UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`APPLE, INC., ET AL.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`AMERANTH, INC.
`Patent Owner
`
`____________
`
`Case CBM2014-00013
`Patent No. 6,982,733
`____________
`
`MAIL STOP PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`Post Office Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
`
`Submitted Electronically via the Patent Review Processing System
`
`PATENT OWNER AMERANTH’S RESPONSE
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`CBM2014-00013
`
`Page
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`INTRODUCTION............................................................................................ 1
`
`BACKGROUND............................................................................................ 13
`
`A. Claims 1-16 Of The ‘733 Patent Are Directed To A New And
`Useful Solution To A Previously Unrecognized Problem......................... 14
`
`1. The Practical And Technological Nature Of The ‘733 Patent.............. 14
`
`2. Many In The Relevant Industry Have Found Ameranth’s Claimed
`Inventions To Be Novel and Innovative............................................... 19
`
`3. The Petition Fails To Provide Any Credible Basis For Its
`Contention That The Claims Are Not Novel And Unobvious
`Over The Prior Art ............................................................................... 22
`
`III. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ........................................................................... 30
`
`A. The Petition Mischaracterized The Actual Claims And The Board
`Erroneously Adopted Petitioner’s Characterizations................................. 31
`
`B. Proposed Constructions............................................................................. 34
`
`IV. CLAIMS 1-16 ARE CLEARLY PATENT ELIGIBLE UNDER
`35 U.S.C. §101 ............................................................................................... 44
`
`A. Controlling Authority Of The Supreme Court Confers Patent
`Eligibility On Computer Applications Directed To New And
`Useful Results............................................................................................ 44
`
`B. Neither Petitioner Nor The Board Has Established That Claims
`1-16 Of The ‘733 Patent Are Ineligible Under 35 U.S.C. §101 ................ 45
`
`1. The Petition Mischaracterized, And The Board Misunderstood,
`The Actual Claimed Subject Matter And Failed To Consider
`The Claims As A Whole ...................................................................... 49
`
`2. The Petition And The Board’s Decision Failed To Consider
`The Novelty And Usefulness Of The Claimed Invention As
`Required By Alice v. CLS..................................................................... 57
`
`ii
`
`

`

`CBM2014-00013
`
`3. The Board’s “Computer Languages” And “Common
`Programming” Based Conclusions Were Incorrect.............................. 60
`
`4. The ‘733 Patent Claims Fall Squarely Within The Bounds
`Of Patent Eligible Subject Matter......................................................... 69
`
`V.
`
`CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 80
`
`iii
`
`

`

`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`
`CBM2014-00013
`
`Page
`
`Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l
`No. 13-298, Slip op. 6 (U.S. June 19, 2014)...................................Passim
`
`Ameranth v. Menusoft et al.
`No. 2:07-cv-271 (E.D. Texas) ......................................................................5, 36
`
`Apple v. SightSound
`CBM2013-00019, Paper No. 17 .................................................................30, 71
`
`Bilski v. Kappos
`130 S. Ct. 3218 (2010)..............................................................44, 46, 51, 73, 79
`
`Catalina Mktg., Int’l v. Coolsavings.com
`289 F.3d 801 (Fed. Cir. 2002) ......................................................................8, 36
`
`CLS Bank Intl v. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd.
`717 F.3d 1269 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ...................................................................... 44
`
`Continental Can Co. USA, Inc. v. Monsanto Co.
`948 F.2d 1264 (Fed. Cir. 1991) ....................................................................4, 19
`
`Diamond v. Diehr
`450 U.S. 175 (1981) .......................................................................51, 62, 64, 73
`
`Fonar Corp. v. General Elec. Co.
`107 F.3d 1543 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ...................................................................... 52
`
`Gottschalk v. Benson
`409 U.S. 63 (1972) .....................................................................................59, 79
`
`Heidelberger Druckmaschinen AG v. Hantscho Prods.
`21 F.3d 1068 (Fed. Cir. 1994).......................................................................... 5
`
`In re Alappat
`33 F.3d 1526 (Fed. Cir. 1994).......................................................... 10, 72
`
`iv
`
`

`

`CBM2014-00013
`
`In re Bilski
`545 F.3d 943 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ........................................................................ 79
`
`In re Skvorecz
`580 F.3d 1262 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ...................................................................... 30
`
`Inter-connect Planning Corp. v. Feil
`774 F.2d 1132 (Fed. Cir. 1985) ........................................................................ 4
`
`Mayo Coll. Svcs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc.
`132 S. Ct. 1289 (2012)..............................................................3, 4, 7, 32, 44, 45
`
`Medical Inst. & Diag. Corp. v. Elekta AB
`344 F.3d 1205 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ...................................................................... 52
`
`Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co.
`182 F.3d 1298 (Fed. Cir. 1999) ...................................................................... 36
`
`Poly-America, LP v. GSE Lining Tech., Inc.
`383 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ........................................................................ 8
`
`Research Corp. Tech., Inc. v. Microsoft Corp.
`627 F.3d 859 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ........................................................................ 51
`
`Rotatable Technologies LLC v. Motorola Mobility LLC et al.
`No. 2014-1042 (Fed. Cir. June 27, 2014) .....................................................8, 36
`
`SAP, Inc. v. Pi-Net Intl. Inc.
`CBM2013-00013, Paper No. 15 .........................................................78
`
`S3 Inc. v. nVIDIA Corp.
`259 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2001) ..........................................................53
`
`SiRF Tech., Inc. v. ITC
`601 F.3d 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ..........................................................74
`
`State St. Bank & Trust Co. v. Signature Fin. Group
`149 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 1998) ....................................................................6, 49
`
`Ultramercial, LLC v. Hulu, LLC
`722 F.3d 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2013) .............................. 10, 71, 72, 75, 77, 78
`
`v
`
`

`

`CBM2014-00013
`
`Other
`
`37 C.F.R. §42.220(a) .................................................................................................. 1
`
`35 U.S.C. §101...................................................................................................Passim
`
`35 U.S.C. §112.......................................................................................................... 53
`
`Harvard Bus. Sch. Press (2005) ............................................................................ 13-14
`
`MPEP 2106(II)(B)(1)(b)........................................................................................... 79
`
`PTO §101 Examination Guidelines (June 25, 2014) ............................................47, 48
`
`vi
`
`

`

`PATENT OWNER’S LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`CBM2014-00013
`
`Exhibit No.
`
`Description
`
`2001
`
`2002
`
`2003
`
`2004
`
`2005
`
`2006
`
`2007
`
`2008
`
`2009
`
`2010
`
`2011
`
`Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of
`Plaintiff Ameranth, Inc.’s Motion to Disqualify Counsel
`(Fulbright Jaworski)
`
`Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of
`Plaintiff Ameranth, Inc.’s Motion to Disqualify Counsel
`(Akin Gump)
`“Domino's Pizza First in Industry to Offer Mobile
`Ordering” (September 27, 2007)
`
`http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xr7y4b_tim-cook-
`calls-patent-wars-pain-in-the-ass_tech
`
`157 Cong. Rec. S1053 (Mar. 1, 2011)
`
`157 Cong. Rec. S5441 (Sept. 8, 2011)
`
`“Software Patent Reform Just Died in the House,”
`Washington Post, Nov. 20, 2013
`
`Nov. 18, 2013 Letter from Victoria A. Espinel, President
`and CEO of the Business Software Alliance
`
`http://www.bsa.org/advocacy/intellectual-property-and-
`innovation
`
`http://www.bsa.org/~/media/Files/Policy/Patents/JointCB
`MLetter091913
`
`“Ameranth Signs Major New Patent License with PAR
`Technology Corporation for its Patented 21st Century
`Communications Web/Wireless Synchronization
`Inventions” (Jan. 28, 2013)
`
`vii
`
`

`

`2012
`
`2013
`
`2014
`
`2015
`
`2016
`
`2017
`
`2018
`
`2019
`
`2020
`
`2021
`
`2022
`
`2023
`
`2024
`
`CBM2014-00013
`
`“Ameranth Signs Major New Patent License with
`Snapfinger, Inc. for its Patented 21st Century
`Communications Web/Wireless Synchronization
`Inventions” (Jan. 24, 2012)
`
`Secondary Factors Evidence and Nexus Charts Submitted
`in App. Ser. No. 11/112,990 (U.S. Pat. No. 8,146,077)
`
`April 21, 2010 Claim Construction Order (Judge
`Everingham)
`
`September 9, 2010 Claim Construction Order (Judge
`Everingham)
`
`September 13, 2010 Claim Construction Order (Judge
`Everingham)
`August 10, 2012 Claim Construction Order (Judge Payne)
`
`July 5, 2013 Order re: Motions to Dismiss (Judge
`Sammartino)
`
`157 Cong. Rec. S1379 (Mar. 8, 2011) (Statement of
`Senator Kyl)
`
`157 Cong. Rec. S5431 (Sept. 8, 2011) (Statement of
`Senator Kyl)
`
`“Ameranth Wireless Awarded Computerworld Honors 21st
`Century Achievement Laureate Medal” (April 16, 2001)
`
`Letter from Computerworld Honors Program (July 5,
`2001)
`
`“Wireless Finds a Welcome in Hospitality,” Business
`Week (Feb. 9, 2004)
`
`Steve Glen (VP of Marriott) Letter to K. McNally (Feb. 3,
`2000)
`
`viii
`
`

`

`2025
`
`2026
`
`2027
`
`2028
`
`2029
`
`2030
`
`2031
`
`2032
`
`2033
`
`CBM2014-00013
`
`Computerworld Honors Archive
`
`Ameranth Receives Moby Award For Wireless Mobile
`Computer Application (Sept. 13, 2000)
`
`“Food.com and Ameranth Technology Announce
`Partnership to Develop Link From Food.com site With
`Ameranth's 21st Century Restaurant System” (July 15,
`1999)
`
`Internal Food.com Memo between its Executive Team
`(Sept. 13, 1999)
`
`Examiner Interview Summary in App. Ser. No.
`11/112,990, October 14, 2011
`
`Web Characterization Terminology & Definitions at §2.3,
`May 24, 1999, http://www.w3.org/1999/05/WCA-terms
`
`SFA v. 1-800-Flowers.com, Case No. 6:09-cv-340-LED
`(E.D. Tex. April 11, 2013)
`
`https://developer.apple.com/library/ios/documentation/IDE
`s/Conceptual/iOS_Simulator_Guide/iOS_Simulator_Guide
`.pdf
`
`Kilopass Tech v. Sidense Corp., No. 2013-1193 (Fed. Cir.
`Dec. 26, 2013)
`
`2034
`
`Not Used
`
`ix
`
`

`

`2035
`
`2036
`
`2037
`
`2038
`
`2039
`
`CBM2014-00013
`
`Ameranth Technology Systems Inc. Announces
`Investment by Microsoft, Business Wire, June 19, 2000
`
`Complaint for Determination of Priority of Invention
`Among Interfering Patents Under 35 U.S.C. §291 (Pre-
`AIA), Case No. 3:14-cv-01303-DMS-WVG (S.D. Cal.)
`
`Answer of Ameranth, Inc. to Complaint for Determination
`of Priority; Counterclaims, Case No. 3:14-cv-01303-DMS-
`WVG (S.D. Cal.)
`
`IPDEV Reply to Counterclaims of Ameranth, Case No.
`3:14-cv-01303-DMS-WVG (S.D. Cal.)
`
`USA Today, “Domino’s app lets you voice-order pizza,”
`June 17, 2014
`
`x
`
`

`

`CBM2014-00013
`
`Pursuant to the Board’s Order–Conduct of the Proceeding (Paper No. 24),
`
`entered April 16, 2014, and 37 C.F.R. §42.220(a) and the Stipulation to Amend
`
`Trial Schedule, filed April 28, 2014 (Paper No. 25), Patent Owner, Ameranth,
`
`Inc. (“Ameranth”), submits this Response in opposition to the Petition for
`
`Covered Business Method (“CBM”) Review (“Petition,” “Pet.” or “Am.
`
`(‘Amended’) Petition”) of U.S. Patent No. 6,982,733 (“’733 patent”) and the
`
`Board’s Decision–Institution of Covered Business Method Review (Paper No.
`
`20) (“Inst. Dec.”) with regard to the single aspect of the Petition (i.e., 35 U.S.C.
`
`§101 eligibility of claims 1-16) which was adverse to Patent Owner.
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`In its Institution Decision regarding the ‘733 patent, the Board denied all of the
`
`Petitioner's invalidity/ineligibility grounds as to claims 1-16 except §101 eligibility.
`
`Thus the sole remaining issue in this Proceeding is §101 eligibility of claims 1-16.
`
`The Petition’s allegation of §101 ineligibility, however, is simply incorrect and
`
`cannot stand up to full scrutiny–when the `733 claims are fully and properly
`
`construed and then considered as a person of skill in the art would have understood
`
`the claims at the time of the invention.
`
`Petitioner conclusorily alleged that “[c]laims 1-16 cover nothing more than the
`
`abstract idea of generating menus” (Am. Pet. at 64) and argued that Ameranth's
`
`invention involved the concept of the use of “pen and paper.” (emphasis added)
`
`(Am. Pet, at 9). Petitioner’s mischaracterization was then summarily adopted by the
`
`Board without full claim construction and scrutiny of the actual claimed subject
`
`matter. The Board stated "[t]hus, this invention was intended to transition the
`
`hospitality industry from “pen and paper” based ordering systems to a
`
`1
`
`

`

`CBM2014-00013
`
`computerized ordering system." Inst. Dec. at 27 (emphasis added). However, not
`
`only does the specification, properly construed/considered claims, and the facts prove
`
`both of these conclusions wrong (as explained below) but the Board itself proves its
`
`own conclusion wrong–with its correct assessment of what the actual `733
`
`invention was focused on:
`The ’733 Patent was intended to “solve[] a longstanding,
`operational issue in restaurant/hotel/casino food/drink ordering
`when customers want something unusual and not anticipated and
`available through normal computerized selections.”
`Inst. Dec. at 16 (citing Exh. 1033, 10:54-57) (emphasis added). The Board correctly
`
`recognized that Ameranth's invention was about solving problems regarding already
`
`existing “computerized selections” and did not have anything to do with converting
`
`“paper menus” as the Petition misleadingly alleged. Patent Owner's Response herein
`
`confirm the Board’s statement correct and explains how it leads to the correct
`
`conclusion of §101 patentability/eligibility of ‘733 claims 1-16.
`
`That Ameranth's inventors (via their patent specification/drawings and claims)
`
`defined and claimed numerous patentable inventions has been broadly confirmed by
`
`the Board, including 5 claims each in the `850 and ‘325 patents (CBM2014-00015,
`
`CBM2014-00016) and all 18 claims in the `077 patent (CBM2014-00014).
`
`Importantly, `325 claims 11-15 and ‘850 claims 12-16 were confirmed by the Board
`
`against all of the alleged grounds for unpatentability, including §101. Even more
`
`importantly, independent claims 1 and 9 of the `077 patent (which are structurally
`
`similar to independent menu claim 1 of the `733 patent) were also confirmed to be
`
`patentable by the Board:
`We similarly are persuaded that the invention of claims 1 and 9 ties
`
`2
`
`

`

`CBM2014-00013
`
`the alleged abstract idea of those claims, i.e., generating menus, to a
`specific computer-implemented system programmed by software to
`perform specialized functions. For example, the system is enabled to
`synchronize, in real time, information between a programmed handheld
`menu configuration and a master menu file structure stored on a
`central processing unit.
`(CBM2014-00014, Paper No. 19 at 39) (emphasis added to show features which are,
`
`in fact, also present in `733 claims 1-3, as demonstrated below). Consequently, a
`
`critical issue to be decided in this proceeding is whether the variant of the disclosed
`
`“menu synchronization” invention as embodied in claims 1-3 of the ‘733 patent
`
`includes limitations similar or equal to limitations of the `077 menu claims (1, 9)
`
`and/or to allowed ‘325 claims (11-15) and ‘850 claims (12-16) so as to also afford
`
`§101 patent eligibility status just as the Board correctly concluded that `077 claims 1
`
`and 9 are patent eligible. With a full and correct construction of independent claim 1
`
`it is clear that `733 claims 1-3 are patentable eligible as well. Likewise, claims 4-16
`
`are patent eligible due to their recitation of additional inventive claim terms/elements
`
`involving unconventional, new and useful application functionality as detailed below.
`
`In light of the Supreme Court’s new Alice v. CLS ruling, novelty and non-
`
`obviousness of the invention are key inquiries as to the patent eligibility of
`
`computerized claims. This is logical because a fundamental question is whether the
`inventors really invented something new and unconventional.1 Alice v. CLS requires
`
`1 “[A]n invention is not rendered ineligible for patent simply because it involves
`an abstract concept. ‘[A]pplication[s]’ of such concepts “’to a new and useful
`end,’” . . . remain eligible for patent protection.” Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l,
`No. 13-298, Slip op. at 6, 11 (U.S. June 19, 2014) (“we must examine the
`elements of the claim to determine whether it contains an ‘inventive concept’
`sufficient to ‘transform’ the claimed abstract idea into a patent-eligible
`application); see also Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 132
`S. Ct. 1289, 1293-94 (2012).
`
`3
`
`

`

`CBM2014-00013
`
`that this determination must be made from the vantage point of a POSA at the time of
`
`the invention and that secondary, contemporaneous factors and evidence in the record
`
`as to how the marketplace viewed and reacted to the invention at the time of the
`invention must be considered.2 As recognized repeatedly by the Federal Circuit,
`hindsight is inherently difficult and prone to distortion, due to the passage of time,
`
`especially when dealing with patents such as the ‘733, conceived and invented more
`
`than 13 years ago. It is difficult to remember and appreciate, in 2014, that the very
`
`concept of smart phones being ubiquitous and equipped with today's almost
`
`unimaginable power, connectivity and functionality was almost inconceivable to all
`
`but the true visionaries of the late 1990's including Ameranth's inventors.
`
`Consideration of actual contemporaneous evidence showing what was known at the
`time of the invention, not a latter-day view of what exists now, is crucial.3
`As for the Petitioner companies’ allegations that Ameranth invented nothing
`
`and that `733 claims 1-16 are merely for “generating menus,” such posturing from
`
`this large group of infringers is not credible in view of the fact, as shown below, that
`
`they have all adopted Ameranth's inventions (E.g., see the Apple IOS Simulator from
`
`2 Alice v. CLS, Slip op. at 11, 15 (relying on Mayo’s holding of ineligibility because
`the “methods for determining metabolite levels were already ‘well known in the art’”
`and “previously known to the industry”).
`3 See, e.g., Continental Can Co. USA, Inc. v. Monsanto Co., 948 F.2d 1264, 1273
`(Fed. Cir. 1991) ("The significance of a new structure is often better measured in the
`marketplace than in the courtroom.") (emphasis added); Inter-connect Planning
`Corp. v. Feil, 774 F.2d 1132, 1143 (Fed. Cir. 1985) ("Recognizing the difficulty of
`casting one's mind back to the state of technology at the time the invention was made,
`courts have long recognized the usefulness of evidence of the contemporaneous
`attitude toward the asserted invention. A retrospective view of the invention is best
`gleaned from those who were there at the time.") (emphasis added).
`4
`
`

`

`CBM2014-00013
`
`Exhibit 2032 (at p. 5), which, when synchronously combined with the other Petitioner
`
`companies' infringing systems, is actually an implementation of `850 claim 10, (as
`
`discussed in Patent Owner’s Response in CBM2014-00015, ‘850 claim 10
`
`illuminates and informs the analysis of the subject matter of ‘850 independent claim 1
`
`as well as ‘733 independent claims 1, 4, 5 and 12), many have praised those
`
`inventions, and many of the Petitioner companies either licensed or sought to license
`
`the patents, or sought to buy Ameranth to secure exclusive rights to the very same
`inventions they now criticize.4
`Patent Owner submits that the Board did not reach a patent eligible conclusion
`
`for claims 1-16 at the preliminary stage of this proceeding due to a single, but critical,
`
`factor–incomplete claim construction due to the Petition’s mischaracterization of the
`
`claimed subject matter. At the preliminary stage, the Board construed only one term–
`
`Web page–by adopting Patent Owner’s proposal (taken from Judge Everingham’s
`construction)5 and rejecting Petitioner's expert's proposed construction. The Board
`stated: “All other terms in the challenged claims are given their ordinary and
`
`customary meaning and need no further construction at this time.” (Inst. Dec. at 9)
`
`(emphasis added). Patent Owner submits that now is “the time” for the entirety of
`
`claims 1-16 to be fully construed, since well-established case law requires claim
`
`construction prior to any proper §101 analysis. “[W]hether the ... patent is invalid for
`
`4 Heidelberger Druckmaschinen AG v. Hantscho Prods., 21 F.3d 1068, 1072 (Fed.
`Cir. 1994) ("[T]he litigation argument that an innovation is really quite ordinary
`carries diminished weight when offered by those who had tried and failed to solve
`the same problem, and then promptly adopted the solution that they are now
`denigrating.") (emphasis added).
`5 In Ameranth v. Menusoft et al., No. 2:07-cv-271 (E.D. Texas).
`5
`
`

`

`CBM2014-00013
`
`failure to claim statutory subject matter under § 101[ ] is a matter of both claim
`construction and statutory construction.”6 When claims 1-16 are fully and properly
`construed and considered as a whole, as they now must be, Patent Owner asserts that
`
`the only correct result must be that these claims are patent eligible.
`
`The need for a full claim construction is especially imperative with regard to
`
`these claims because, among many other reasons, the preamble clearly is a limitation
`
`and its inclusion in the proper construction dispositively compels a finding of patent
`
`eligibility. Yet the preamble was not construed or even considered by the Board in its
`
`Institution Ruling even though Patent Owner specifically requested that the district
`
`court Markman Rulings be considered, adopted and applied in their entirety. Further,
`
`the dependent claims recite additional patent eligible application functionality which
`
`must be construed and/or considered including, inter alia, the additional “selectively
`
`printing directly from a GUI” (claims 2, 10), “linking directly from a GUI” (claims 3,
`
`11) and “manual modification” (claims 6-9, 13-16) (including handwriting capture or
`
`voice recording/capture and conversion to text) language of the dependent claims.
`
`The ‘733 invention is not an abstract idea about simply “generating menus” as
`
`the Petitioner wrongly alleges. First and foremost, it is a “synchronization” based
`
`systemic invention, with the “menu generation” aspects comprising only a part of the
`
`overall synchronization invention. Claims 1-16 include specific, meaningful, and
`
`substantive limitations, e.g., “using the GUI of said OS (claims 1-4),” such GUI
`
`being used with the inventive application software/hardware and the claimed
`
`6 State St. Bank & Trust Co. v. Signature Fin. Group, 149 F.3d 1368, 1370 (Fed. Cir.
`1998). Patent Office personnel must first determine the scope of a claim by
`thoroughly analyzing the language of the claim before determining if the claim
`complies with each statutory requirement for patentability. MPEP 2106 (II)(C).
`6
`
`

`

`CBM2014-00013
`
`OS (stored on and accessed from the “central computing unit”), thus clearly
`
`implemented on specifically programmed computers–a synchronous system for
`
`generating and wirelessly transmitting menus for and with wireless handheld
`
`computing devices and Web pages (claims 1-3)–and do not merely cover the
`
`abstract idea of generating menus, as alleged in the Petition and incorrectly
`
`concluded by the Board. Patent Owner submits that the Board did not perform
`
`an analysis of all the pertinent elements of ‘733 independent claims 1, 4, 5 and
`
`12 individually under a proper, and reasonable, construction and did not
`
`perform an analysis of the claim as a whole, thus violating an express
`
`requirement of Alice v. CLS. See Slip op. at n.3 (“Because the approach we
`
`made explicit in Mayo considers all claim elements, both individually and in
`
`combination, it is consistent with the general rule that patent claims ‘must be
`considered as a whole.’”) (emphasis added).
`
`The ‘733 inventors carefully chose the title of their patent as “Information
`management and synchronous communications system with menu generation, and
`
`handwriting and voice modification of orders” (emphasis added). Thus “menu
`
`generation” is secondary, yet the Petitioner parsed out only this secondary aspect,
`
`while entirely ignoring the critical “synchronous” and “handwriting/voice
`
`modification” aspects of the `733 claims. Every Ameranth claim, in all of its issued
`
`patents, contains the inventive “synchronization” element. Yet Petitioner, and
`
`seemingly, at the preliminary stage at least, the Board itself, completely read out this
`
`critical claim term, in reaching a conclusion that`733 claims 1-16 were directed only
`
`to “generating and transmitting menus.” (Inst. Dec. at 28). This critical
`
`“synchronization” claim element is pervasively used throughout the specification, and
`
`7
`
`

`

`CBM2014-00013
`
`in all claims and throughout the entire prosecution history; in fact, all of the issued
`
`patents’ Notices of Allowance depend in large part on the synchronization aspects.
`
`Under Federal Circuit authority, these facts and this reality mandates that the `733
`
`claims 1, 4, 5 and 12 preamble must be construed and is a limitation:
`The specification is replete with references to “selectively rotating,”
`underscoring the importance of the feature to the claimed invention. For
`example, the ’978 patent’s title, abstract, background of the invention,
`summary of the invention, description of the drawings, detailed description,
`and all independent claims recite “selectively rotating.”. . . Moreover, clear
`reliance on the preamble during prosecution to distinguish the claimed
`invention from the prior art transforms the preamble into a claim limitation.
`Rotatable Technologies LLC v. Motorola Mobility LLC et al., No. 2014-1042 (Fed.
`Cir. June 27, 2014) (citations omitted).7 Patent Owner submits that the
`aforementioned case law mandates that the `733 claims 1, 4, 5 and 12 preamble is a
`
`limitation (just as Judge Everingham concluded in his Markman ruling and
`
`Petitioner’s lead counsel in this proceeding agreed in that Markman proceeding), thus
`
`it must be construed, along with numerous other key elements and terms which were
`
`ignored by the Board as discussed below.
`
`When the preamble is properly construed, as it must be, the entire perspective
`
`regarding claim 1 is transformed from Petitioner’s misleading “menu generation ” to
`
`the correct view of the claim as “an information management and synchronous
`
`7 See also Poly-America, LP v. GSE Lining Tech., Inc., 383 F.3d 1303, 1310 (Fed.
`Cir. 2004) (construing preamble as limiting where it disclosed a “fundamental
`characteristic of the claimed invention”); Catalina Mktg., Int’l v. Coolsavings.com,
`289 F.3d 801, 807-08 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (“[C]lear reliance on the preamble during
`prosecution to distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art transforms the
`preamble into a claim limitation because such reliance indicates use of the preamble
`to define, in part, the claimed invention.”).
`
`8
`
`

`

`CBM2014-00013
`
`communications system for generating and transmitting menus.” (emphasis added).
`
`In addition to ignoring the “synchronous” aspect, Petitioner also entirely ignored the
`“transmitting” functionality of claim 1.8 Further, Ameranth's visionary inventors
`recognized the underlying problem preventing synchronization, i.e., that in order to
`
`have a “synchronous” system, there had to be a “single truth” in the form of a
`
`central/master database or “first menu” and a way to establish and then maintain
`
`synchronization and “equilibrium” between all the connected elements and between
`
`“first” and “second” menus. This is very clear from the `850/’733 abstract itself, and
`
`throughout the specification and is perhaps best illustrated by the following
`
`disclosure in the `850 specification:
`These challenges include building a menu using their existing database
`and transferring the menu onto handheld devices or Web pages that will
`interface with servers wirelessly or to restaurants/customers over the
`internet.
`‘850 col. 3:49-52 (emphasis added) (the ‘733 patent includes all disclosure from the
`
`‘850 patent, and adds additional disclosure). “A menu” and “the menu” are the
`
`recited “second menu” of `733 claims 1, 4 and 12 and the “modified menu” of claim
`
`5 and the “existing database” is or contains the “first menu” or “master menu” (claim
`
`5) and, in this disclosed restaurant example, is represented by the “existing POS
`
`system/database” of the restaurant:
`The menu generation approach of the present invention is the first
`coherent solution available to accomplish these objectives easily and
`allows one development effort to produce both the handheld and Web
`page formats, link them with the existing POS systems, and thus
`
`8 Moreover, independent claims 4 and 5 expressly recite “synchronized” functionality
`and claim 12 expressly recites “synchronizing” functionality in the body of the
`claims.
`
`9
`
`

`

`CBM2014-00013
`
`provides a way to turn a complicated, time-consuming task into a simple
`process.
`Id. at 3:52-58. Once again, the `733 claims have nothing to do with “converting paper
`
`menus” from or to anything. Rather, they synchronously convert the computerized
`
`“first/master menu,” stored on a “standard PC” or other central server/database, to
`
`“second/modified menus” for display on “non PC standard” devices/displays, e.g.,
`
`“wireless handheld computing devices,” (claim 1), or synchronize the menus
`
`throughout the system (claims 4, 5 and 12) thus ensuring the data is consistent.
`
`While the baseline components of all computerized menu generation
`
`systems may begin with basic hardware (e.g., servers and network
`
`communication components), only a specialized software system for
`
`synchronously generating and wirelessly transmitting menus suitable for the
`
`special constraints of a small handheld device and Web page implements the
`
`complex functions recited by claims 1-3 of the ‘733 patent when specifically
`
`programmed to do so, thereby generating new, useful, concrete, and tangible
`
`results. See In re Alappat, 33 F.3d 1526, 1544 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (en banc). Such
`
`programming is not trivial, and the unique functions and capabilities of the
`
`hardware and application software combination necessary to perform the
`
`specialized menu generation and transmission functions are significantly
`different from a “general purpose computer.”9 The claims are directed to a
`unique, novel, unconventional and specific synchronous menu generation and
`
`9 “[A] programmed computer contains circuitry unique to that computer. That
`‘new machine’ could be claimed in terms of a complex array of hardware
`circuits, or more efficiently, in terms of the programming that facilities a unique
`function.” Ultramercial, 722 F.3d at 1352.
`10
`
`

`

`CBM2014-00013
`
`transmission system that was not even remotely suggested by any prior art, and,
`
`by definition, could not have been done previously without computers because
`
`the claimed invention is itself the synchronous configuration of multi-tiered
`
`second menus for specialized display devices, i.e., handheld devices and Web
`
`pages from multi-tiered first menus in the back office/central computer unit,
`
`while wirelessly transmitting and maintaining systemic synchronization (claim
`
`1). Claims 4, 5 and 12 likewise are directed to subject matter which was not
`
`previously known, i.e., synchronizing menus throughout the system and
`
`providing for manual modification of a second/modified menu after generation.
`
`Just as the Board correctly concluded that `077 menu claims 1 and 9 are patent
`
`eligible for reciting inventive concepts, the `733 claims embody the same concepts.
`
`However, a full and proper construction of the `733 claims including the preamble of
`
`independent claims 1, 4, 5 and 12 is required to appreciate the inventive concept
`
`embodied in these claims as a person of skill in the art would understand them (e.g.,
`
`as Food.com did at the time of the invention in 1999), and in fact as many others have
`
`understood them, over more than a decade now, with more than 31 patent licensees
`
`determining that their businesses required a license to this inventive technology.
`
`Patent owner identifies one more major issue with the Board's preliminary
`
`rejection of claims 1-16. As the Board is well aware, another statutory requirement
`
`for patentability as regards the ‘733 claims is the disclosure