Paper No. 28
`Filed September 18, 2014
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_____________
`
`
`AGILYSYS, INC., ET AL.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`AMERANTH, INC.
`Patent Owner
`_____________
`
`Case CBM2014-00015
`Patent 6,384,850 B1
`_____________
`
`Before JAMESON LEE, MEREDITH C. PETRAVICK, and
`STACEY G. WHITE, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S REPLY BRIEF
`
`
`Filed September 18, 2014
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_____________
`
`
`AGILYSYS, INC., ET AL.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`AMERANTH, INC.
`Patent Owner
`_____________
`
`Case CBM2014-00015
`Patent 6,384,850 B1
`_____________
`
`Before JAMESON LEE, MEREDITH C. PETRAVICK, and
`STACEY G. WHITE, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S REPLY BRIEF
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`
`I.
`II.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 1
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ........................................................................... 1
`A.
`PO’s Construction of the Preamble Should Be Rejected ..................... 2
`PO’s own arguments require that the preamble is non-
`1.
`limiting. ...................................................................................... 3
`The BRI of the preamble cannot include limitations
`found only in other claims. ........................................................ 6
`PO’s preamble construction is contrary to the intrinsic
`record.......................................................................................... 7
`PO’s Construction of “Central Processing Unit” Is Incorrect ............. 7
`B.
`III. CLAIMS 1-11 ARE NOT PATENTABLE UNDER SECTION 101 ............ 8
`Alice Did Not Merge Section 101 with Sections 102 and 103 ............ 8
`A.
`B.
`The Claims Do Not Include an Inventive Concept ............................ 10
`C.
`The Dependent Claims Do Not Add Any Meaningful
`Limitations .......................................................................................... 14
`IV. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 15
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-i-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CASES
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Accenture Global Servs., GmbH v. Guidewire Software, Inc.,
`728 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2013) .......................................................................... 10
`
`Alice Corp. Pty. LTD v. CLS Bank Int’l,
`134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014) .................................................................... 1, 9, 11, 13, 14
`
`Allen Eng’g Corp. v. Bartell Indus.,
`299 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2002) ...................................................................... 4, 14
`
`In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr.,
`367 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ........................................................................ 2, 7
`
`Bancorp Servs. L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assur. Co. of Canada (U.S.), L.L.C.,
`687 F.3d 1266 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ...................................................................... 2, 15
`
`In re Bigio,
`381 F.3d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ............................................................................ 4
`
`Catalina Mktg Int’l, Inc. v. Coolsavings.com, Inc.,
`289 F.3d 801 (Fed. Cir. 2002) .......................................................................... 4, 5
`
`Cybersource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc.,
`654 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2011) .................................................................... 12, 15
`
`DietGoal Innovations LLC v. Bravo Media LLC,
`No. 13-cv-8391, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 92484 (S.D.N.Y. July 8,
`2014) ................................................................................................................... 12
`
`Elekta Instrument S.A. v. O.U.R. Scientific Int’l, Inc.,
`214 F.3d 1302 (Fed. Cir. 2000) ............................................................................ 6
`
`Gottschalk v. Benson,
`409 U.S. 63 (1972) ................................................................................................ 9
`
`K-2 Corp. v. Salomon S.A.,
`191 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 1999) ............................................................................ 2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-ii-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Kara Tech. Inc. v. Stamps.com, Inc.,
`582 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ............................................................................ 6
`
`Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc.,
`132 S. Ct. 1289 (2012) .......................................................................................... 9
`
`Parker v. Flook,
`437 U.S. 584 (1978) ............................................................................................ 12
`
`STATUTES
`35 U.S.C. § 101 .................................................................................................passim
`
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.300(b) ................................................................................................ 2
`
`MPEP § 2111.02 .................................................................................................... 5, 6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-iii-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`LIST OF NEWLY FILED EXHIBITS
`
`FANDANGO 1066
`
`EXHIBIT NO.
`FANDANGO 1009
`
`DESCRIPTION (BOLDED IF USED)
`’077 Notice of Allowability Examiner’s Amendment
`U.S. Bancorp v. Retirement Capital Access Mgmt Co.,
`CBM2013-00014, Paper No. 33 (P.T.A.B. August 22,
`2014)
`FANDANGO 1067 Ameranth, Inc. v. Par Technology Corp., No. 2:10-CV-
`294, Dkt. No. 70 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 23, 2010)
`FANDANGO 1068 Ameranth, Inc. v. Fandango, Inc., No. 3:12-CV-1651,
`Dkt. No. 23 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 8, 2012)
`FANDANGO 1069 Roof, Professional Visual Basic Windows CE
`Programming (Wrox Press Ltd. 1998) (excerpts)
`FANDANGO 1070 Shepherd and Wingo, “Visual Programmer,”
`Microsoft Sys. J., Vol. 13, No. 5, at 97 (Feb. 1998)
`
`FANDANGO 1071 U.S. Patent No. 4,972,496
`
`FANDANGO 1072 “Microsoft Introduces Palm PC, PC Companion
`Powered by Windows CE 2.0” (Jan. 8, 1998), located
`at http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/news/press/1998/
`jan98/palmpcpr.aspx (last visited Sept. 16, 2014)
`
`FANDANGO 1073 European Patent Publication No. EP 0917077A2
`
`FANDANGO 1074 U.S. Patent No. 5,974,238
`* Denotes exhibits not cited in and not filed with this petition.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-iv-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`The Board instituted this CBM Review because it determined “that
`
`Petitioner has established that claims 1-11 are more likely than not unpatentable
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 101.” Paper 20 at 20 [Institution Decision] (“ID”). Nothing in
`
`Patent Owner’s Response (“POR”) changes the reasoned and correct conclusions
`
`in the ID that claims 1-11 are directed to the abstract idea of “generating menus”
`
`and are not meaningfully limited to a particular practical application. ID at 23.
`
`The Supreme Court’s recent Alice v. CLS Bank decision confirmed that
`
`where a claim is directed to a patent-ineligible abstract idea (as the Board has
`
`already found here), the proper inquiry under § 101 is whether the additional
`
`elements of the claims—individually and as an ordered combination—provide an
`
`inventive concept sufficient to “transform” the claimed abstract idea into a patent-
`
`eligible application. 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2355 (2014). As the Board correctly found,
`
`the specification itself describes each of the “additional elements” of claims 1-11
`
`as “typical” or “conventional” hardware and software elements, which Alice
`
`confirmed cannot confer patent eligibility. See Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358. The
`
`Board should therefore issue a Final Written Decision canceling claims 1-11.
`
`II. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`PO attempts to render its claims patent-eligible by importing limitations via
`
`claim construction that the Board previously determined are not in the claims. See
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`ID at 13. Such attempts to improperly rewrite its claims should be rejected. See
`
`K-2 Corp. v. Salomon S.A., 191 F.3d 1356, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
`
`The Board determined that, with the exception of the term “web page,” “[a]ll
`
`other terms in the challenged claims need no express construction at this time.” ID
`
`at 8. Nonetheless, PO proposed constructions for 18 different claim terms, without
`
`explaining their relevance to this proceeding. POR (Paper 27) at 32-34. Contrary
`
`to PO’s assertion that “the Board must construe the entirety of the challenged
`
`claims” (POR at 29), claim construction “is not an inviolable prerequisite to a
`
`validity determination under § 101.” Bancorp Servs. L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assur. Co.
`
`of Canada (U.S.), L.L.C., 687 F.3d 1266, 1273 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Thus, while
`
`Petitioner disagrees with many of PO’s constructions, most of them are not
`
`relevant to the § 101 issues. Therefore, only two are discussed below.
`
`In a CBM Review, a claim in an unexpired patent is “given its broadest
`
`reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which it
`
`appears.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.300(b). This standard differs from that in district court
`
`(contra POR at 28-29), and Petitioner reserves the right to advocate different
`
`constructions in another forum in accordance with the applicable standard. See In
`
`re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
`
`PO’s Construction of the Preamble Should Be Rejected
`
`A.
`The Board correctly determined that “claim 1 does not contain any
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`recitations related to displaying and synchronizing computerized menus on non-
`
`standard devices/interfaces,” and “claim 1 is directed to a system for generating a
`
`menu.” ID at 13. Rather than properly seeking to amend its claims to recite
`
`detailed synchronization requirements or sequencing of cascaded menus (as found
`
`in other claims), PO argues those elements are already present by construing the
`
`preamble of claim 1 contrary to the intrinsic evidence and cited authorities.
`
`1.
`
`PO’s own arguments require that the preamble is non-limiting.
`
`PO asserts that it has “adopt[ed] and accept[ed] all of the previous judicial
`
`constructions... and urges the Board to adopt them for this proceeding as well . . . .”
`
`POR at 28 (emphasis in original) (citing claim construction orders from Judge
`
`Everingham in Ameranth v. Menusoft and Judge Payne in Ameranth v. Par). PO
`
`also asserts
`
`that
`
`the
`
`term “information management and synchronous
`
`communications system,” which is found in the preambles of both claims 1 and 12,
`
`is limiting and cites Judge Everingham’s preamble construction in support. POR at
`
`34. However, Judges Everingham and Payne adopted inconsistent constructions of
`
`the preamble language. Judge Everingham did not address whether the preamble
`
`of claim 1 should be considered a limitation (Exhibit 2014 at 6-8) because, as PO
`
`admits, the parties in that case (none of which comprise Petitioner here) stipulated
`
`that the preamble should be considered a limitation. POR at 34. By contrast,
`
`Judge Payne determined that the preamble of claim 12 (which like claim 1 recites
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`“an information management and synchronous communications system”) was not
`
`limiting because: “Neither party has identified a single aspect of the preamble that
`
`is necessary to define the scope of the claims, or is not already captured as a
`
`limitation in the body of the claims.” Exhibit 2017 at 4-5. Should the Board
`
`accept PO’s adoption of all prior judicial constructions, the proper way to resolve
`
`this inconsistency under the BRI is to adopt the broader construction, namely, that
`
`the preamble is non-limiting. In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004)
`
`(“Absent claim language carrying a narrow meaning, the PTO should only limit the
`
`claim based on the specification or prosecution history when those sources
`
`expressly disclaim the broader definition.”).
`
`Judge Payne’s determination is also consistent with the rule that,
`
`“[g]enerally, the preamble does not limit the claims.” Allen Eng’g Corp. v. Bartell
`
`Indus., 299 F.3d 1336, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2002). For example, “a preamble is not
`
`limiting where a patentee defines a structurally complete invention in the claim
`
`body and uses the preamble only to state a purpose or intended use for the
`
`invention.” Catalina Mktg Int’l, Inc. v. Coolsavings.com, Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 808
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2002) (internal quotations omitted). As Judge Payne determined with
`
`respect to claim 12, the body of claim 1 defines a structurally complete invention.
`
`The preamble does not recite any structural components, and PO does not suggest
`
`otherwise. POR at 34-35. Nor does the preamble serve as the antecedent basis for
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`any terms recited in the body of the claim. See Catalina, 289 F.3d at 808. Instead,
`
`the preamble merely sets forth the purpose (“information management and
`
`synchronous communication”) and intended use (“for generating and transmitting
`
`menus”) of the claimed invention. See Exhibit 1066, U.S. Bancorp v. Retirement
`
`Capital Access Mgmt Co., CBM2013-00014, Paper 33, at 14-15 (P.T.A.B. August
`
`22, 2014) (finding “computerized method” in preamble to be a statement of
`
`intended use and thus not a meaningful claim limitation for Section 101 analysis).
`
`Moreover, when (as here) a patent applicant does not rely on preamble
`
`language to distinguish over the prior art, the preamble is generally not limiting.
`
`Catalina, 289 F.3d at 808-09; MPEP § 2111.02. And, contrary to PO’s contention
`
`(POR at 35), the Examiner did not rely on the preamble to distinguish prior art.
`
`Instead, the Examiner stated:
`
`Each independent claims 20 and 40 are identified [sic] the uniquely
`distinct features “a sub-modifier menu stored on data storage device
`and displayable in a window of graphical user interface, and
`application software for generating a second menu from first menu
`and transmitting second menu to a wireless handheld computing
`device or Web page.” [Exhibit 1035 at 7 (emphasis in original)].
`
`Because (1) the claim body defines a structurally complete invention, (2) the
`
`preamble merely recites the purpose and intended use of the invention, (3) there
`
`was no reliance on the preamble to distinguish prior art, and (4) the BRI requires
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`adoption of the broader non-limiting construction adopted by PO, PO’s arguments
`
`compel the conclusion that the preamble is not a limitation. See MPEP § 2111.02;
`
`see also Exhibit 1066 at 14-15.
`
`2.
`
`The BRI of the preamble cannot include limitations found only
`in other claims.
`
`The preamble of claim 12 of the ’850 patent, like the preamble of claim 1,
`
`recites “a synchronous communications system.” However, unlike claim 1, claim
`
`12 includes an express synchronization requirement: “wherein applications and
`
`data are synchronized between the central data base, at least one wireless
`
`handheld computing device, at least one Web server and at least one Web page.”
`
`Exhibit 1031 at 16:15-17 (emphasis added). This is exactly the requirement that
`
`PO is attempting to import into claim 1 via its interpretation of “synchronous
`
`communications system” in the preamble. POR at 32. However, because the “are
`
`synchronized” limitation is recited in claim 12 but not in claim 1, claim 1 cannot
`
`be construed as including it. See Kara Tech. Inc. v. Stamps.com, Inc., 582 F.3d
`
`1341, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Indeed, construing “synchronous communications
`
`system” in the preamble of claim 12 as requiring the “wherein” clause of claim 12
`
`would improperly render that wherein clause superfluous. See Elekta Instrument
`
`S.A. v. O.U.R. Scientific Int’l, Inc., 214 F.3d 1302, 1306-07 (Fed. Cir. 2000); see
`
`also Exhibit 1067 at 5, Ameranth, Inc. v. Par Tech. Corp., No. 2:10-CV-294, Dkt.
`
`No. 70 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 23, 2010) (wherein PO argued differences between claims
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`12 and 1 are “striking” and “easily discernable”).
`
`3.
`
`PO’s preamble construction is contrary to the intrinsic record.
`
`Even if the preamble were limiting, PO’s proposed construction is not
`
`supported by the intrinsic evidence. PO proposes a construction that requires a
`
`distributed system including both a “central server” and “client devices.” POR at
`
`32. Yet, nothing in the specification indicates that a “central server” or “client
`
`devices” are used to generate or transmit menus. PO’s construction would
`
`improperly exclude the preferred embodiment in which a “desktop PC” both
`
`generates menus and transmits them to handheld devices. Exhibit 1031 at 6:22-25
`
`(“desktop PC” used to generate and transmit menus “in conformance with the
`
`preferred embodiment”) and 8:45-59 (user selects “File>Download Database” on
`
`desktop PC to transmit menu to handheld device).
`
` PO’s Construction of “Central Processing Unit” Is Incorrect
`
`B.
`The claim term “central processing unit” in claim 1 should be afforded its
`
`plain and ordinary meaning, i.e., a “microprocessor.”
`
` The specification
`
`consistently uses the term in accordance with its plain meaning. See, e.g., Exhibit
`
`1031 at 5:37-39
`
`(“central processing unit
`
`(‘CPU’), e.g. a Pentium
`
`microprocessor”); 5:48-49. No intrinsic evidence offers any alternative definition
`
`of this common technical term. Accordingly, the BRI of “central processing unit”
`
`is a “microprocessor.” In re Am. Acad., 367 F.3d at 1364.
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`PO’s construction (“central server”) is inconsistent with the plain meaning
`
`and contrary to the specification. While PO contends that the term “cannot be
`
`construed as a broadly generic CPU” because this “would conflict with usage in
`
`the specification” (POR at 36), PO cites no intrinsic evidence showing an intent to
`
`redefine the term. Nor can it, as the specification consistently uses the term in
`
`accordance with its plain meaning by repeatedly equating it with a microprocessor.
`
`Exhibit 1031 at 5:37-39; 5:48-49. PO’s citation to Judge Everingham provides no
`
`support, as PO cites construction of a different claim term. POR at 35-36 (citing
`
`Exhibit 2014 at 8) (discussing “information management and synchronous
`
`communications system”). PO’s construction should, therefore, be rejected.
`
`III. CLAIMS 1-11 ARE NOT PATENTABLE UNDER SECTION 101
`The Board correctly determined that claims 1-11 are drawn to the patent-
`
`ineligible abstract idea of generating menus. Thus, the question remaining under
`
`the Mayo/Alice test is whether the claims contain an “inventive concept” sufficient
`
`to “transform” the abstract idea into a patent-eligible application of that concept.
`
`They do not, as explained below.
`
`A. Alice Did Not Merge Section 101 with Sections 102 and 103
`PO’s argument that the “inventive concept” prong of the Mayo/Alice test is
`
`about determining “novelty and nonobviousness” finds no basis in Alice. The sole
`
`alleged basis for PO’s argument is the following: “‘[A]pplication[s]’ of such
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`concepts ‘to a new and useful end,’ we have said, remain eligible for patent
`
`protection.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2354 (quoting Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63,
`
`67 (1972)). The use of the phrase “new and useful” in Alice and Benson is nothing
`
`remarkable: that phrase comes straight out of § 101 itself. Thus, PO’s repeated
`
`attempts to equate this phrase with “novelty and nonobviousness”—thereby
`
`merging § 101 with §§ 102 and 103—are misplaced. See, e.g., POR at 2-3, 21-22,
`
`27, 42, 54. Indeed, Mayo explicitly states that § 101 cannot be merged with §§
`
`102 and 103. Mayo v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289, 1303-04 (2012)
`
`(“declin[ing] the Government’s invitation to substitute §§ 102, 103, and 112
`
`inquiries for the better established inquiry under § 101”).
`
`Instead, the “inventive concept” prong asks whether the “additional
`
`elements” of the claim, beyond the abstract idea, provide an inventive concept.
`
`Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355. “[M]erely requiring generic computer implementation
`
`fails to transform [an] abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.” Id. at 2352.
`
`Even if Alice did—and it does not—endorse a § 103 obviousness analysis as
`
`part of the § 101 analysis, the claims are not novel and nonobvious, as determined
`
`by the jury for claims 1 and 4 in the Menusoft action. Exhibit 1006 at 2. In
`
`addition, the Patent Office required amendment of claims in related applications to
`
`include additional requirements not found in claims 1-11. See Exhibit 1009, ’077
`
`Patent Notice of Allowability at 5, 11, 14, 17. Finally, to the extent secondary
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`considerations are even relevant to patent eligibility under § 101 (POR at 18-21),
`
`PO failed to establish the required nexus between those secondary considerations
`
`and the limitations of claims 1-11, particularly in view of PO’s erroneous claim
`
`constructions and the Patent Office’s prior determinations.
`
`The Claims Do Not Include an Inventive Concept
`
`B.
`Claims 1-11 lack an “inventive concept” because they merely broadly recite
`
`the abstract idea of menu generation and nothing more. PO incorrectly contends
`
`that the claims include meaningful limitations that the Board overlooked, but PO
`
`relies primarily on limitations that are irrelevant to patent eligibility because they
`
`are not in the claims at all. See, e.g., Accenture Global Servs., GmbH v. Guidewire
`
`Software, Inc., 728 F.3d 1336, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2013). For instance, PO repeatedly
`
`contends that the claims are directed to a “continuously synchronous” system that
`
`“maintains synchronization” and “maintains equilibrium” between the claimed
`
`devices, but there are no such limitations in the claims or even in PO’s proposed
`
`constructions, including the preamble. POR at 9, 11, 16, 25, 26, 53, 61, 64.
`
`Moreover, even assuming the preamble is limiting, it does not recite any
`
`meaningful limitation that would provide the necessary “inventive concept.” The
`
`preamble phrase “information management and synchronous communication
`
`system” is not linked to any of the other claim limitations and fails to refer to any
`
`specific computer system, and thus it is, at best, merely a generic reference to
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`conventional computer technology. As stated in Alice, “the mere recitation of a
`
`generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-
`
`eligible invention.” 134 S. Ct. at 2358. In any event, wirelessly synchronizing
`
`handheld computers was not novel. See Exhibit 1073, Euro. Pat. Pub. No.
`
`EP0917077A2 at Abstract (discussing use of wireless communication paths such
`
`as cellular networks for synchronizing data files between a PC and a PDA); Exhibit
`
`1074, U.S. Patent No. 5,974,238 at 3:26-52 (discussing wireless synchronization
`
`between handheld and host computers).
`
`Likewise, PO contends that the claims are limited to customized display
`
`layouts for various sized handheld devices, pointing to disclosures in the
`
`specification. POR at 14-16, 27, 49. However, unlike the claims of the ’077
`
`patent (which the Board found to be patent eligible), claims 1-11 do not require
`
`customized layouts. One limitation that PO relies on that actually appears in the
`
`claims is “wireless handheld computing device.” POR at 10, 54, 62, 73. But as
`
`PO argued, such a device need not be present to practice the claims:
`
`Judge Everingham’s construction of claim 1 indisputably does not
`require a wireless handheld computing device or any third-party
`action: “The court construes this term . . . to mean ‘application
`software, which is capable of transmitting to both wireless handheld
`computing devices and Web pages . . . .’” [Exhibit 1068 at 4,
`Ameranth, Inc. v. Fandango, Inc., No. 3:12-CV-1651, Dkt. No. 23
`(S.D. Cal. Nov. 8, 2012) (emphasis in original)].
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`A recent post-Alice case is instructive here. In DietGoal Innovations LLC v.
`
`Bravo Media LLC, the claims were directed to computerized meal planning, and
`
`recited, for example, “a User Interface,” “a Database of food objects organizable
`
`into meals,” and “Picture Menus.” No. 13-cv-8391, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 92484,
`
`at *4-5 (S.D.N.Y. July 8, 2014). Applying Alice and Bilski, the court found the
`
`claims were directed to the “abstract concept of selecting meals for the day,
`
`according to one’s particular dietary goals and food preferences” (id. at *30-31),
`
`which is very similar to the abstract idea at the heart of PO’s claims—generating
`
`menus. The court found that the claimed concept of meal-planning is at least as
`
`“long prevalent” “as the economic practices of risk-hedging (invalidated in Bilski)
`
`and intermediated settlement (invalidated in Alice).” Id. at *31. This same
`
`reasoning applies to generating menus. The ’850 Patent “merely ‘provides a new
`
`and presumably better method’” for generating menus. Id. at *34 (quoting Parker
`
`v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 594 (1978)). “This is not the kind of ‘discover[y]’ that §
`
`101 was designed to protect.” Id. (citing Flook, 437 U.S. at 593; Cybersource
`
`Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2011)). Indeed, the
`
`specification confirms the lack of an inventive concept. As the Board recognized:
`
`The specification, itself, describes that CPUs, data storage devices,
`and operating systems are typical hardware elements. Ex. 1031, 5:33-
`55; 5:64-6:8. The specification describes that Windows CE®, which
`the present invention utilizes, provides a basic set of database and
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`communication tools. Ex. 1031, 10:63-11:10. The specification
`describes that GUI’s that display menus from which records can be
`created, deleted, modified, or arranged are conventional. Ex. 1031,
`4:59-5:32; 5:55-6:63. [ID at 22-23 (emphasis added)].
`
`Furthermore, PO’s argument that “such programming is not trivial” (POR at
`
`10) is belied by the specification, which expressly states: “[t]he software
`
`applications for performing the functions falling within the described invention can
`
`be written in any commonly used computer language. The discrete programming
`
`steps are commonly known and thus programming details are not necessary . . . .”
`
`Exhibit 1031 at 11:43-47 (emphases added). The specification does not disclose
`
`any algorithm, flowchart, or diagram identifying special programming steps. Even
`
`the function of synchronizing data on a wireless handheld device (which is not a
`
`claim limitation) relied on by PO as an allegedly inventive feature (see, e.g., POR
`
`at 54) is described as a “built-in” feature of the Windows CE operating system.
`
`Exhibit 1031 at 10:65-11:3; see also Exhibit 1072, “Microsoft Introduces Palm PC,
`
`PC Companion Powered by Windows CE 2.0” at 1.
`
`Thus, each of PO’s claims “does no more than require a generic computer to
`
`perform generic computer functions.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2359; see also Exhibit
`
`1066 at 18 (canceling claims under Section 101 because “the use of a computer in
`
`a generalized fashion to increase efficiency does not meaningfully limit an
`
`otherwise abstract claim”). Additionally, when viewed as a whole, the computer
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`
`components of PO’s claims do not add anything patentable that is not already
`
`present when the elements are considered separately. Claim 1 does not, for
`
`example, purport to improve the functioning of the computer itself or effect an
`
`improvement in any other technology or technical field. See, e.g., Alice, 134 S. Ct.
`
`at 2359. Indeed, the Board has already found that claim 1 “does not recite a
`
`technical solution to a technical problem.” ID at 14.
`
`C. The Dependent Claims Do Not Add Any Meaningful Limitations
`PO contends the dependent claims add further meaningful limitations. For
`
`instance, PO contends that claim 3 adds a requirement that the second menu be
`
`displayed on a wireless device. However, as with claim 1, claim 3 does not require
`
`any actual display on a wireless device; it simply requires that the menu be
`
`“capable” of being displayed on a wireless device. Moreover , PO’s assertion that
`
`the recitation of “a wireless computing device” in claim 3 refers to a “wireless
`
`handheld computing device” as recited claim 1 (POR at 74) is clear error. Claim 3
`
`does not recite “handheld,” and claim 3 cannot be rewritten to include this element.
`
`Allen Eng’g, 299 F.3d at 1349. Moreover, if the wireless device of claim 3 were a
`
`reference to the wireless handheld device of claim 1, claim 3 would have used the
`
`definite article “the” rather than reciting “a wireless computing device.”
`
`PO also argues that alleged functions in claims 8 (“overwrite” function) and
`
`10 (“preview” function) require a “back office” or “back end computer” to perform
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`
`processing. However, the claims do not recite a back office or back end computer.
`
`PO’s contention is based upon its erroneous construction of CPU to mean “central
`
`server” (i.e. back end server) and should be rejected for the reasons set forth above.
`
`And, the supposedly novel “preview” functionality of claim 10 was a conventional
`
`feature of the software used to develop Windows CE applications. See, e.g.,
`
`Exhibit 1069, Roof, Professional Visual Basic Windows CE Programming (Wrox
`
`Press Ltd. 1998) at 43 (“The Windows CE emulator is an application that runs on
`
`your desktop machines and emulates an operating CE machine . . . . The CE
`
`emulator is for all practical purposes a functional CE machine sitting on your
`
`desktop.”); Exhibit 1070, Shepherd and Wingo, “Visual Programmer,” Microsoft
`
`Sys. J., Vol. 13, No. 5, at 97 (Feb. 1998) (discussing emulator).
`
`Finally, PO contends claim 11 adds a meaningful limitation that the second
`
`menu be a subset of the first. But, there is no reason that limitation could not be
`
`performed with a pen and paper, and therefore it does not transform the claim into
`
`patent-eligible subject matter. Cybersource, 654 F.3d at 1372; Bancorp, 687 F.3d
`
`at 1279 (finding claims patent-ineligible where recited computer “simply performs
`
`more efficiently what could otherwise be accomplished manually”).
`
`IV. CONCLUSION
`For the reasons set forth above and in the Petition, claims 1-11 of the ’850
`
`Patent are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and should be cancelled.
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: September 18, 2014
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/s/ Richard S. Zembek
`Richard S. Zembek
`Reg. No. 43,306
`FULBRIGHT & JAWORSKI L.L.P.
`1301 McKinney, Suite 5100
`Houston, Texas 77010
`Tel: 713-651-5151
`Fax: 713-651-5246
`richard.zembek@nortonrosefulbright.com
`
`Gilbert A. Greene
`Reg. No. 48,366
`FULBRIGHT & JAWORSKI LLP
`98 San Jacinto Boulevard, Suite 1100
`Austin, TX 78701
`Tel: 512.474.5201
`Fax: 512.536.4598
`bert.greene@nortonrosefulbright.com
`
`Attorneys for Petitioner
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`
`
`I hereby certify that on September 18, 2014, the foregoing Petitioner’s
`
`Reply Brief was served was served by electronic mail upon the following lead and
`
`backup counsel of record for Patent Owner Ameranth, Inc.:
`
`John W. Osborne
`
`josborne@osborneipl.com
`
`Michael D. Fabiano
`
`mdfabiano@fabianolawfirm.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Richard S. Zembek
`Richard S. Zembek
`Reg. No. 43,306
`
`17
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
