The PTAB was not arbitrary and capricious in determining that patent claims directed to transmitting digital data were Covered Business Method (CBM) claims, despite a seeming recitation of technological elements, and an omission of any explicit recitation of a financial element. SightSound Technologies v. Apple, Inc., No.s 2015-1159, 2015-1160 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 15, 2015). Although applying an admittedly very forgiving standard of review, the Federal Circuit (opinion authored by Judge Dyk, joined by Judges Hughes and Lourie) seems to have endorsed — or at least has declined an opportunity to put the brakes on — the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB) liberal applications of the CBM procedure. The claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,191,573 and 5,966,440 were directed to things like “transmitting a desired digital audio signal stored on a first memory of a first party to a second memory of a second party” and ” transferring desired…
↧