`CBM2015-00082
`
`Filed on behalf of Patent Owner Ameranth, Inc.
`
`By:
`
`John W. Osborne
`Osborne Law LLC
`33 Habitat Lane
`Cortlandt Manor, NY 10567
`josborne@osborneipl.com
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`APPLE, INC., EVENTBRITE INC., STARWOOD HOTELS & RESORTS
`WORLDWIDE, INC., EXPEDIA, INC., FANDANGO, LLC,
`HOTELS.COM, L.P., HOTEL TONIGHT, INC., HOTWIRE, INC.,
`KAYAK SOFTWARE CORP., OPENTABLE, INC., ORBITZ, LLC, PAPA
`JOHN’S USA, INC., STUBHUB, INC., TICKETMASTER, LLC, LIVE
`NATION ENTERTAINMENT, INC., TRAVELOCITY.COM LP,
`WANDERSPOT LLC, AGILYSYS, INC., DOMINO’S PIZZA, INC.,
`DOMINO’S PIZZA, LLC, HILTON RESORTS CORPORATION,
`HILTON WORLDWIDE, INC., HILTON INTERNATIONAL CO., MOBO
`SYSTEMS, INC., PIZZA HUT OF AMERICA, INC., PIZZA HUT, INC.,
`and USABLENET, INC.,
`Petitioner
`v.
`AMERANTH, INC.
`Patent Owner
`____________
`
`Cases CBM2015-00080, CBM2015-000821
`Patent Nos. 6,384,850, 6,871,325
`____________
`
`Declaration of Alfred C. Weaver, Ph.D.
`
`1CBM2015-00096 and CBM2015-00097 were consolidated with CBM2015-00080 and
`CBM2015-00082, respectively.
`
`PATENT OWNER EXHIBIT 2019
`
`
`
`CBM2015-00080
`CBM2015-00082
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`1.
`Apple, Inc. and the co-petitioners and joined petitioners in the above
`
`identified proceedings (collectively referred to herein as “Apple” or “Petitioner”) seek
`
`to invalidate the claims of U.S. Patent Numbers 6,384,850 (the “‘850 Patent”) and
`
`6,871,325 (the “‘325 Patent”) (collectively, the “Patents Under Review”). Apple filed a
`
`Petition for Covered Business Method (“CBM”) Patent Review, and an accompanying
`
`declaration from Dr. Don Turnbull in support, for each of these patents. This
`
`declaration represents my opinions with respect to the substance of the CBM filings
`
`and Dr. Turnbull’s declarations.
`
`II. Qualifications
`2.
`My educational background, professional achievements, and
`
`qualifications as a Computer Scientist and as an expert in Electronic Commerce are
`
`detailed in my curriculum vitae, which is attached hereto as Appendix A.
`
`3.
`
`I earned a Ph.D. in Computer Science at the University of Illinois at
`
`Urbana-Champaign in 1976. I also earned a Master of Science degree from that same
`
`institution in 1973. I earned a Bachelor of Science in Engineering Science from the
`
`University of Tennessee in 1971.
`
`4.
`
`I am currently a Professor of Computer Science and Associate Chair of
`
`the Department of Computer Science at the University of Virginia (“UVa”). I have
`
`been employed at UVa continuously since 1977.
`
`5.
`
`Over the period of my employment at UVa I have taught more than 25
`
`different courses, including electronic commerce, operating systems, computer
`
`networks, and various programming courses.
`
`PATENT OWNER EXHIBIT 2019
`
`
`
`CBM2015-00080
`CBM2015-00082
`In addition to my teaching duties, I am also the Founding Director of
`
`6.
`
`UVa’s Applied Research Institute, a group of faculty engaged in research areas related
`
`to national security and funded by both government and industry. To date, I have
`
`published 16 books and book chapters, 30 refereed journal articles, 139 refereed
`
`conference publications, and over 80 technical reports. I currently serve on the
`
`Advisory Council of the Editorial Board of IEEE Computer magazine.
`
`7.
`
`As a researcher, I have served as Principal Investigator or co-Principal
`
`Investigator of 130+ research projects funded by the federal government and private
`
`industry. Recent research projects include 3D printing, automated analysis of
`
`published scientific literature, secure mobile computing, crowd sourcing, data
`
`integrity, and trustworthy computing.
`
`8.
`
`I have been the graduate advisor for 69 Ph.D. and master’s students, all in
`
`Computer Science.
`
`9.
`
`I have founded five companies. One of these, Network Xpress, Inc., was a
`
`spin-off from research work in computer networks funded by the U. S. Navy at UVa.
`
`At its peak, another company (Reliacast, Inc.) employed 90 people and developed
`
`software for secure streaming of multimedia. Reliacast was ultimately sold to Comcast.
`
`10.
`
`I have served as an expert witness in 20+ patent infringement cases since
`
`1988. Six of those cases have gone to trial. In the past four years I have testified in
`
`court in two cases:
`VT Technologies v. Twitter, U.S. District Court, Eastern Virginia
`(Norfolk). I testified on behalf of defendant Twitter.
`
`ePlus, Inc. v. Lawson Software, U.S. District Court, Eastern Virginia
`(Richmond). I testified on behalf of plaintiff ePlus.
`
`PATENT OWNER EXHIBIT 2019
`
`
`
`CBM2015-00080
`CBM2015-00082
`
`III. Report Preparation
`11.
`In developing the opinions discussed in this report, I studied the ‘850
`
`Patent and the ‘325 Patent, the prosecution file histories for each of these patents, the
`
`references cited by Starbucks in the CBM reviews, Apple’s Petitions, Dr. Turnbull’s
`
`declaration, and the Board’s Decisions Instituting CBM review.
`
`12. A list of the materials on which I have relied while producing this
`
`Declaration is attached in Appendix B.
`
`13. My opinions are based on the materials I have reviewed. If Petitioner
`
`introduces new evidence or supporting material, I reserve the right to supplement this
`
`report if necessary based on the new information.
`
`IV. Applicable Legal Principles
`14.
`I am not an attorney. For the purposes of this report, I have been informed
`
`about certain aspects of the law that are relevant to my analysis and opinion. In
`
`formulating my opinions, I have taken into account the following principles of law
`
`regarding patent invalidity, which I understand to be accurate statements of the law.
`
`15.
`
`I understand that if the claimed invention is not anticipated by the prior
`
`art, the claim could still be invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because the difference
`
`between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are such that the subject matter as
`
`a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to one of
`
`ordinary skill in the relevant art. I understand that one of ordinary skill is presumed to
`
`have familiarity with analogous prior art in the relevant field of invention.
`
`16. Regarding my obviousness analysis, my instructions were to consider the
`
`following: (a) the scope and content of the prior art; (b) the differences between the
`
`PATENT OWNER EXHIBIT 2019
`
`
`
`CBM2015-00080
`CBM2015-00082
`prior art and the subject matter of the claimed invention; and (c) the level of ordinary
`
`skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention. I understand that the objective
`
`indicia of non-obviousness (or secondary considerations of non-obviousness) should
`
`also be considered before any determination of obviousness is made.
`
`17.
`
`I have also been informed that a claimed invention composed of several
`
`elements is not proved obvious merely be demonstrating that each of its elements was,
`
`independently, known in the prior art. I understand that when determining invalidity
`
`for obviousness there must be some rational underpinning to support the legal
`
`conclusion of obviousness, including an explicit reason or motivation to combine
`
`references to arrive at the claimed invention. I also understand that a finding of
`
`obviousness can be grounded in common sense, but that even then, the finding must
`
`contain explicit and clear reasoning providing some rational underpinning of why
`
`common sense compels a finding of obviousness. I understand that I should consider
`
`whether there is an “apparent reason” to combine the prior art references or elements
`
`in the way the patent claims. To determine whether the existence of such an “apparent
`
`reason” exists to combine the prior art references or elements in the way a patent
`
`claims, it will often be necessary to look to the interrelated teaching of multiple
`
`patents, to the effects of demands known to the design community or present in the
`
`marketplace, and to the background knowledge possessed by a person having ordinary
`
`skill in the art.
`
`18.
`
`I understand that evidence of secondary considerations supporting non-
`
`obviousness can be used to rebut a finding of obviousness. I also understand that a
`
`combination of references that does not result in each and every limitation of the
`
`PATENT OWNER EXHIBIT 2019
`
`
`
`CBM2015-00080
`CBM2015-00082
`claimed invention, references that teach away from one another (and hence, contravene
`
`the reasoning for the combination thereof), and reliance on impermissible hindsight in
`
`constructing a combination of references can each be determinative of a finding of
`
`non-obviousness.
`
`19.
`
`In addition, for objective indicia of non-obviousness to be accorded
`
`substantial weight, its proponent must establish a nexus between the evidence and the
`
`merits of the claimed invention. Where the offered objective indicia actually results
`
`from something other than what is both claimed and novel in the claim, there is no
`
`nexus to the merits of the claimed invention.
`
`20.
`
`I also understand that if an independent claim is not obvious, then its
`
`dependent claims are also not obvious.
`
`V.
`
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`21. My opinions have been made from the standpoint of a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art (“POSA”). A POSA at the time the patents under review were filed
`
`would have had a Bachelor of Science degree in either electrical engineering or
`
`computer science and at least three years of experience in the hospitality market in the
`
`fields of developing software for wireless networks and devices, developing Internet-
`
`based systems or applications, with knowledge of or equivalent experience in software
`
`development in the hospitality market for at least three years.
`
`VI. The Patents Under Review
`22.
`The ‘850 and ‘325 Patents are related. The ‘325 Patent claims priority as
`
`a continuation from the application from which the ‘850 Patent issued, which original
`
`application was filed on September 21, 1999. The ‘850 and ‘325 Patents have an
`
`PATENT OWNER EXHIBIT 2019
`
`
`
`CBM2015-00080
`CBM2015-00082
`identical specification. Even though my summary below references the ‘850 Patent, it
`
`is equally applicable to the ‘325 Patent. Also, as the independent claims of the ‘325
`
`Patent include all elements recited in ‘850 independent claim 12, all of my references
`
`to ‘850 claim 12 apply equally to ‘325 claims 11-13. Further, I provide citations to
`
`Petitions and Institution Decisions in both the ‘850 and ‘325 proceedings, and such
`
`citations to discussions relevant to ‘850 claim 12 apply equally to ‘325 claims 11-13.
`
`23. According to the Abstract of the ‘850 Patent, the invention provides that
`
`“[a]n information management and synchronous communications system and method
`
`facilitates database equilibrium and synchronization with wired, wireless and Web-
`
`based systems, user-friendly and efficient generation of computerized menus and
`
`reservations for restaurants and other applications that utilize equipment with
`
`nonstandard graphical formats, display sizes and/or applications for use in remote data
`
`entry, information management and communication with host computer, digital input
`
`device or remote pager via standard hardwired connection, the internet, a wireless link
`
`or the like.”
`
`24.
`
`The ‘850 patent describes and claims various forms of an information
`
`management and synchronous communications system primarily contemplated for use
`
`in the hospitality industry. I am advised that the inventions described in the patents are
`
`software systems that have been licensed by 44 independent companies. These claimed
`
`inventions necessarily synchronize the operations of computers, databases,
`
`Webservers, and wireless handheld computing devices (such as smartphones).
`
`25.
`
`The invention encompassed by the challenged claims provides a system
`
`solution in which a central database maintains “database equilibrium” and contains a
`
`PATENT OWNER EXHIBIT 2019
`
`
`
`CBM2015-00080
`CBM2015-00082
`“single truth” with respect to hospitality applications and data‒for example, an up-to-
`
`date restaurant menu with current items and pricing‒and through the software modules
`
`described in the patents (e.g., synchronous communication functionality as recited in
`‘850 claims 12-16)causes that same substantive menu data to be correctly formatted,
`
`sequenced, displayed and updated across a variety of connected devices‒including but
`
`not limited to different types of wireless handheld computing devices, such as
`
`smartphones. See ‘850 patent, passim. At the time of the inventions of the ’850 patent,
`
`it is my opinion that the above-described computer software functionality, and the
`
`specifically recited arrangement of computer and software components, were unknown
`
`to a person of skill in the art, and the claimed inventions were not achievable using
`
`existing components either with or without the knowledge of a person of skill in the
`
`art.
`
`VII. Claim Construction
`
`26. With regard to the obviousness analysis contained herein, I have been
`
`asked by counsel to apply the broadest reasonable interpretation (“BRI”)based on the
`
`intrinsic evidence, to consider district court claim constructions, and to apply the
`
`PTAB’s constructions unless stated otherwise herein.
`
`27.
`
`It is my opinion that the BRI of “wireless handheld computing device” is
`
`“a wireless computing device that is sized to be held in one’s hand.” See Everingham
`
`Order (Exh. 1032 at 24).
`
`28.
`
`It is my opinion that “central database” is “a database file structure
`
`connected to the system in association with a central server, comprised of records, each
`
`containing fields, together with a set of operations for searching, sorting, recombining
`
`PATENT OWNER EXHIBIT 2019
`
`
`
`CBM2015-00080
`CBM2015-00082
`and other functions.” Microsoft Comp. Dict. (4th ed.1999) (Exh. 1034 at 8); Exh. 1001
`
`at 2:24, 11:34-35 (“backoffice server (central database)”); id. at2:8-10, 11:13-15
`
`(“synchronization between a central database and multiple handheld devices”).
`
`29.
`
`I follow the PTAB’s prior construction of “web page” to mean “a
`
`document, with associated files for graphics, scripts, and other resources, accessible
`
`over the internet and viewable in a web browser.” Inst. Dec. 7; see also CBM2014-
`
`00015 (Exh. 1017 thereto at 8)). The PTAB also separately construed the non-recited
`
`term “document” in accordance with the Petitioner’s request, which construction was
`
`"[a] 'document' is ‘any self-contained piece of work created with an application
`
`program and, if saved on a disk, given a unique filename by which is can be
`
`retrieved.’” In my opinion, the Board’s construction of this term is inconsistent with
`the web context and the specification2 and is thus inconsistent with how a POSA
`would view “web based” documents served via the claimed “web server.”
`
`30.
`
`I interpret “web server” as follows. The Microsoft Computer Dictionary
`
`states in regard to “Web Server:” “See HTTP Server.”(Exh.2020 (Page 479)). The
`
`Dictionary then states in regard to “HTTP Server:” “Server software that uses HTTP to
`
`serve up HTML documents and any associated files and scripts when requested by a
`
`client such as a web browser.”(Exh. 2020 (Page 224)). I believe that this definition is
`
`correct.
`
`31.
`
`I interpret “communications control module” (“CCM”) as a software
`
`2 “The HTML documents are stored on Web server computers, typically in a
`hierarchical fashion with the root document being referred to as the home page” (Exh.
`1001 12:20-24).
`
`PATENT OWNER EXHIBIT 2019
`
`
`
`CBM2015-00080
`CBM2015-00082
`layer, as Judge Payne concluded in prior district court litigation stating that “the
`
`specification itself provides the best construction for the term at issue.” (Exh. 1033 at
`
`13). Based on the District Court constructions and intrinsic evidence, it is my opinion
`
`that the CCM is “a layer that sits on top of any communication protocol and acts as an
`
`interface between hospitality applications and the communication protocol.” See Exh.
`
`1001 4:9-13. Further, it is my opinion that it is the software-based CCM that provides
`
`the claimed “automatic” communications “routing” functionality as shown by the
`
`specification, e.g.,“[a]communication control program monitors and routes all
`
`communications to the appropriate devices” which “must be running for proper
`
`communications to exist between all devices on the network.” (Exh. 1001 9:21-22,
`
`38-39 (emphasis added)). It is also the CCM that deals concurrently with both HTTP
`
`and non-HTTP communications messaging protocols of the system as claimed, and
`
`which also supports the integration of the separately recited API (which then also
`
`deals with software application-to-application direct integration and with third party
`
`systems/devices such as point-of-sale (POS) systems, as discussed further below).
`
`32.
`
`I follow the PTAB’s construction of “synchronized” to mean “made, or
`
`configured to make, consistent.” CBM2015-00080, Inst. Dec. 9.
`
`33.
`
`It is my opinion that the Board correctly construed “hospitality
`
`applications” to mean “applications used to perform services or tasks in the hospitality
`
`industry.” This construction is consistent with the specification, which states
`
`“hospitality applications, e.g., reservations, frequent customer[,] ticketing, wait lists,
`
`etc.” Exh. 10014:6–7; CBM2015-00080, Inst. Dec. 9. To properly establish the
`
`boundaries of the hospitality market, however, as would be understood by a POSA, the
`
`PATENT OWNER EXHIBIT 2019
`
`
`
`CBM2015-00080
`CBM2015-00082
`“travel, tourism and transportation” industries are broader than and outside the
`
`“hospitality industry” itself.
`
`34.
`
`It is my opinion that the recited “application program interface” is not a
`
`generic API divorced from the definition of its function within ‘850 claim 12. See also
`
`the discussion of the “integration” term below.
`
`35.
`
`The Board construed “outside applications” to mean “third party
`
`applications, such as point of sale companies, affinity program companies, and internet
`
`content providers.” CBM2015-00080, Inst. Dec. 10. I follow this construction.
`
`36.
`
`The Board construed “integration” to mean “combining of different
`
`activities, programs, or hardware components into a functional unit.” CBM2015-
`
`00080, Inst. Dec. 11. I follow this construction. In my opinion, this term and its
`
`construction also must be considered in relation to the “CCM” and “outside
`
`applications” terms as well.
`
`37.
`
`It is my opinion that the proper construction for “single point of entry for
`
`all hospitality applications” is one that leverages Judge Payne’s focused construction
`
`of “single point of entry” itself, but the complete element needs to be considered as a
`
`whole to be consistent with the entirety of claim 13 (as well as the specification
`
`description directly related to this element). Judge Payne construed “a single point of
`
`entry” as “a center of communication.” (Exh. 1033 at 18).It is my opinion that this is
`
`the proper BRI construction but that the full term in which it appears, as the core
`
`aspect of claim 13, should be construed as “a center of communication for all
`
`hospitality applications.”
`
`38.
`
`In my opinion, “automatic” functionality is a key inventive concept of the
`
`PATENT OWNER EXHIBIT 2019
`
`
`
`CBM2015-00080
`CBM2015-00082
`patents and, as explained above relative to the CCM and the specification at col. 9, it is
`
`the CCM which must be running that provides the recited “automatic”(i.e., routing)
`
`functionality. Further, the specification states that “[n]o user action is needed during
`
`operation of the software once the application is launched.” (Exh. 1001 9: 27-29
`
`(emphasis added)). “Automatic” is “without user action” and thus means “done or
`
`produced as if by machine.” The phrase “[n]o user action” is used in the specification
`
`at 9:27 and is consistent with the ordinary and customary definition of “automatic”
`
`established by the BPAI/PTAB. See BPAI Appeal No. 2010-000055 at 5 (Exh. 2012)
`
`(relying on Merriam Webster Collegiate Dictionary (http://www.merriam-
`
`webster.com/dictionary/automatic).I agree with the BPAI/PTAB’s established
`
`definition.
`
`39.
`
`In addition to correctly construing the CCM as a functionally independent
`
`layer as discussed above, it is my opinion that “wherein the communications control
`
`module is an interface between the hospitality applications and any other
`
`communications protocol” must be separately considered and construed as part of this
`
`broader claim element itself as well as in the context of “integration” and “outside
`
`applications,” and the claim as a whole.
`
`40.
`
`The Board’s initial determination in related CBM2015-00099 that neither
`
`the claims nor the specification “require more than [] web based communications
`
`protocols” (CBM2015-00099, Inst. Dec. 35) and that “the only specific protocol
`
`discussed in the specification is HTTP” (Id. at 32) ignored that the system as claimed
`
`“integrates” with, e.g., point-of-sale (POS) systems, and accommodates and adapts to
`
`new protocols without the necessity to change the underlying/core hospitality
`
`PATENT OWNER EXHIBIT 2019
`
`
`
`CBM2015-00080
`CBM2015-00082
`applications, a concept not taught by any of the asserted references as discussed below.
`
`For example, the claims and specification refer to “integration” with “outside
`
`applications,” i.e., third party systems such as POS system devices (which a POSA
`reading the specification would understand to operate with different protocols).3 The
`specification states:
`A simple point to point wireless capability is contemplated which permits
`simple digital messages to be sent from the wireless handheld devices ...
`to a receiver in a beeper and/or valet parking base-station. …A simple
`protocol is used to acknowledge receipt of the message and thus
`simultaneous communication is not necessary, which reduces the cost of
`the wireless link.
`Exh. 1001 11:49-57 (emphasis added). It is apparent that this passage refers to an
`
`exemplary simple digital messaging (i.e., non-HTTP) “wireless” protocol for, e.g.,
`
`interfacing with pagers and beepers, just as a communication with a third party POS
`
`system might involve a different protocol. The claimed CCM as described by the
`
`specification accommodates and routes messages to such systems/devices when
`
`appropriate, which a system relying only on web browser-based protocols could not
`
`do.
`
`41. My aforesaid conclusion that the CCM functionality as described in the
`
`specification provides routing to different systems/devices and is not limited to web
`
`browser-based protocols is consistent with the specification requirement that the CCM
`
`3Exh.1001 9:21-27 (“A communications control program monitors and routes all
`communications to the appropriate devices. It continuously monitors the wireless
`network access point and all other devices connected to the network such as pagers,
`remote devices, internet Web links and POS software. Any message received is
`decoded by the software, and then routed to the appropriate device.”).
`
`PATENT OWNER EXHIBIT 2019
`
`
`
`CBM2015-00080
`CBM2015-00082
`must be capable of concurrent communications via both HTTP and non-HTTP
`
`protocols while monitoring and routing messages operating under different protocols
`to the appropriate devices/components as recited in the claims.4
`42.
`It is thus my opinion that “wherein the communications control module is
`
`an interface between the hospitality applications and any other communications
`
`protocol” should be construed, pursuant to the claim language itself and the
`
`specification, as “a server-side software layer that provides an interface between the
`
`hospitality applications and communication protocols and which monitors and routes
`
`communications between different devices while concurrently using different
`
`protocols.” This construction is compelled by the specification, which clearly
`
`discloses at least two different protocols:
`The communication module also provides a single point of entry for all
`hospitality applications, e.g., reservations, frequent customer[,] ticketing,
`wait lists, etc. to communicate with one another wirelessly and over the
`Web. This communication module is a layer that sits on top of any
`communication protocol and acts as an interface between hospitality
`applications and the communication protocol.
`Exh.1001 4:5-11.
`A communications control program monitors and routes all
`communications to the appropriate devices. It continuously monitors the
`wireless network access point and all other devices connected to the
`network such as pagers, remote devices, internet Web links and POS
`software. Any message received is decoded by the software, and then
`routed to the appropriate device.
`
`4 Similarly, dependent claim 15 of the related ‘325 patent (Exh. 1002) recites a
`“wireless paging device,” which operates under a non-HTTP protocol, further
`reinforcing that the CCM must have functionality to interface to multiple protocols.
`
`PATENT OWNER EXHIBIT 2019
`
`
`
`CBM2015-00080
`CBM2015-00082
`Exh. 1001 9:21-27 (emphasis added). The CCM as part of the claimed system as a
`
`whole thus provides an interface for and between the hospitality applications on
`
`different devices/clients while concurrently using different protocols, including both
`
`HTTP and non-HTTP protocols.
`
`43. As regards the recitations of “wherein the synchronized data relates to
`
`‘orders,’ ‘waitlists’ and ‘reservations’” respectively as to ‘325 claims 11, 12 and 13,
`
`first, it is my understanding based on conversations with counsel that these claim
`
`elements (part of the fourth wherein clause) must be construed from the perspective of
`
`a POSA inclusive of experience in the hospitality market at the time of the invention,
`
`and based on two tenets of claim construction, i.e., that the claim must be construed as
`
`a whole and that claim differentiation mandates a different meaning for each of the
`“orders,” “waitlists” and “reservations” terms.5 Additionally the specification itself
`informs the POSA that each of these are different from one another and that they are
`
`independent hospitality applications (not once but three times in the first column of the
`specification).6 It is my understanding that, under the canons of claim construction,
`the same element/functionality in the prior art cannot meet the differing limitations
`
`between these three independent claims. The inventors followed the `850 patent
`
`5 "In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, we must presume that the use [of]
`different terms in the claims connotes different meanings." CAE Screenplates Inc. v.
`Heinrich Fiedler GmbH & Co. KG, 224 F.3d 1308, 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2000).
`6 “[T]he hospitality industry, e.g., for restaurant ordering, reservations and wait-
`list management”(Exh. 1001 1:21-23), “for the time criticality of ordering,
`reservation and wait-list management” (Id. 1:54-55) and “there is still no integrated
`solution to the ordering/waitlist/reservation problem. (Id. 1:60-61) (emphasis
`added).
`
`PATENT OWNER EXHIBIT 2019
`
`
`
`CBM2015-00080
`CBM2015-00082
`specification in ‘850 claim 12 with broader “hospitality” limitations. But these three
`
`independent claims of the ‘325 patent each are directed to different limitations as to the
`
`“type” of hospitality. The inventors also used the different terms in the prosecution
`
`history of the `325 patent to distinguish prior art (Exh. 1011 at 11). Thus a different
`
`meaning/function is compelled for each of them. The fourth wherein clause of these
`
`claims reflects the data that is indisputably a type of “hospitality applications and data”
`
`as recited in these claims and thus each of the terms must be constructed as a particular
`
`species of the hospitality industry genus which cannot be conflated with nor be equated
`
`to other species.
`
`44.
`
`Specifically, Claim 11 of the '325 Patent recites hospitality applications
`
`that are restricted to ordering "wherein … the synchronized data relates to orders." As
`Petitioner admitted,7 and the Board held (CBM2015-00082, Inst. Dec. 13), the "relates
`to orders" restriction means "that ordering relates to ordering a restaurant meal.. Id.
`
`(emphasis added). Ameranth agrees with this construction, considering the claim as a
`
`whole and through the lens of the correct experience level of a POSA at the time of the
`
`invention. The correct meaning of “orders” is thus “orders for a restaurant meal.” A
`
`POSA at the time of the invention with experience in the hospitality market, and
`
`considering the different terms in claims 12 and 13 and the claim as a whole would
`
`construe “orders” in this manner.
`
`7 Further, this position was taken, not merely by a single petitioner, but rather by three
`original petitioner parties (Apple, Starwood and Eventbrite), and then joined by 24
`additional petitioners representing the breadth and knowledge of the hospitality
`market, broadly confirming that "ordering" as "restaurant/food" ordering is the
`understanding that a POSA would have.
`
`PATENT OWNER EXHIBIT 2019
`
`
`
`CBM2015-00080
`CBM2015-00082
`Further confirming that the claims of the ‘325 patent describe
`
`45.
`
`“applications … in the hospitality industry” and that "ordering" in the `325 patent,
`
`which is one of those hospitality applications, is "restaurant/food ordering", the Board
`
`reiterated the proper construction of this term: “[W]e construed ‘hospitality
`
`applications’ as applications used to perform services or tasks in the hospitality
`
`industry. The ’325 patent describes restaurant ordering, reservations, wait-list
`
`management, and frequent customer ticketing as examples of hospitality applications.”
`
`Inst. Dec. at 24 (emphasis added).
`
`46.
`
`It is thus my opinion that the Board thus correctly differentiated the
`
`hospitality application "restaurant ordering" from the different and separately-claimed
`
`hospitality applications of "wait-list management" and "reservations" in '325 claims 12
`
`and 13, respectively, just as the inventors did in the '325 specification and prosecution
`
`history. The Board accordingly reinforced the fact that these are entirely different
`
`hospitality industry functions as claimed in the `325 patent, and once again confirming
`
`that the Board's claim 11 construction for "relates to orders" is "related to ordering a
`
`restaurant meal."
`
`47. Claim 12 of the '325 Patent describes hospitality applications that are
`
`restricted to waitlists: "wherein … the synchronized data relates to waitlists." A POSA
`
`at the time of the invention with experience in the hospitality market, and considering
`
`the different terms in claims 11 and 13 and the claim as a whole, would construe this
`
`term as “related to waitlists in a restaurant.” A POSA reading the specification and
`
`claims would understand that “waitlists” do not have a valid meaning outside of the
`
`PATENT OWNER EXHIBIT 2019
`
`
`
`CBM2015-00080
`CBM2015-00082
`restaurant application within the hospitality market and are associated with, e.g., the
`
`management of current seating at tables in a restaurant.
`
`48. Claim 13 of the '325 Patent describes hospitality applications that are
`
`restricted to reservations: "wherein … the synchronized data relates to reservations."
`
`A POSA at the time of the invention with experience in the hospitality market, and
`
`considering the specification and the different terms in claims 11 and 12 and the claim
`
`as a whole, would construe this term as “related to reservations within the hospitality
`
`industry, e.g., restaurant/hotel reservations and event ticketing.” A POSA reading the
`
`specification and claims would know that a “waitlisted reservation” is merely a species
`
`of the genus of “reservations” and is still a “reservation.”
`
`VIII.
`
`Analysis of Petitioner’s Arguments And The Board’s
`Institution Conclusions With Regard To The ‘850and
`‘325 Patent Claims
`The ‘850 Patent contains 16 claims, of which Claims 12-16 are
`
`49.
`
`challenged. The ‘325 Patent contains 15 claims, of which Claims 11-13 and 15 are
`
`challenged. All challenged claims contain the limitations of ‘850 Independent Claim
`
`12, which recites:
`12. An information management and synchronous communications
`system for use with wireless handheld computing devices and the internet
`comprising:
`a. a central database containing hospitality applications and data,
`b. at least one wireless handheld computing device on which
`hospitality applications and data are stored,
`c. at least one Web server on which hospitality applications and
`data are stored,
`
`PATENT OWNER EXHIBIT 2019
`
`
`
`CBM2015-00080
`CBM2015-00082
`d. at least one Web page on which hospitality applications and data
`are stored,
`e. an application program interface, and
`f. a communications control module,
`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; wherein the application program
`interface enables intergration [sic: integration] of outside applications
`with the ho