PTAB

CBM2014-00068

Indeed Inc v. Career Destination Development LLC

Key Events

Petition

petition Intelligence

Title: Apparatus and Methods for Providing Career and Employment Services
Brief Description: The ’438 patent relates to computer-implemented systems and methods for matching job-seekers ("candidates") with employers. The system authorizes and facilitates the exchange of contact information after determining a match based on stored attributes and minimum requirements, typically in exchange for a fee.

Prior Art Relied Upon: None. The argument is based on the claims being directed to ineligible subject matter.
Core Argument for this Ground:
- Petitioner argued that all 25 claims of the ’438 patent are directed to the patent-ineligible abstract idea of a fundamental business practice: matching job candidates with employers and acting as an intermediary for the exchange of contact information for a fee. The petition asserted that the core steps recited in the claims—such as receiving search requests, determining if attributes satisfy minimum requirements, receiving consent to release contact information, obligating a payment, and providing the information—are mental processes or longstanding commercial arrangements that could be performed manually.
- Petitioner contended that the claims lack an "inventive concept" sufficient to transform the abstract idea into a patent-eligible application. The recitation of generic and conventional computer components, such as a "computer processor" (claim 1), "computer system" (claims 12, 17, 23), or "database," was argued to be mere implementation of the abstract idea on a general-purpose computer, which does not confer patentability. The argument was applied across all claim types, including method claims (1, 12, 17), a means-plus-function claim (9), a system claim (23), and all dependent claims, which were asserted to add only further, non-inventive abstractions.

Prior Art Relied Upon: Almog (Application # 2002/0002479).
Core Argument for this Ground:
- Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that Almog, which published in January 2002 and qualifies as prior art, discloses every element of the challenged claims. Almog describes a method of job placement that includes storing a database of worker profiles, providing job opening descriptions, and automatically determining whether a worker profile matches a job description. The petition provided a detailed claim chart mapping Almog’s disclosure to the limitations of the ’438 patent claims.
- Key disclosed elements in Almog that Petitioner mapped to the claims included: a computer-implemented method for authorizing information exchange between candidates and employers; storing candidate attributes (e.g., education, experience, compensation) and employer requirements in respective databases; receiving search requests; processing searches to find matches; and facilitating the exchange of contact information, including a step where an employer pays a fee to receive a candidate’s personal details.

Petitioner argued for applying the broadest reasonable interpretation to all claim terms. The petition focused on several terms to contend they should be given their generic, ordinary meanings, thereby supporting the argument that they do not represent an inventive concept.
"computer processor," "distributed network," "computer system," and "database": Petitioner argued that these terms should be construed according to their well-known, ordinary meanings, as the specification does not provide any special definitions and describes them as conventional technology (e.g., standard PCs, the Internet, collections of information). This construction was central to the §101 argument that the claims merely add generic technology to an abstract idea.
Means-Plus-Function Limitations (Claim 9): For the means-plus-function limitations recited in claim 9, Petitioner identified the claimed functions and the corresponding structures disclosed in the specification. For example, the "means for managing enterprise database resources" was identified as corresponding to commercial software like "PeopleSoft, Inc. and SAP AG," further emphasizing the use of conventional, off-the-shelf technology.

Not a "Technological Invention": A central contention, required for the Covered Business Method (CBM) review, was that the ’438 patent is not a "technological invention." Petitioner argued that the claimed subject matter, as a whole, fails to recite a novel and unobvious technological feature. The petition asserted that all recited hardware components were generic and well-known at the time of filing and that the claims simply use them to automate a business method.
Solves a Business Problem, Not a Technical One: Petitioner contended that the patent purports to solve an economic or business problem—"optimizing individuals' employment searches" and "employers' recruiting"—rather than a technical problem inherent in computer networks or data processing. The solution offered was characterized as an organizational one (creating a centralized marketplace), not a technical one that improves the functioning of the computer itself.

Petitioner requests institution of a Covered Business Method patent review and cancellation of claims 1-25 of Patent 7,424,438 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 101, and cancellation of claims 1-5, 9-10, 12, 17, and 23 as anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102.