`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`EXPEDIA, INC., FANDANGO, LLC, HOTEL TONIGHT INC., HOTWIRE,
`INC., HOTELS.COM, L.P., KAYAK SOFTWARE CORP., LIVE NATION
`ENTERTAINMENT, INC., MICROS SYSTEMS, INC., ORBITZ, LLC,
`OPENTABLE, INC., PAPA JOHN’S USA, INC., STUBHUB, INC.,
`TICKETMASTER, LLC, TRAVELOCITY.COM LP, WANDERSPOT LLC,
`PIZZA HUT, INC., PIZZA HUT OF AMERICA, INC., DOMINO’S PIZZA,
`INC., DOMINO’S PIZZA, LLC, GRUBHUB, INC., SEAMLESS NORTH
`AMERICA, LLC, ORDR.IN, INC., MOBO SYSTEMS, INC., STARBUCKS
`CORPORATION, EVENTBRITE, INC., BEST WESTERN
`INTERNATIONAL, INC., HILTON RESORTS CORP., HILTON
`WORLDWIDE, INC., HILTON INTERNATIONAL CO., HYATT
`CORPORATION, MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL, INC., STARWOOD
`HOTELS & RESORTS WORLDWIDE, INC., AGILYSYS, INC.,
`USABLENET, INC., AND APPLE INC.
`
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`AMERANTH, INC.
`
`Patent Owner
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,146,077
`Issue date: March 27, 2012
`
`Title: Information Management and Synchronous Communications System
`with Menu Generation, and Handwriting and Voice Modification of Orders
`
`CBM: Unassigned
`
`PETITION FOR COVERED BUSINESS METHOD REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,146,077 UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 321
`AND § 18 OF THE LEAHY-SMITH AMERICA INVENTS ACT
`
`Apple, Exhibit 1015, Page 1
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`B.
`
`B.
`
`INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 1
`The Challenged Claims Fail to Satisfy the Written Description
`A.
`and Definiteness Requirement of § 112 ............................................... 4
`The Challenged Claims Fail to Claim Patentable Subject Matter
`under § 101 ........................................................................................... 9
`REQUIRED DISCLOSURES ...................................................................... 12
`A. Mandatory Notices ............................................................................. 12
`1.
`Real Parties-in-Interest (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1)) ..................... 12
`2.
`Related Matters (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2)) ................................ 14
`3.
`Lead and Back-Up Counsel (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3)) ............. 19
`4.
`Service Information (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4)) .......................... 21
`Filing Date Requirements ................................................................... 22
`1.
`Compliance with 37 C.F.R. § 42.304 ...................................... 22
`2.
`Certificate of Service on Patent Owner (37 C.F.R. §
`42.205(a)) ................................................................................. 23
`The Filing Fee (37 C.F.R. §§ 42.15(b) and 42.203(a)) ............ 23
`3.
`C. Additional Disclosures ....................................................................... 23
`At Least One Challenged Claim Is Unpatentable (37
`1.
`C.F.R. § 42.208(c)) .................................................................. 23
`Eligibility Based on Time of Filing (37 C.F.R. § 42.303) ....... 24
`Power of Attorney (37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b)) ............................... 24
`A Legible Copy of Every Exhibit in the Exhibit List (37
`C.F.R. § 42.63) ......................................................................... 24
`III. GROUNDS FOR STANDING ..................................................................... 24
`
`
`2.
`3.
`4.
`
`52965538.20
`
`
`
`-i-
`
`
`
`Apple, Exhibit 1015, Page 2
`
`

`

`
`
`A.
`B.
`C.
`
`B.
`C.
`
`Eligibility Based on Infringement Suit (37 C.F.R. § 42.302(a)) ........ 25
`Eligibility Based on Lack of Estoppel (37 C.F.R. § 42.302(b)) ........ 26
`The ‘077 Patent Is a CBM Patent (37 C.F.R. § 42.304(a)) ................ 26
`1.
`Claims 1-18 Meet the Definition of a CBM ............................ 27
`2.
`Claims 1-18 Are Not Directed to a “Technological
`Invention” ................................................................................. 32
`IV. STATEMENT OF PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED FOR EACH
`CLAIM CHALLENGED ............................................................................. 37
`Claims for Which Review Is Requested (37 C.F.R. §
`A.
`42.304(b)(1)) ...................................................................................... 38
`Statutory Grounds of Challenge (37 C.F.R. § 42.304(b)(2)) ............. 38
`Claim Construction (37 C.F.R. § 42.304(b)(3)) ................................. 38
`1.
`Broadest Reasonable Interpretation ......................................... 38
`THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE INVALID UNDER § 112 ............... 40
`The Challenged Claims Do Not Satisfy the Written Description
`A.
`Requirement. ...................................................................................... 40
`The ‘077 Patent Does Not Provide a Written Description
`1.
`of “Cascaded Sets of Linked Graphical User Interface
`Screens” Recited in the Challenged Claims ............................ 42
`The ‘077 Patent Does Not Provide a Written Description
`of a “Customized Display Layout Unique to the Wireless
`Handheld Computing Device” as Recited
`in
`the
`Challenged Claims ................................................................... 43
`The ‘077 Patent Does Not Provide a Written Description
`of “Customized Display Layout of at Least Two
`Different Wireless Handheld Computing Device Display
`Sizes” or “A Different Number of User Interface Screens
`From at Least One Other Wireless Handheld Computing
`Device” Recited in the Challenged Claims .............................. 45
`
`V.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-ii-
`
`
`
`Apple, Exhibit 1015, Page 3
`
`

`

`
`
`4.
`
`B.
`
`The ‘077 Patent Does Not Provide a Written Description
`Sufficient to Describe the Later Presented Continuation
`Claims Directed to a “Synchronous Communications
`System” When Only Use of a Local Database is
`Described in the Original Specification ................................... 47
`The Challenged Claims Are Indefinite for Mixing Apparatus
`and Method Elements ......................................................................... 55
`VI. THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE INVALID UNDER § 101 ............... 59
`A.
`Section 101 Analysis .......................................................................... 59
`B.
`The Challenged Claims Impermissibly Claim an Abstract Idea ........ 62
`C.
`The Challenged Claims Also Fail
`the “Machine or
`Transformation Test” ......................................................................... 71
`The Challenged Claims Are Invalid Under Mayo ............................. 75
`D.
`The Challenged Claims Are Distinguishable From Ultramercial ..... 77
`E.
`VII. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 78
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-iii-
`
`
`
`Apple, Exhibit 1015, Page 4
`
`

`

`
`
`
`CASES
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`Accenture Global Servs., GMBH v. Guidewire Software, Inc.,
`No. 2011-1486, 2013 WL 4749919 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 5, 2013) ...................... 11, 82
`
`In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr.,
`367 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2004) .......................................................................... 40
`
`Amgen Inc. v. Hoechst Marion Roussel, Inc.,
`314 F.3d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2003) .......................................................................... 57
`
`Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly and Co.,
`598 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc) .......................................................... 42
`
`Bancorp Servs., LLC v Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada,
`687 F.3d 1266 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ..................................................63, 67, 69, 71, 75
`
`Bilski v. Kappos,
`130 S. Ct. 3218 (2010) (“Bilski II”) .............................................................passim
`
`CLS Bank International v. Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd.,
`717 F.3d 1269 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ..................................................62, 63, 65, 70, 74
`
`Collaboration Props., Inc. v. Tandberg ASA,
`No. 05-cv-1940-MHP, 2006 WL 1752140 (N.D. Cal. June 23, 2006) .............. 62
`
`Compression Tech. Solutions LLC v. EMC Corp.,
`2013 WL 2368039 (N.D. Cal. May 29, 2013) ........................................ 62, 63, 78
`
`CyberSource Corp. v Retail Decisions, Inc.,
`654 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ...................................................................passim
`
`Dealertrack, Inc. v. Huber,
`674 F.3d 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ........................................................ 63, 70, 76, 77
`
`Diamond v. Diehr,
`450 U.S. 175 (1981) ...................................................................................... 11, 64
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-iv-
`
`
`
`Apple, Exhibit 1015, Page 5
`
`

`

`
`
`Gottschalk v. Benson,
`409 U.S. 63 (1972) ........................................................................................ 10, 77
`
`Hyatt v. Boone,
`146 F.3d 1348 (Fed. Cir. 1998) .......................................................................... 43
`
`ICU Med., Inc. v. Alaris Med. Sys., Inc.,
`558 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2009) .......................................................................... 43
`
`IPXL Holdings, LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc.,
`430 F.3d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ........................................................ 10, 58, 59, 60
`
`In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litig.,
`639 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2011) .............................................................. 59, 60, 61
`
`Interthinx, Inc. v. Corelogic Solutions, LLC,
`No. CBM2012-00007 (BJM) .............................................................................. 37
`
`LizardTech v. Earth Res. Mapping, Inc.,
`424 F.3d 1336, 76 U.S.P.Q.2d 1731 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ........................................ 56
`
`Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc.,
`107 F.3d 1565 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ........................................................ 43, 45, 47, 49
`
`Mayo Collaboration Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc.,
`132 S. Ct. 1289 (2012) .................................................................................passim
`
`PowerOasis, Inc. v. T-Mobile USA, Inc.,
`522 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2008) .......................................................................... 57
`
`Rembrandt Data Techs., LP v. AOL, LLC,
`641 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2011) .......................................................................... 58
`
`Research Corp. Techs., Inc. v. Microsoft Corp.,
`627 F.3d 859 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ............................................................................ 63
`
`SAP Am., Inc. v Versata Dev. Grp.,
` No. CBM2012-0001 .................................................................................... 29, 64
`
`SiRF Tech., Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n,
`601 F.3d 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2010) .................................................................... 65, 69
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-v-
`
`
`
`Apple, Exhibit 1015, Page 6
`
`

`

`
`
`In re Trans Texas Holdings Corp.,
`498 F.3d 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2007) .......................................................................... 41
`
`Tronzo v. Biomet, Inc.,
`156 F.3d 1154 (Fed. Cir. 1998) .................................................................... 43, 56
`
`Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC,
`722 F.3d 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2013) .......................................................................... 81
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Rackspace Hosting, Inc.,
`6:12-cv-00375, Dkt. No. 38, slip op. (E.D. Tex. Mar. 27, 2012) (Ex.
`1065) ................................................................................................................... 71
`
`Vacation Exch. LLC v. Wyndham Exch. & Rentals, Inc.,
`No. 2:12-cv-04229, Dkt. No. 27, slip op. (C.D. Cal. Sept. 18, 2012) (Ex.
`1064) ................................................................................................................... 71
`
`Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar,
`935 F.2d 1555 (Fed. Cir. 1991) .................................................................... 43, 57
`
`In re Zletz,
`893 F.2d 319 (Fed. Cir. 1989) ............................................................................ 40
`
`STATUTES
`
`35 U.S.C. § 18 ............................................................................................................ 1
`
`35 U.S.C. § 101 .................................................................................................passim
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112 .................................................................................................passim
`
`35 U.S.C. § 119 ....................................................................................................... 43
`
`35 U.S.C. § 120 ........................................................................................................ 43
`
`35 U.S.C. § 321 .................................................................................................. 25, 39
`
`35 U.S.C. § 324 ........................................................................................................ 25
`
`RULES
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.6 ....................................................................................................... 24
`
`
`-vi-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Apple, Exhibit 1015, Page 7
`
`

`

`
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8 ....................................................................................................... 19
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.15 ..................................................................................................... 24
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.63 ..................................................................................................... 25
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.206 ................................................................................................... 23
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.300 ................................................................................................... 40
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.301 ............................................................................................. 28, 34
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.304 ...........................................................................19, 23, 26, 27, 39
`
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`
`157 Cong. Rec. S1360 (March 8, 2011) ................................................ 29, 32, 33, 36
`
`77 Fed. Reg. 157 .......................................................................................... 28, 35, 39
`
`Matal, J., A Guide to the Legislative History of the America Invents Act Part
`II .......................................................................................................................... 29
`
`MPEP § 2163 ............................................................................................... 40, 41, 54
`
`MPEP § 2173.05 .................................................................................................. 9, 55
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-vii-
`
`
`
`Apple, Exhibit 1015, Page 8
`
`

`

`
`
`PETITIONERS’ MASTER LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`EXHIBIT NO.
`FANDANGO1001
`FANDANGO1002
`FANDANGO1003*
`FANDANGO1004
`FANDANGO1005
`
`FANDANGO1006
`
`FANDANGO1007
`FANDANGO1008
`
`FANDANGO1009
`
`FANDANGO1010
`FANDANGO1011
`FANDANGO1012
`FANDANGO1013
`FANDANGO1014
`FANDANGO1015
`FANDANGO1016
`FANDANGO1017
`FANDANGO1018
`FANDANGO1019
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DESCRIPTION (BOLDED IF USED)
`U.S. Patent No. 8,146,077
`Litigation Report on U.S. Patent No. 8,146,077
`Ameranth August 15, 2011 Press Release
`Ameranth July 2, 2012 Press Release
`Litigation Report on U.S. Patent No. 6,384,850
`Ameranth, Inc. v. Menusoft Sys. Corp., et al., No.
`2:07-CV-271, 2010 WL 4952758, at 1-2 (E.D. Tex.
`Sept. 20, 2010)
`Menusoft, ECF No. 331
`Eventbrite Complaint
`‘077 Notice of Allowability Examiner’s
`Amendment
`‘077 Aug. 21, 2009 Reply & Amendment
`Certificate of Service
`Powers of Attorney
`Kayak Complaint
`Hotels.com Complaint
`Orbitz Complaint
`Hotel Tonight Complaint
`Travelocity Complaint
`Expedia Complaint
`Hotwire Complaint
`
`-viii-
`
`
`
`Apple, Exhibit 1015, Page 9
`
`

`

`
`
`DESCRIPTION (BOLDED IF USED)
`EXHIBIT NO.
`FANDANGO1020 Wanderspot First Amended Complaint
`FANDANGO1021
`Micros First Amended Complaint
`FANDANGO1022
`Fandango Complaint
`FANDANGO1023
`StubHub Complaint
`FANDANGO1024
`Ticketmaster and Live Nation Complaint
`FANDANGO1025*
`OpenTable’s Second Amended Complaint
`FANDANGO1026
`77 Fed. Reg. 157, pp. 48734 - 48753
`FANDANGO1027
`77 Fed. Reg. 157, pp. 48680 - 48732
`SAP America, Inc. v. Versata Development Grp.,
`Inc.,
`CBM2012-00001, Paper No. 36 (P.T.A.B.
`January 9, 2013)
`Matal, J., A Guide to the Legislative History of the
`America Invents Act: Part II of II, 21 Fed. Cir.
`Bar. J. No. 4
`77 Fed. Reg. 157, pp. 48756 - 48773
`U.S. Patent No. 6,384,850
`U.S. Patent No. 6,871,325
`U.S. Patent No. 6,982,733
`Petitioners’ Address List
`‘850 Office Action of May 22, 2001 at 2-3
`Interthinx, Inc. v. Corelogic Solutions, LLC, No.
`CBM2012-00007 (BJM), Paper 16 at 18 (P.T.A.B.
`Jan. 31, 2013)
`Menusoft ECF No. 235
`
`FANDANGO1036
`
`FANDANGO1037*
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-ix-
`
`
`
`FANDANGO1028
`
`FANDANGO1029
`
`FANDANGO1030
`FANDANGO1031*
`FANDANGO1032*
`FANDANGO1033*
`FANDANGO1034
`FANDANGO1035*
`
`Apple, Exhibit 1015, Page 10
`
`

`

`
`
`EXHIBIT NO.
`FANDANGO1038
`FANDANGO1039
`FANDANGO1040*
`FANDANGO1041*
`FANDANGO1042*
`FANDANGO1043
`FANDANGO1044
`FANDANGO1045
`
`FANDANGO1046
`
`FANDANGO1047
`
`FANDANGO1048
`
`FANDANGO 1049
`FANDANGO1050
`FANDANGO1051
`FANDANGO1052
`FANDANGO1053
`FANDANGO1054
`FANDANGO1055
`FANDANGO1056
`FANDANGO1057
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DESCRIPTION (BOLDED IF USED)
`Opentable First Amended Complaint
`Papa John’s II Complaint
`Litigation Report on U.S. Patent No. 6,982,733
`Litigation Report on U.S. Patent No. 6,871,325
`Larson Declaration (including Exhibits A-B)
`157 Cong. Rec. S1360-1394
`Apple Complaint
`Domino’s Third Amended Complaint
`Ameranth’s Infringement Contentions to
`Fandango
`Ameranth’s Infringement Contentions to
`StubHub
`Ameranth’s Infringement Contentions to Micros
`Systems
`Agilysys Complaint
`Best Western Complaint
`Grubhub First Amended Complaint
`Hilton First Amended Complaint
`Hyatt First Amended Complaint
`Marriott Complaint
`Mobo Systems Complaint
`Ordr.in Complaint
`Pizza Hut Complaint
`
`-x-
`
`
`
`Apple, Exhibit 1015, Page 11
`
`

`

`
`
`EXHIBIT NO.
`FANDANGO1058
`FANDANGO1059
`FANDANGO1060
`FANDANGO1061
`FANDANGO1062
`
`FANDANGO1063
`
`DESCRIPTION (BOLDED IF USED)
`Seamless First Amended Complaint
`Starbucks Complaint
`Starwood First Amended Complaint
`Usablenet First Amended Complaint
`NOT USED
`SAP America, Inc. v. Versata Development Grp.,
`Inc.,
`CBM2012-00001, Paper No. 70 (P.T.A.B. June
`11, 2013)
`Vacation Exch. LLC v. Wyndham Exch. &
`Rentals, Inc., No. 2:12-cv-04229, Dkt. No. 27
`(C.D. Cal. Sept. 18, 2012)
`Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Rackspace Hosting, Inc., 6:12-
`cv-00375, Dkt. No. 38 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 27, 2012)
`* Denotes exhibits not cited in and not filed with this petition.
`
`FANDANGO1064
`
`FANDANGO1065
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-xi-
`
`
`
`Apple, Exhibit 1015, Page 12
`
`

`

`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`I.
`Ameranth, Inc. (“Ameranth”) has instituted patent infringement cases
`
`against Petitioners. Under 35 U.S.C. § 321 and § 18 of the Leahy-Smith America
`
`Invents Act, Petitioners request a Covered Business Method (CBM) post-grant
`
`review of U.S. Patent No. 8,146,077 (the “‘077 Patent”). In particular, Petitioners
`
`request a cancellation of Claims 1-18 of the ‘077 Patent as unpatentable under 35
`
`U.S.C. §§ 101 and 112.
`
`Ameranth has filed 40 different patent infringement actions alleging
`
`infringement of the ‘077 Patent by no less than four different and distinct
`
`industries.1 The ‘077 Patent is directed to systems for performing data processing
`
`or other operations used in the practice, administration, or management of a
`
`financial product or service in connection with hospitability menus and
`
`hospitability application information used in the hospitality industry such as
`
`
`
`1 See Exhibit 1002, Litigation Report on U.S. Patent No. 8,146,077; Exhibit
`
`1004, Ameranth July 2, 2012 Press Release (announcing actions against (1) “hotel
`
`chains;” (2) on-line “travel aggregators;” (3) on-line “ticketing companies;” and
`
`(4) “restaurant point of sale, and/or reservations, and/or online/mobile ordering
`
`companies.”).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-1-
`
`
`
`Apple, Exhibit 1015, Page 13
`
`

`

`
`
`restaurant
`
`ordering,
`
`reservations
`
`and wait-list management,
`
`or
`
`“restaurant/hotel/casino food/drink ordering.” Exhibit 1001, ‘077 Patent, Abstract,
`
`1:18-28, 1:34-35, 3:51-59. More specifically, Claims 1-18 of the ‘077 Patent recite
`
`information management and real time synchronous communications systems of
`
`apparatuses for configuring and transmitting hospitality menus and/or use with
`
`wireless handheld computing devices and the internet in managing, processing or
`
`communicating hospitality application information. The claimed systems and
`
`associated apparatuses within such systems are designed for hospitality industry
`
`activities that are financial in nature –billing, payment, and point of sale
`
`processing. See, e.g., Exhibit 1001, ’077 Patent, Claim 7 (completion of payment
`
`processing, including billing, status, and payment information) and Claim 17
`
`(completion of payment processing). For example, Ameranth states that
`
`hospitality
`
`information
`
`technology systems performing functions such as
`
`“online/mobile ordering, hotel/restaurant reservations, event ticketing, payment
`
`processing/mobile wallets on smart phones, frequency, voice integration and
`
`related functionality” require the use of Ameranth’s “patented inventions for
`
`synchronized operations.” Exhibit 1004, Ameranth’s July 2, 2012 Press Release at
`
`2. Not only do the claims of the ‘077 Patent expressly recite financial activities
`
`associated with hospitality menus or hospitality application information, but the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-2-
`
`
`
`Apple, Exhibit 1015, Page 14
`
`

`

`
`
`claims also recite nearly the full range of ancillary activities related to financial
`
`products and services listed in the AIA’s legislative history: customer interfaces,
`
`web site management and functionality, transmission or management of data,
`
`customer communications, and back office operations associated with hospitality
`
`menus or hospitality application information. Because Ameranth has accused
`
`financial products and services of infringing the ‘077 Patent (e.g., “mobile
`
`payment systems” referenced in Ameranth’s infringement contentions to Micros
`
`Systems), the patent is also deemed to cover a “financial product or service.”
`
`In addition, the claimed subject matter of Claims 1-18 of the ‘077 Patent as a
`
`whole fails to recite a technological feature that is novel and unobvious over the
`
`prior art and fails to solve a technical problem using a technical solution. As such,
`
`the ‘077 Patent is not a patent for technological inventions. Therefore, the ‘077
`
`Patent is a covered business method patent under AIA Section 18 and is eligible
`
`for the CBM review.
`
`As shown by the facts and analysis in this Petition, Claims 1-18 of the ‘077
`
`Patent as a covered business method patent are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§§ 101 and 112 and must be canceled.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-3-
`
`
`
`Apple, Exhibit 1015, Page 15
`
`

`

`
`
`A. The Challenged Claims Fail to Satisfy the Written
`Description and Definiteness Requirements of § 112
`
`Claims 1-18 of the ‘077 Patent fail to satisfy the written description and
`
`definiteness requirements of § 112 and are therefore invalid. Ameranth prosecuted
`
`the ‘077 Patent while litigating its parent patents.2 Specifically, on April 22, 2005,
`
`Ameranth filed U.S. Patent Application No. 11/112,990 (“‘990 Application”),
`
`which eventually issued as the ‘077 Patent. The ‘990 Application is a continuation
`
`of U.S. Patent No 6,982,733 (“‘733 Patent”), which is a continuation-in-part of
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,384,850 (“‘850 Patent”).3 On June 28, 2007, Ameranth sued
`
`Menusoft Systems Corporation and Cash Register Sales & Service of Houston, Inc.
`
`(collectively, “Menusoft”) in the Eastern District of Texas for alleged infringement
`
`of the ‘850, ‘325,4 and ‘733 Patent (“Menusoft Action”). On July 17, 2007,
`
`Radiant Systems, Inc. filed a declaratory judgment action in the Northern District
`
`
`
`2 See Exhibit 1005, Litigation Report on U.S. Patent No. 6,384,850.
`
`3 Petitioners along with other sued companies are contemporaneously filing
`
`a covered business method review petition on the ‘733, ‘325, and ‘850 Patents.
`
`4 U.S. Patent. No. 6,871,325 (“‘325 Patent”) is a continuation of the ‘850
`
`Patent.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-4-
`
`
`
`Apple, Exhibit 1015, Page 16
`
`

`

`
`
`of Georgia seeking a determination that the ‘850, ‘325, and ‘733 Patents were
`
`invalid and not infringed (“Radiant Action”).
`
`About three months after the commencement of the Menusoft lawsuit, on
`
`September 25, 2007, Ameranth filed a second preliminary amendment in the ‘990
`
`Application that cancelled all pending claims and added new claims presumably
`
`designed to address non-infringement and invalidity issues raised by Menusoft and
`
`Radiant. Over the next three plus years, Ameranth proceeded to submit to the
`
`USPTO prior art identified in the Menusoft Action and repeatedly amended its
`
`claims in an attempt to overcome rejections based on same.5
`
`
`5 Considering a portion of the same art submitted by Ameranth to the
`
`USPTO, the jury found in the Menusoft Action that all asserted claims were (1)
`
`invalid for anticipation and obviousness and (2) not infringed. See Exhibit 1006,
`
`Ameranth, Inc. v. Menusoft Sys. Corp., No. 2:07-CV-271, 2010 WL 4952758, at *2
`
`(E.D. Tex. Sept. 20, 2010) (finding invalidity of claims 1 and 4 of the ‘850 Patent,
`
`claims 6, 9, and 10 of the ‘325 Patent, and claims 1 and 3 of the ‘733 Patent). The
`
`parties in the Menusoft Action reached a settlement wherein Menusoft agreed not
`
`to oppose vacatur of the invalidity determinations in the final judgment. Exhibit
`
`1007, Menusoft Motion for Indicative Ruling, ECF No. 331.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-5-
`
`
`
`Apple, Exhibit 1015, Page 17
`
`

`

`
`
`Through these repeated amendments, Ameranth claimed technology that
`
`Applicants did not invent and that is not disclosed in the specification. 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 112 requires that an Applicant convey with reasonable clarity to those skilled in
`
`the art that the Applicant was in possession of the claimed invention as of the filing
`
`date. The ‘077 Patent specification fails to meet this requirement. Therefore, each
`
`of the Challenged Claims is invalid for violation of § 112.
`
`For example, through amendments, the requirements of “cascaded sets of
`
`linked graphical user interface screens appropriate for the customized display
`
`layout of . . . [a] wireless handheld computing device” and “programmed handheld
`
`menu configuration in conformity with a customized display layout unique to the
`
`wireless handheld computing device . . .” were added to each independent claim.
`
`‘077 Patent, Claims 1, 9, 13. Exhibit 1009, Notice of Allowability Examiner’s
`
`Amendment. The specification of the ‘077 Patent, however, fails to show that
`
`Applicants were in possession of a system that included such “cascaded sets of
`
`linked graphical user interface screens” or “a customized display layout unique to
`
`the wireless handheld computing device.”
`
`As another example, in attempting to overcome invalidating prior art from
`
`the Menusoft Action, each Challenged Claim was amended to require that “the
`
`menu configuration software is further enabled to generate the programmed
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-6-
`
`
`
`Apple, Exhibit 1015, Page 18
`
`

`

`
`
`handheld menu configuration in conformity with a customized display layout
`
`unique to the wireless handheld computing device.” Exhibit 1009, Notice of
`
`Allowability Examiner’s Amendment. However, the ‘077 Patent fails to describe
`
`configuring menus with a display layout “unique to the wireless handheld
`
`computing device,” let alone suggest that the Applicants were in possession of this
`
`claimed subject matter. Similarly, each Challenged Claim of the ‘077 Patent was
`
`amended to require that “wherein the system [communication control software] is
`
`further enabled
`
`to automatically format
`
`the programmed handheld menu
`
`configuration for display as cascaded sets of linked graphical user interface screens
`
`appropriate for a customized display layout of at least two different wireless
`
`handheld computing device display sizes in the same connected system.”
`
`(emphasis added). Again, the ‘077 Patent fails to suggest the Applicants were in
`
`possession of a claimed customized display layout of “at least two different
`
`wireless handheld computing device display sizes.” Exhibit 1010, ‘077 Aug. 21,
`
`2009 Reply & Amendment.
`
`For at least the examples described above, the Challenged Claims fail to
`
`meet the written description requirement and other requirements of 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 112, first paragraph.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-7-
`
`
`
`Apple, Exhibit 1015, Page 19
`
`

`

`
`
`Ameranth further amended each independent claim to require a “real time
`
`synchronous communications system” and also a method step. For example,
`
`independent Claim 13 in the ‘077 Patent is directed to “[a]n information
`
`management and real time synchronization communications system,” but also
`
`recites a method step: “the hospitality application information is synchronized
`
`between any connected users.” Claims 1 and 9 are likewise directed to a “system”
`
`but also recite a synchronization step that requires that menu categories, menu
`
`items, and modifiers “are synchronized in real time with analogous information.”
`
`Ameranth asserts in concurrent litigation that the claimed real time
`
`synchronization encompasses both (1) the synchronization of information stored in
`
`a central database with information stored in a database on a connected handheld
`
`device and (2) sending information stored in a central database through Internet
`
`communications without a local copy of “to-be-synchronized” data resident in a
`
`database or otherwise on the connected handheld device. The specification only
`
`arguably supports the former and, therefore, fails to provide the required written
`
`description for the latter type of communication in which there is no copy of the
`
`information in a database of or resident on a connected handheld device. See
`
`Exhibit 1001, ‘077 Patent at 8:28-36 (stating that the steps taken in building a
`
`menu includes “Download the menu database to the handheld device.”); ‘077
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-8-
`
`
`
`Apple, Exhibit 1015, Page 20
`
`

`

`
`
`Patent at 12:12-19 (“In the preferred embodiment, the menu generation approach
`
`of the present invention uses Windows CE®,” which “provides the benefits of a
`
`familiar Windows 95/98/NT® look and feel [and] built-in synchronization between
`
`handheld devices, internet and desktop infrastructure . . . .”). Because there is no
`
`support to establish that the Applicants were in possession of the full scope of the
`
`claimed subject matter as interpreted by Ameranth, the Challenged Claims fail to
`
`meet the written description requirement and other requirements of 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 112.
`
`Independently, the Challenged Claims are also indefinite. When, as here, “a
`
`single claim [] claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the
`
`apparatus, [the claim] is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.” See
`
`IPXL Holdings, LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc., 430 F.3d 1377, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2005)
`
`(citing M.P.E.P. § 2173.05(p)(II)). Because they claim a system that includes a
`
`method step, independent Claims 1, 9, and 13 are indefinite, as are their dependent
`
`claims, which comprise all of the Challenged Claims.
`
`B.
`The Challenged Claims Fail to Claim Patentable Subject
`Matter under § 101
`
`The Challenged Claims are directed to non-statutory subject matter and are
`
`therefore invalid under § 101. Abstract ideas are not patentable. Gottschalk v.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-9-
`
`
`
`Apple, Exhibit 1015, Page 21
`
`

`

`
`
`Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 67 (1972). To be patentable, a claim must do more than
`
`simply state the law of nature or abstract idea and add the words “apply it.” Mayo
`
`Collaboration Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289, 1294 (2012).
`
`When evaluating a claim under § 101, the key question is whether the claims do
`
`significantly more than simply describe the law of nature or abstract idea. Adding
`
`steps that merely reflect routine, conventional activity do not make ineligible
`
`subject matter eligible for a patent. Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1298. Furthermore, the
`
`“prohibition against patenting abstract
`
`ideas ‘cannot be circumvented by
`
`attempting to limit the use of the formula to a particular technological
`
`environment’ or adding ‘insignificant post-solution activity.’” Bilski v. Kappos,
`
`130 S. Ct. 3218, 3230 (2010) (“Bilski II”) (quoting Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S.
`
`175, 191-92 (1981)); see also Accenture Global Servs., GMBH v. Guidewire
`
`Softw