PTAB

CBM2013-00017

VolusION Inc v. Versata Development Group Inc

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition Intelligence

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Logical and Constraint Based Browse Hierarchy with Propagation Features
  • Brief Description: The ’282 patent relates to the use of rules-based browsing hierarchies for organizing and representing items stored in online catalogs and databases. The invention’s purpose was to provide a more flexible and expressive hierarchy than prior art systems, allowing sellers to organize products in an arbitrary manner.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1-23 are Unpatentable as Abstract Ideas under 35 U.S.C. §101

  • Statutory Basis: 35 U.S.C. § 101.
  • Core Argument: Petitioner argued that all challenged claims are directed to the patent-ineligible abstract idea of organizing product-related data to facilitate catalog browsing. The petition asserted that the claims add no inventive concept and fail the machine-or-transformation test, rendering them unpatentable.
    • Abstract Idea Identification: The petition contended that the core of the ’282 patent is the concept of organizing data into hierarchies, which it characterized as a fundamental, long-standing commercial practice akin to creating organizational charts or library catalogs. Petitioner argued that the PTAB had previously held that arranging customer and product data into hierarchies is an unpatentable abstract idea. The invention is described in the patent itself as simply a "hierarchy for representing a plurality of catalog items stored in a catalog database."
    • Lack of Inventive Concept: Petitioner argued that the claims lack any inventive concept sufficient to transform the abstract idea into a patent-eligible application. The claims allegedly add nothing more than "well-understood, routine, conventional activity." For example, the use of a "database" or "computer terminal" (recited in claims 21-23) was presented as merely a generic computer implementation of the abstract idea, which is insufficient to confer patentability. The petition highlighted that the patent specification explicitly states the invention is not limited by any particular hardware or software environment and can be implemented using conventional computer systems.
    • Failure of Machine-or-Transformation Test: The petition asserted that the claims also fail the machine-or-transformation test for patent eligibility.
      • Machine Prong: Petitioner argued that claims 1-20 are not tied to any particular machine, as they do not require a computer and can be performed by a human with pen and paper. The petition pointed to Figure 3 of the patent as an example of a manually drawn hierarchy. For claims 21-23, which recite a "computer terminal," Petitioner contended that the use of a general-purpose computer is insufficient to satisfy the test, as the computer is not integral to the invention but merely facilitates it.
      • Transformation Prong: Petitioner argued the claims fail to transform any article into a different state or thing. The mere manipulation or reorganization of data, such as arranging catalog items into a hierarchy or searching a database, does not constitute a patent-eligible transformation.

4. Key Technical Contentions (Beyond Claim Construction)

  • Non-Technological Nature of Invention: A central contention of the petition was that the ’282 patent does not claim a "technological invention," a key threshold for Covered Business Method (CBM) patent review. Petitioner argued the claimed invention does not solve a technical problem with a technical solution. Instead, the problem addressed—creating a "more flexible" browsing hierarchy—was framed as a business or organizational problem. The purported solution, reorganizing data, was argued to be a non-technical, abstract process that could be performed manually, rather than a novel and unobvious technological feature. This argument was foundational to both establishing the patent’s eligibility for CBM review and its unpatentability under §101.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of a Covered Business Method Patent Review and cancellation of claims 1-23 of the ’282 patent as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 101.