay-per-
mure selL"Ctions by the userof:ttleastone ofsnid one or more
click system :1s in claim 14 wherl'in s<tid code is basLd on a
web pages: detemtining frnm said duta whether s:tid :tt least
global unique identilier of suid ~:Iieut.
one of said seleclions ofs<~id :11 lcust one web pngc is fr.tudu-
20. A method li.1r detecting lhmdulent <tctivity in a pay-per-
lent: and examining a dur<~tion helwccn a time of one of snid
clkk system us in claim 14 wherein s:1id c11de is encndL-d.
sell"Ctions ofs:1id :tl least one web site :md a time of:uwther of
s11id selections of s:1id at least one web site.
245
Case: 17-2161 Filed 09/22/2017
PATENT NO. : 8.326.763 B2 Page I of 1
DATED :December 4. 2012
It is certified that error appears in the above-identified patent and that said Letters Patent is hereby corrected as shown below.
Column 2, line 31 ...active x should be changed to --ActiveX--.
Column 3. line 18...active'' should be changed to --ActiveX--.
Column 4, line 36. "active'' should be changed to --ActiveX--.

Nineteenth Day of February, 2013
Teresa Slnn~:k Rca

rl< 1i11g Din lor ofrlw U11iled Srull'.< 1'111<'111 am/ 7imltJIWrk Oflin
246
Case: I 7-2 I 61 Filed 09/22/2017
PATENT NO. : 8,326.763 B2 Page I of 1
DATED : December 4, 2012
It is certified that error appears in the above identified patent and that said l etters Patent is hereby corrected as shown below:
In the Claims:
Column 3, line 49. replace .. web site.. by --web page--.
Column 3. line 50. replace ..\veb site.. by --web page--.

Nineteenth Day of August, 2014
~11chdlc K. I w
l>t'JIII~I llirafor uftbt ( 1uit~J .\1<11.:~ l'at.:nt auJ 1i,IJ<rrwrk OJJi
247
Case: 17-2161 Filed 09/22/201 7
Certificate of Interest
Pursuant to Federal Circuit Rule 4 7 .4(a) and Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure
26.1, Patent Owner Patrick Zuili certifies the following:
I. The full name of every party or amicus represented by me: Patrick Zuili
2. There are no other real parties in interest represented by the undersigned.
3. There are no parent corporations nor publicly held companies that own I 0
percent or more of the stock of the party or amicus curiae represented by the
undersigned.
4. The names of person that appeared for the party or amicus now represented
by me in the trial court or are expected to appear in this court are:
5. I, Patrick Zuili, Patent owner will represent myself for the party or amicus
during the trial court.
Patrick Zuili
Patent Owner, pro se
Dated: September 22, 2017
/Patrick Zuili/
Patrick Zuili
prose
Patrick@tenderbox.tv
248
Case: 17-2161 Filed 09/22/2017
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned also certifies that three (3) true and correct copies of the
foregoing Corrected Appellant's (Patent Owner) Brief were mailed on September
22, 2017, to the Clerk's Office of the United States Court of Appeals for the
Federal Circuit at the following address:
Clerk of Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
717 Madison Place, N.W., Suite 401
Washington, DC 20005
The undersigned further hereby certifies that a copy of the foregoing corrected
Appellant's (Patent Owner) Brief was served on September 22, 2017, via email to
attorneys for
Google Inc.
Robert G. Pluta /Patrick Zuili/

Saqib Siddiqui Patrick Zuili
Paul Whitfield Hughes prose
Andrew John Pincus Patrick@tenderbox. tv
Jonathan Weinberg
MAYER BROWN, LLP
phwzhes@mayerbrown.com
apincus@mayerbrown.com
jweinberg@mayerbrown.com
249
Case: 17-2161 Filed 09/22/20 17
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. 42.11
Pursuant 37 CFR 42.11, the undersigned certifies that this paper is not being
presented for an improper purpose and that all legal contentions, allegations, and
denials are warranted and have evidentiary support.
Respectfully submitted September 22, 2017
/Patrick Zuili/
Patrick Zuili
prose
Patrick@tenderbox.tv
250
Case: 17-2161 Filed 09/22/2017
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. 42.24(d)
Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. 42.24(d), the undersigned certifies that this Reply complies
with the type-volume limitation of37 C.F.R. 42.24(c). The page count application
of the word processing program used to prepare this paper indicates that the
APPEAL FOR THE UNITED STATES PATENT OFFICE contains 14813
words, excluding the Addendums, Front Page, Table of Contents and Certificates
exempted by 37 C.F.R. 42.24(c).
Respectfully submitted September 22, 201 7
/Patrick Zuili/
Patrick Zuili
prose
Patrick@tenderbox. tv
251
SHIPPING DEPARTMENT
{4401 878-0196
14 LBS 1 OF 2
STAPLES OCS 2249 DWT: 11,9,4
12421 PEARL RD
STRONGSVILLE OH 44136-3414
SHIP TO:
US COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FED CIR
717 MADISON PLACE NW
WASHINGTON DC 20439
MD 201 9-84
1111111111111
UPS NEXT DAY AIR
TRACKING II: 1Z 10F 1V2 01 5431 7757 1
WB n .D.3C Zebr lP CliO H.OA 0711017

Received: Case: 17-2161 Filed 09/22/20 1 7

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Received: Case: 17-2161 Filed 09/22/20 1 7

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Case: 17-2161

Case: 17-2161Document: 23 Page: 1 09/22/20

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL

(known as Google Inc.) Appellee

Case: CBM2016-00008- U.S. Patent No. 8,671,057 Bt

CORRECTED BRIEF OF APPELLANT

a. GOOGLE STOLE OVERTURE TECHNOLOGY AND GOT SUED

b. $500 MILLION FINE BECAUSE GOOGLE ILLEGAL

c. LANE'S GIFT & COLLECTIBLES LAWSUIT. CLICK FRAUD.

d. GOOGLE FINED A RECORD 2.4 BILLION BY THE EU FOR

Differences between USPTO v. PTAB? ............................................................. 50

b. Examining a difference is not merely subtraction ...................................... Sl

II. ARGUMENT .................................................................................................. 51

b. Board unethically applied technological invention exception by

c. Board applied an illogical Abstract Idea Analysis and none of the

1. Stephen Grey's phannacist example including implementing the

d. Board has again incorrectly applied the steps of inventive concept

e. Lack of uniformity in the treatment of lAB exhibits inside PTAB lead

III. CASE LAWS .................................................................................................... 75

b. Travelocity.com LP v. Cronos Technologies, LLC, CBM2014-00082

c. Trading Technologies International, Inc. v. CQG, Inc (Fed. Cir., 2016) .. 78

h. Qualtrics, LLC, v. OpinionLab, Inc., Case No. CBM2016-00003

1. Par Pham1., Inc. v. Jazz Pham1., Inc., Case Nos. CBM2014-00149,-

IV. FACTS SUPPORTING THE CLAIMS MADE BY THE PATENT OWNER

b. ANOTHER GOOD REASON TO DISMISS THOSE PROCEEDINGS .92

V. GOOGLE CLAIMED APPELLANT AS ~~cONSPIRACY THEORIST"....... 93

b. Conspirator at invalidating the patent owner's patent by colluding with

c. Strange coincidence or deliberate purpose ................................................. 96

VI. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 97

Court, 20 14) .......................................................................................................... 6

Brite Smart Corp. v. Google Inc., 5:2015cv03962, (California Northern District

Court, 20 15) .......................................................................................................... 6

Google, Inc. v. Zuili, CBM20 16-00008/00021 /00022 ........................................... .49

Mandamus Writ 2017-101, (Fed. Cir. 20 16) ......................................... 7, 17, 40, 97

0151 and -0153 (PTAB, Jan. 13, 2015) ........................................................ 52, 86

13, 20 16) ............................................................................................................. 84

Travelocity.com LP v. Cronos Technologies, LLC, CBM2014-00082 ...... 16, 53, 75

28 U.S.C. 1295(a)(4)(A) ........................................................................................ 6

35 u.s.c 101 ..................................................................................... 49, 71, 78, 83

35 u.s.c. 101.7 .................................................................................................... 75

35 u.s.c. 103 ....................................................................................................... 49

28 U.S.C. 1295(a)(4)(A){ TA \1 "28 U.S.C. 1295(a)(4)(A)" \s "28 U.S.C.

1295(a)(4)(A)" \c 2} and 35 U.S.C. 329{ TA \1 "35 U.S.C. 329" \s "35 U.S.C.

STATEMENT OF RELATED CASES

Pursuant to FED. CIR. R. 47.5, Appellant Patrick Zuili, notes that:

2:2014cv00760, (Texas Eastern District Court, 2014){ TA \1 "Brite Smart Corp. v.

Court, 2015){ TA \1 "Brite Smart Corp. v. Google Inc., 5:2015cv03962, (California

Northern District Court, 2015)" \s "Brite Smart Corp. v. Google Inc.,

5:2015cv03962, (California Northern District Court, 2015)" \c 1 } which were

Writ 2017-10 I, (Fed. Cir. 20 16)" \c 1 } [Appx42]

of worms, will work particular~v well in the "context, of a working environment

detection does not become a CBM patent because of its incidental or

11se by search engine advertising platform at selling legitimate clicks to clients. .

have respectively no financial value unless provider is [caught] cheating clients.

DICES WERE LOADED FROM THE START.

Contrary to the Universal Principle of Sovereignty of Justice, the

introduction of '"Non-Final Decision" by Director Lee at the PTAB represents a

is pre-assumed to be "guilty" instead of "not guilty" Jon CBM eligibility].

PTAB has done an exceptionally poor job at not finding an attenuated

PTAB's flawed reasoning or favoritism invalidated claims below:

PTAB abused discretion by failing to consider overwhelming evidence of

fraud by Google has become a half-mystery. Half-mystery because Michelle Lee.

explained in this brief for Google's benefit.