`Filed October 21, 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 CBM2014-00016
`Patent 6,871,325 B1
`_____________
`
`Before JAMESON LEE, MEREDITH C. PETRAVICK, and
`STACEY G. WHITE, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`PETITIONER’S FILING OF DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBITS IN
`ACCORDANCE WITH 37 C.F.R. § 42.70(b)
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner hereby respectfully submits its demonstrative exhibits pursuant to
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.70(b) and the Order Trial Hearing dated October 6, 2014 (Paper
`
`
`
`29).
`
`Dated: October 21, 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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CBM2014-00013 Apple, Inc., et al. v. Ameranth, Inc.
`CBM2014-00015 Agilysys, Inc., et al. v. Ameranth, Inc.
`CBM2014-00016 Agilysys, Inc., et al. v. Ameranth, Inc.
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 6,982,733
`U.S. Pat. No. 6,384,850
`U.S. Pat. No. 6,871,325
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstratives
`
`Consolidated Oral Argument
`October 24, 2014
`
`
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`Procedural History
`’733 Patent (CBM2014-00013)
`– Petition challenged claims 1-16 under 35 U.S.C. §§ 101 and 112.
`– Trial instituted on claims 1-16 under § 101.
`
`’850 Patent (CBM2014-00015)
`– Petition challenged claims 1-16 under 35 U.S.C. §§ 101 and 112.
`– Trial instituted on claims 1-11 (“generating menus”) under § 101.
`– Trial not instituted on claims 12-16 (“application and data synchronization”).
`
`’325 Patent (CBM2014-00016)
`– Petition challenged claims 1-15 under 35 U.S.C. §§ 101 and 112.
`– Trial instituted on claims 1-10 (“generating menus”) under § 101.
`– Trial not instituted on claims 11-15 (“application and data synchronization”).
`
`CBM2014-00013, Paper 23 at 2-3
`CBM2014-00015, Paper 20 at 2-3, 22, 24
`CBM2014-00016, Paper 19 at 2-3, 22-23, 25
`
`2
`
`
`
`Claim 1 of ’733 Patent
`
`An information management and synchronous communications system for generating and
`transmitting menus comprising:
`a. a central processing unit,
`b. a data storage device connected to said central processing unit,
`c. an operating system including a graphical user interface,
`d. a first menu consisting of menu categories, said menu categories consisting of menu
`items, said first menu stored on said data storage device and displayable in a window
`of said graphical user interface in a hierarchical tree format,
`e. a modifier menu stored on said data storage device and displayable in a window of
`said graphical user interface,
`f. a sub-modifier menu stored on said data storage device and displayable in a window
`of said graphical user interface, and
`g. application software for generating a second menu from said first menu and
`transmitting said second menu to a wireless handheld computing device or Web page,
`wherein the application software facilitates the generation of the second menu by
`allowing selection of categories and items from the first menu, addition of menu
`categories to the second menu, addition of menu items to the second menu and
`assignment of parameters to items in the second menu using the graphical user
`interface of said operating system, said parameters being selected from the modifier
`and sub-modifier menus, wherein said second menu is manually modified after
`generation.
`
`CBM2014-00013, Exhibit 1033 at 15:60-16:25
`
`3
`
`
`
`Claim 1 of ’850 Patent
`
`An information management and synchronous communications system for generating and
`transmitting menus comprising:
`a. a central processing unit,
`b. a data storage device connected to said central processing unit,
`c. an operating system including a graphical user interface,
`d. a first menu consisting of menu categories, said menu categories consisting of menu
`items, said first menu stored on said data storage device and displayable in a window
`of said graphical user interface in a hierarchical tree format,
`e. a modifier menu stored on said data storage device and displayable in a window of
`said graphical user interface,
`f. a sub-modifier menu stored on said data storage device and displayable in a window
`of said graphical user interface, and
`g. application software for generating a second menu from said first menu and
`transmitting said second menu to a wireless handheld computing device or Web page,
`wherein the application software facilitates the generation of the second menu by
`allowing selection of categories and items from the first menu, addition of menu
`categories to the second menu, addition of menu items to the second menu and
`assignment of parameters to items in the second menu using the graphical user
`interface of said operating system, said parameters being selected from the modifier
`and sub-modifier menus.
`
`CBM2014-00015, Exhibit 1031 at 14:48-15:11
`
`4
`
`
`
`Claim 1 of ’325 Patent
`
`An information management and synchronous communications system for generating and
`transmitting menus comprising:
`a. a central processing unit,
`b. a data storage device connected to said central processing unit,
`c. an operating system including a graphical user interface,
`d. a first menu consisting of menu categories, said menu categories consisting of menu
`items, said first menu stored on said data storage device and displayable in a window
`of said graphical user interface in a hierarchical tree format,
`e. a modifier menu stored on said data storage device and displayable in a window of
`said graphical user interface,
`f. a sub-modifier menu stored on said data storage device and displayable in a window
`of said graphical user interface, and
`g. application software for generating a second menu from said first menu and
`transmitting said second menu to a wireless handheld computing device or Web page.
`wherein the application software facilitates the generation of the second menu by
`allowing selection of categories and items from the first menu, addition of menu
`categories to the second menu, addition of menu items to the second menu and
`assignment of parameters to items in the second menu using the graphical user
`interface of said operating system, said parameters being selected from the modifier
`and sub-modifier menus, wherein said second menu to applicable to a predetermined
`type of ordering.
`
`CBM2014-00016, Exhibit 1032 at 14:60-15:24
`
`5
`
`
`
`The Preamble Is Not a Limitation
`
`From Patent Owner’s Response:
`
`CBM2014-00013, Paper 29 at 36; Paper 30 at 3-4
`CBM2014-00015, Paper 27 at 34; Paper 28 at 3
`CBM2014-00016, Paper 26 at 35; Paper 27 at 3-4
`
`6
`
`
`
`The Preamble Is Not a Limitation (contd.)
`
`From Court’s Construction in Ameranth v. Par:
`
`CBM2014-00013, Exhibit 2017 at 4; Paper 30 at 4
`CBM2014-00015, Exhibit 2017 at 4; Paper 28 at 3-4
`CBM2014-00016, Exhibit 2017 at 4; Paper 27 at 4
`
`7
`
`
`
`The Preamble Is Not a Limitation (contd.)
`
`Claim 12 of the
`’850 Patent
`(not instituted):
`
`CBM2014-00015, Exhibit 1031 at 16:15-17;
`Paper 28 at 6
`
`8
`
`
`
`The Preamble Is Not a Limitation (contd.)
`
`From Patent Owner’s briefing in Ameranth v. Par:
`
`CBM2014-00015, Exhibit 1067 at 4-5; Paper 28 at 6-7
`CBM2014-00016, Exhibit 1067 at 4-5; Paper 27 at 7
`
`9
`
`
`
`“Central Processing Unit”
`Is a Microprocessor
`From the ’733, ’850, and ’325 specifications:
`
`CBM2014-00013, Exhibit 1033 at 6:52-54; Paper 30 at 7
`CBM2014-00015, Exhibit 1031 at 5:37-39; Paper 28 at 7
`CBM2014-00016, Exhibit 1032 at 5:43-45; Paper 27 at 7-8
`
`10
`
`
`
`Alice v. CLS Bank
`When patent claims are directed to an abstract
`idea, “we consider the elements of each claim
`both individually and as an ordered combination
`to determine whether the additional elements
`transform the nature of the claim into a patent-
`eligible application. We have described step
`two of this analysis as a search for an inventive
`concept . . . .”
`134 S. Ct. at 2355 (internal citations and quotations omitted)
`
`CBM2014-00013, Paper 30 at 1, 9
`CBM2014-00015, Paper 28 at 1, 9
`CBM2014-00016, Paper 27 at 1, 9
`
`11
`
`
`
`§ 101 vs. §§ 102/103
`“Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful
`process, machine, manufacture, or composition of
`matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof,
`may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions
`and requirements of this title.”
`35 U.S.C. § 101
`
`“These considerations lead us to decline the
`Government’s invitation to substitute §§ 102, 103, and
`112 inquiries for the better established inquiry under
`§ 101.”
`Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1304
`
`CBM2014-00013, Paper 30 at 8
`CBM2014-00015, Paper 28 at 8-9
`CBM2014-00016, Paper 27 at 9
`
`12
`
`
`
`The Instituted Claims are
`Directed to an Abstract Idea
`From the ’850 and ’325 Institution Decisions:
`
`CBM2014-00015, Paper 20 at 13, 23
`CBM2014-00016, Paper 19 at 13-14, 24
`
`13
`
`
`
`The Instituted Claims are
`Directed to an Abstract Idea (contd.)
`From the ’733 Institution Decision:
`
`CBM2014-00013, Paper 23 at 28
`
`14
`
`
`
`The Instituted Claims are
`Directed to an Abstract Idea (contd.)
`From the ’733, ’850, and ’325 specifications:
`
`CBM2014-00013, Exhibit 1033 at 1:25-31, 3:39-43; Paper 8 at 52, 54
`CBM2014-00015, Exhibit 1031 at 1:18-24, 3:31-35; Paper 9 at 59-60, 61-62
`CBM2014-00016, Exhibit 1032 at 1:23-29, 3:36-40; Paper 8 at 62, 64
`
`15
`
`
`
`The Instituted Claims are
`Directed to an Abstract Idea (contd.)
`From the ’733, ’850, and ’325 specifications:
`
`CBM2014-00013, Exhibit 1033 at 14:53-55, 15:31-34, 15:43-45
`CBM2014-00015, Exhibit 1031 at 13:37-39, 14:18-21, 14:30-32
`CBM2014-00016, Exhibit 1032 at 13:50-52, 14:30-33, 14:42-44
`
`16
`
`
`
`The Instituted Claims Lack
`an Inventive Concept
`• “[T]he mere recitation of a generic computer cannot
`transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a
`patent-eligible invention.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358.
`
`• “Taking the claim elements separately, the function
`performed by the computer at each step of the
`process is ‘[p]urely conventional.’ . . . In short, each
`step does no more than require a generic computer
`to perform generic computer functions.” Alice, 134
`S. Ct. at 2359 (quoting Mayo).
`
`CBM2014-00013, Paper 30 at 10, 14
`CBM2014-00015, Paper 28 at 11, 13
`CBM2014-00016, Paper 27 at 11, 13
`
`17
`
`
`
`The Instituted Claims Lack
`an Inventive Concept (contd.)
`From the ’733, ’850, and ’325 specifications:
`
`CBM2014-00013, Exhibit 1033 at 6:47-52, 6:63-67; Paper 30 at 13
`CBM2014-00015, Exhibit 1031 at 5:34-38, 5:48-52; Paper 28 at 12
`CBM2014-00016, Exhibit 1032 at 5:39-43, 5:54-58; Paper 27 at 13
`
`18
`
`
`
`The Instituted Claims Lack
`an Inventive Concept (contd.)
`From the ’733, ’850, and ’325 specifications:
`
`CBM2014-00013, Exhibit 1033 at 12:60-65; Paper 30 at 13
`CBM2014-00015, Exhibit 1031 at 11:43-48; Paper 28 at 13
`CBM2014-00016, Exhibit 1032 at 11:56-61; Paper 27 at 13
`
`19
`
`
`
`The Instituted Claims Lack
`an Inventive Concept (contd.)
`From the ’733, ’850, and ’325 specifications:
`
`CBM2014-00013, Exhibit 1033 at 12:13-20; Paper 30 at 13
`CBM2014-00015, Exhibit 1031 at 10:63-11:3; Paper 28 at 13
`CBM2014-00016, Exhibit 1032 at 11:9-16; Paper 27 at 14
`
`20
`
`
`
`“Customizing Display Layouts” Is Not
`an Element of the Instituted Claims
`From Patent Owner’s Response for ’850 Patent:
`
`CBM2014-00013, Paper 29 at 49
`CBM2014-00015, Paper 27 at 49
`CBM2014-00016, Paper 26 at 49-50
`
`21
`
`
`
`“Customizing Display Layouts” Is Not
`an Element of the Instituted Claims (contd.)
`From Petitioner’s Reply for ’850 Patent:
`
`CBM2014-00013, Paper 30 at 10
`CBM2014-00015, Paper 28 at 11
`CBM2014-00016, Paper 27 at 11
`
`22
`
`
`
`“Customizing Display Layouts” Is Not
`an Element of the Instituted Claims (contd.)
`Claim 1 of the
`’077 Patent
`(not instituted):
`
`CBM2014-00016, Exhibit 1001 at 15:56-16:61
`CBM2014-00013, Paper 30 at 10
`CBM2014-00015, Paper 28 at 11
`CBM2014-00016, Paper 27 at 11
`
`23
`
`
`
`“Manually Modified” Does Not
`Provide an Inventive Concept
`Claim 1 of the
`’733 Patent:
`
`CBM2014-00013, Exhibit 1033 at 15:60-16:25
`
`24
`
`
`
`“Manually Modified” Does Not
`Provide an Inventive Concept (contd.)
`“The claims merely employ computers to track, reconcile,
`and administer a life insurance policy with a stable value
`component--i.e., the computer simply performs more
`efficiently what could otherwise be accomplished
`manually.”
`Bancorp, 687 F.3d at 1279
`
`“‘Simply appending conventional steps, specified at a
`high level of generality,’ was not ‘enough’ to ‘supply an
`inventive concept.’”
`Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2357 (emph. in orig. and int. cit. omitted)
`CBM2014-00013, Paper 30 at 11
`
`25
`
`
`
`“Manually Modified” Does Not
`Provide an Inventive Concept (contd.)
`From U.S. Pat. No.
`4,972,496
`(issued 20 years
`before ’733 Patent):
`
`CBM2014-00013, Exhibit 1071
`CBM2014-00013, Paper 30 at 11-12
`
`26
`
`
`
`“Manually Modified” Does Not
`Provide an Inventive Concept (contd.)
`From U.S. Pat. No.
`4,972,496
`(issued 20 years
`before ’733 Patent):
`
`CBM2014-00013, Exhibit 1071 at Fig. 12C
`CBM2014-00013, Paper 30 at 11-12
`
`27
`
`
`
`The Claim as a Whole
`Does Not Solve a Technical Problem
`“Considered as an ordered combination these
`computer components add nothing that is not al-
`ready present when the steps are considered
`separately. Viewed as a whole, these method
`claims simply recite the concept of intermediated
`settlement as performed by a generic computer.
`They do not, for example, purport to improve the
`functioning of the computer itself or effect an
`improvement in any other technology or technical
`field.”
`
`Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2359 (internal citations and quotations omitted)
`
`CBM2014-00013, Paper 30 at 14
`CBM2014-00015, Paper 28 at 13-14
`CBM2014-00016, Paper 27 at 14
`
`28
`
`
`
`The Dependent Claims Do Not
`Provide an Inventive Concept
`“The claims merely employ computers to track,
`reconcile, and administer a life insurance policy with a
`stable value component--i.e., the computer simply
`performs more efficiently what could otherwise be
`accomplished manually.”
`Bancorp, 687 F.3d at 1279
`
`“The notion that post-solution activity, no matter how
`conventional or obvious in itself, can transform an
`unpatentable principle into a patentable process exalts
`form over substance.”
`Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. at 590
`
`CBM2014-00013, Paper 30 at 15
`CBM2014-00015, Paper 28 at 15
`CBM2014-00016, Paper 27 at 15
`
`29
`
`
`
`The “Preview” Functionality
`Does Not Provide an Inventive Concept
`From Patent Owner’s Response for ’850 Patent:
`
`CBM2014-00015, Paper 27 at 6
`
`30
`
`
`
`The “Preview” Functionality
`Does Not Provide an Inventive Concept (contd.)
`
`Claim 10 of the
`’850 Patent:
`
`CBM2014-00015, Exhibit 1031 at 15:41-44; Paper 27 at 6
`
`31
`
`
`
`The “Preview” Functionality
`Does Not Provide an Inventive Concept (contd.)
`From “Professional Visual Basic Windows CE
`Programming” (1998):
`
`CBM2014-00015, Exhibit 1069 at 43; Paper 28 at 15
`
`32
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`
`
`I hereby certify that on October 21, 2014, the foregoing Petitioner’s Filing
`
`of Demonstrative Exhibits 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