In its Decision, the Board denied Petitioner’s request for rehearing on the Board’s Decision to Institute. Specifically, with respect to the Board’s Decision regarding Institution, Petitioner contended that the Board failed to appreciate that the ’137 patent fails to provide a written description for the term “within and between” as it appears in claims 1-67.  The Board denied the request during a conference call, stating that the term “within and between” appears verbatim in the Summary of Invention portion of the specification.  Petitioner argued that the verbatim description in the specification fails to convey possession of the full scope of the claimed invention.  However, the Board disagreed, finding that the language of the specification describes data transfer within a subsystem. 

Fidelity National Information Services, Inc. v. DataTreasury Corp., CBM2014-00020
Paper 21: Decision on Fidelity’s Request for Rehearing
Dated: June 13, 2014
Patent 6,032,137 Before: Michael P. Tierney, William V. Saindon, and Matthew R. Clements
Written by: Tierney