throbber
CBM2015-00080
`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

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket