Opinion ID: 4099051
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: B.E.’s Motion to Amend

Text: The Board denied B.E.’s contingent motion to amend, based on B.E.’s failure to provide a claim construction or point out with particularity the written description support for B.E.’s proposed new limitations. B.E. simply used a string citation to support its proposed substitute limitations, which included “selecting advertising content for transfer to the computer in accordance with real-time.” J.A. 1602–03. The Board found that it was unclear whether the “selecting” or “transfer” was in accordance with “real-time.” It also found that B.E.’s motion did not meet B.E.’s burden to establish written description support under 37 C.F.R. § 42.121(b) (2015), which explained B.E. TECHNOLOGY, L.L.C. v. GOOGLE, INC. 17 that a “motion to amend claims must . . . set forth: (1) The support in the original disclosure of the patent for each claim that is added or amended . . . .” In reviewing the Board’s interpretation of Patent and Trademark Office regulations, we apply “the standards set forth in the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 706.” Microsoft Corp. v. Proxyconn, Inc., 789 F.3d 1292, 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2015). “[W]e set aside actions of the Board that are arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.” Id. “We accept the Board’s interpretation of Patent and Trademark Office regulations unless that interpretation is ‘plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the regulation.’” Id. We agree with the Board that B.E. did not meet its burden to show written description support for the proposed substitute limitations. 6 B.E. argues that had the Board simply read page 10, lines 1–13 of the original specification, it would have understood that the “identifiers permit real time, reactively-targeted advertising since the program can respond to user interaction with the computer to determine whether the input relates to a particular category of information, and, if so, can select advertising related to that category of information.” ’314 patent col. 6, ll. 3–7. But B.E. did not present this argument to the Board. B.E. only provided a string citation to eighteen different pages of the ’314 patent’s original specification, without explaining how those various pages supported each of the proposed substitute limitations. B.E. also argues that the Board previously allowed a patent owner to support a motion to amend using a string citation in International Flavors & Fragrances Inc. v. 6 B.E. does not challenge the Board’s conclusion that B.E. bears the burden to show written description support for the proposed substitute claims. 18 B.E. TECHNOLOGY, L.L.C. v. GOOGLE, INC. United States, No. IPR2013-00124, 2014 WL 2120542 (P.T.A.B. May 20, 2014). International Flavors, however, is not controlling, and other Board decisions have found that such a bare string citation is insufficient to establish written description support. See Greene’s Energy Grp., LLC v. Oil States Energy Services, LLC, No. IPR201400216, 2015 WL 2089371, at  (P.T.A.B. May 1, 2015) (“A string citation does not explain how the original disclosure of the application relied upon reasonably conveys to a person the features intended to be encompassed by the proposed substitute claims.”); Respironics, Inc. v. Zoll Med. Corp., No. IPR2013-00322, 2014 WL 4715644, at  (P.T.A.B. Sept. 17, 2014) (“Zoll’s string citations amount to little more than an invitation to us (and to Respironics, and to the public) to peruse the cited evidence and piece together a coherent argument for them. This we will not do; it is the province of advocacy.”), vacated and remanded on other grounds, No. 20151485, 2016 WL 4056094, at  (Fed. Cir. July 29, 2016). We find that the Board did not err in denying B.E.’s motion to amend. Because B.E. did not meet its burden to show written description support for its proposed substitute claims, we need not reach the issue of claim construction. 7