PETITION FOR POST-GRANT REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,982,733
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`FANDANGO, LLC, OPENTABLE, INC., APPLE INC., DOMINO'S PIZZA,
`INC., AND DOMINO’S PIZZA, LLC
`
`Petitioners
`
`
`v.
`
`
`AMERANTH, INC.
`
`
`Patent Owner
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,982,733
`Issue date: January 3, 2006
`
`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. 6,982,733 UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 321
`AND § 18 OF THE LEAHY-SMITH AMERICA INVENTS ACT
`
`
`Apple, Exhibit 1016, Page 1
`
`

`

`PETITION FOR POST-GRANT REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,982,733
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`PAGE
`
`
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`B.
`
`INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 1
`The Challenged Claims Fail to Satisfy the Written Description
`A.
`and Definiteness Requirements of § 112 ............................................. 4
`The Challenged Claims Fail to Claim Patentable Subject Matter
`under § 101 ........................................................................................... 7
`REQUIRED DISCLOSURES ........................................................................ 9
`A. Mandatory Notices ............................................................................... 9
`1.
`Real Parties-in-Interest (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1)) ....................... 9
`2.
`Related Matters (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2)) ................................ 10
`3.
`Lead and Back-Up Counsel (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3)) ............. 11
`4.
`Service Information (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4)) .......................... 11
`Filing Date Requirements ................................................................... 12
`1.
`Compliance with 37 C.F.R. § 42.304 ...................................... 12
`2.
`Certificate of Service on Patent Owner (37 C.F.R. §
`42.205(a)) ................................................................................. 12
`The Filing Fee (37 C.F.R. §§ 42.15(b) and 42.203(a)) ............ 13
`3.
`C. Additional Disclosures ....................................................................... 13
`At Least One Challenged Claim Is Unpatentable (37
`1.
`C.F.R. § 42.208(c)) .................................................................. 13
`
`B.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-i-
`
`
`
`Apple, Exhibit 1016, Page 2
`
`

`

`PETITION FOR POST-GRANT REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,982,733
`
`
`2.
`3.
`4.
`
`Eligibility Based on Time of Filing (37 C.F.R. § 42.303) ....... 14
`Power of Attorney (37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b)) ............................... 14
`A Legible Copy of Every Exhibit in the Exhibit List (37
`C.F.R. § 42.63) ......................................................................... 14
`III. GROUNDS FOR STANDING ..................................................................... 14
`A.
`Eligibility Based on Infringement Suit (37 C.F.R. § 42.302(a)) ........ 14
`B.
`Eligibility Based on Lack of Estoppel (37 C.F.R. § 42.302(b)) ........ 15
`C.
`The ‘733 Patent Is a CBM Patent (37 C.F.R. § 42.304(a)) ................ 15
`1.
`Claims 1-16 Meet the Definition of a CBM ............................ 16
`2.
`Claims 1-16 Are Not Directed to a “Technological
`Invention” ................................................................................. 20
`IV. STATEMENT OF PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED FOR EACH
`CLAIM CHALLENGED ............................................................................. 28
`Claims
`for Which Review
`is Requested
`(37 C.F.R.
`A.
`§ 42.304(b)(1)) ................................................................................... 28
`Statutory Grounds of Challenge (37 C.F.R. § 42.304(b)(2)) ............. 28
`Claim Construction (37 C.F.R. § 42.304(b)(3)) ................................. 28
`1.
`Broadest Reasonable Interpretation ......................................... 28
`THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE INVALID UNDER § 112 ............... 31
`Claims 1-11 Are Indefinite for Mixing Apparatus and Method
`A.
`Elements ............................................................................................. 31
`The Challenged Claims Do Not Satisfy the Written Description
`Requirement. ...................................................................................... 36
`
`B.
`C.
`
`B.
`
`V.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-ii-
`
`
`
`Apple, Exhibit 1016, Page 3
`
`

`

`PETITION FOR POST-GRANT REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,982,733
`
`
`2.
`
`1.
`
`The ‘733 Patent Does Not Provide a Written Description
`Sufficient
`to
`Describe
`the
`“Synchronous
`Communications System/Method” Claimed
`in
`the
`Challenged Claims When Only Use of a Local Database
`is Described in the Original Specification ............................... 38
`Claims 1-3 Fail to Satisfy the Written Description and
`Definiteness Requirements ...................................................... 44
`VI. THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE INVALID UNDER § 101 ............... 48
`A.
`Section 101 Analysis .......................................................................... 48
`B.
`The Challenged Claims Impermissibly Claim an Abstract Idea ........ 51
`C.
`The Challenged Claims Fail the “Machine or Transformation
`Test” ................................................................................................... 58
`The Challenged Claims Are Invalid Under Mayo ............................. 62
`D.
`The Challenged Claims Are Distinguishable From Ultramercial ..... 64
`E.
`VII. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 65
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-iii-
`
`
`
`Apple, Exhibit 1016, Page 4
`
`

`

`PETITION FOR POST-GRANT REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,982,733
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`
`CASES
`
`Accenture Global Servs., GMBH v. Guidewire Software, Inc.,
`No. 2011-1486, 2013 WL 4749919 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 5, 2013) ........................ 8, 65
`
`In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr.,
`367 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2004) .................................................................... 28, 29
`
`Amgen Inc. v. Hoechst Marion Roussel, Inc.,
`314 F.3d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2003) .......................................................................... 44
`
`Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly and Co.,
`598 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc) .......................................................... 36
`
`Bancorp Servs., LLC v Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada,
`687 F.3d 1266 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ........................................................ 49, 53, 55, 57
`
`Bilski v. Kappos,
`130 S. Ct. 3218 (2010) (“Bilski II”) ................................. 8, 48, 49, 50, 58, 61, 62
`
`CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp.,
`288 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2002) .......................................................................... 47
`
`CLS Bank International v. Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd.,
`717 F.3d 1269 (Fed. Cir. 2013) .............................................................. 49, 51, 57
`
`Compression Tech. Solutions LLC v. EMC Corp.,
`2013 WL 2368039 (N.D. Cal. May 29, 2013) .............................................. 49, 61
`
`CyberSource Corp. v Retail Decisions, Inc.,
`654 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ............................... 50, 53, 54, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61
`
`Dealertrack, Inc. v. Huber,
`674 F.3d 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ........................................................ 49, 56, 59, 60
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-iv-
`
`
`
`Apple, Exhibit 1016, Page 5
`
`

`

`PETITION FOR POST-GRANT REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,982,733
`
`
`Diamond v. Diehr,
`450 U.S. 175 (1981) ........................................................................................ 8, 50
`
`Gottschalk v. Benson,
`409 U.S. 63 (1972) .......................................................................................... 7, 60
`
`Hyatt v. Boone,
`146 F.3d 1348 (Fed. Cir. 1998) .......................................................................... 37
`
`ICU Med., Inc. v. Alaris Med. Sys., Inc.,
`558 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2009) .......................................................................... 37
`
`Interthinx, Inc. v. Corelogic Solutions, LLC,
`No. CBM2012-00007 (BJM) (Ex. 1036) ............................................................ 24
`
`IPXL Holdings, LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc.,
`430 F.3d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2005) .......................................................... 5, 31, 32, 33
`
`In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litig.,
`639 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2011) .............................................................. 32, 33, 34
`
`LizardTech v. Earth Res. Mapping, Inc.,
`424 F.3d 1336, 76 U.S.P.Q.2d 1731 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ........................................ 43
`
`Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc.,
`107 F.3d 1565 (Fed. Cir. 1997) .......................................................................... 37
`
`Mayo Collaboration Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc.,
`132 S. Ct. 1289 (2012) ............................................................7, 48, 50, 57, 62, 63
`
`PowerOasis, Inc. v. T-Mobile USA, Inc.,
`522 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2008) .......................................................................... 44
`
`Rembrandt Data Techs., LP v. AOL, LLC,
`641 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2011) .......................................................................... 31
`
`Research Corp. Techs., Inc. v. Microsoft Corp.,
`627 F.3d 859 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ............................................................................ 50
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-v-
`
`
`
`Apple, Exhibit 1016, Page 6
`
`

`

`PETITION FOR POST-GRANT REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,982,733
`
`
`SAP Am., Inc. v. Versata Dev. Grp., No. CBM2012-0001 ................................ 16, 51
`
`SiRF Tech., Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n,
`601 F.3d 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2010) .................................................................... 51, 55
`
`In re Trans Texas Holdings Corp.,
`498 F.3d 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2007) .......................................................................... 30
`
`Tronzo v. Biomet, Inc.,
`156 F.3d 1154 (Fed. Cir. 1998) .................................................................... 37, 43
`
`Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC,
`722 F.3d 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2013) .......................................................................... 64
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Rackspace Hosting, Inc.,
`6:12-cv-00375, Dkt. No. 38, slip op. (E.D. Tex. Mar. 27, 2012) (Ex.
`1065) ................................................................................................................... 57
`
`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) ................................................................................................................... 57
`
`Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar,
`935 F.2d 1555 (Fed. Cir. 1991) .................................................................... 37, 44
`
`In re Zletz,
`893 F.2d 319 (Fed. Cir. 1989) ............................................................................ 29
`
`STATUTES
`
`35 U.S.C. § 101 .................................................................................................passim
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112 .................................................................................................passim
`
`35 U.S.C. § 119 ........................................................................................................ 37
`
`35 U.S.C. § 120 ........................................................................................................ 37
`
`35 U.S.C. § 324(a) ................................................................................................... 13
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-vi-
`
`
`
`Apple, Exhibit 1016, Page 7
`
`

`

`PETITION FOR POST-GRANT REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,982,733
`
`
`RULES
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.6 ....................................................................................................... 12
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.15 ..................................................................................................... 13
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.63 ..................................................................................................... 14
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.206 ................................................................................................... 12
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.300 ................................................................................................... 28
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.301 ....................................................................................... 15, 20, 21
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.304 ...........................................................................11, 12, 14, 15, 28
`
`
`
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`
`157 Cong. Rec. S1360 (March 8, 2011) ................................................ 17, 18, 20, 22
`
`77 Fed. Reg. 157 .......................................................................................... 15, 16, 21
`
`Matal, J., A Guide to the Legislative History of the America Invents Act Part
`II .......................................................................................................................... 17
`
`MICROSOFT® PRESS COMPUTER DICTIONARY 479 (4th ed. 1999) ........... 47
`
`MPEP § 2163 ............................................................................................... 36, 37, 44
`
`MPEP § 2173.05 .................................................................................................. 5, 31
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-vii-
`
`
`
`Apple, Exhibit 1016, Page 8
`
`

`

`PETITION FOR POST-GRANT REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,982,733
`
`
`PETITIONERS’ MASTER LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`DESCRIPTION (BOLDED IF USED)
`EXHIBIT NO.
`FANDANGO 1001* U.S. Patent No. 8,146,077
`FANDANGO 1002* Litigation Report on U.S. Patent No. 8,146,077
`FANDANGO 1003* Ameranth August 15, 2011 Press Release
`
`FANDANGO 1004 Ameranth July 2, 2012 Press Release
`FANDANGO 1005* Litigation Report on U.S. Patent No. 6,384,850
`
`FANDANGO 1006 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)
`
`FANDANGO 1007 Menusoft, ECF No. 331
`FANDANGO 1008* Eventbrite Complaint
`FANDANGO 1009* ‘077 Notice of Allowability Examiner’s Amendment
`FANDANGO 1010* ‘077 Aug. 21, 2009 Reply & Amendment
`
`FANDANGO 1011 Certificate of Service
`
`FANDANGO 1012 Powers of Attorney
`FANDANGO 1013* Kayak Complaint
`FANDANGO 1014* Hotels.com Complaint
`FANDANGO 1015* Orbitz Complaint
`FANDANGO 1016* Hotel Tonight Complaint
`FANDANGO 1017* Travelocity Complaint
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-viii-
`
`
`
`Apple, Exhibit 1016, Page 9
`
`

`

`PETITION FOR POST-GRANT REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,982,733
`
`
`DESCRIPTION (BOLDED IF USED)
`EXHIBIT NO.
`FANDANGO 1018* Expedia Complaint
`FANDANGO 1019* Hotwire Complaint
`FANDANGO 1020* Wanderspot First Amended Complaint
`FANDANGO 1021* Micros First Amended Complaint
`
`FANDANGO 1022 Fandango Complaint
`FANDANGO 1023* StubHub Complaint
`FANDANGO 1024* Ticketmaster and Live Nation Complaint
`FANDANGO 1025* OpenTable’s Second Amended Complaint
`
`FANDANGO 1026 77 Fed. Reg. 157, pp. 48734 - 48753
`
`FANDANGO 1027 77 Fed. Reg. 157, pp. 48680 - 48732
`
`FANDANGO 1028 SAP America, Inc. v. Versata Development Grp., Inc.,
`CBM2012-00001, Paper No. 36 (P.T.A.B. January 9, 2013)
`
`FANDANGO 1029 Matal, J., A Guide to the Legislative History of the America
`Invents Act: Part II of II, 21 Fed. Cir. Bar. J. No. 4
`
`FANDANGO 1030 77 Fed. Reg. 157, pp. 48756 - 48773
`FANDANGO 1031* U.S. Patent No. 6,384,850
`FANDANGO 1032* U.S. Patent No. 6,871,325
`
`FANDANGO 1033 U.S. Patent No. 6,982,733
`
`FANDANGO 1034 Petitioners’ Address List
`
`FANDANGO 1035
`
`‘850 Office Action of May 22, 2001 at 2-3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-ix-
`
`
`
`Apple, Exhibit 1016, Page 10
`
`

`

`PETITION FOR POST-GRANT REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,982,733
`
`
`DESCRIPTION (BOLDED IF USED)
`EXHIBIT NO.
`FANDANGO 1036 Interthinx, Inc. v. Corelogic Solutions, LLC, No. CBM2012-
`00007 (BJM), Paper 16 at 18 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 31, 2013)
`
`FANDANGO 1037 Menusoft ECF No. 235
`
`FANDANGO 1038 Opentable First Amended Complaint
`FANDANGO 1039* Papa John’s II Complaint
`
`FANDANGO 1040 Litigation Report on U.S. Patent No. 6,982,733
`FANDANGO 1041* Litigation Report on U.S. Patent No. 6,871,325
`
`FANDANGO 1042 Larson Declaration (including Exhibits A-B)
`
`FANDANGO 1043 157 Cong. Rec. S1360-1394
`
`FANDANGO 1044 Apple Complaint
`
`FANDANGO 1045 Domino’s Third Amended Complaint
`
`FANDANGO 1046 Ameranth’s Infringement Contentions to Fandango
`FANDANGO 1047* Ameranth’s Infringement Contentions to StubHub
`FANDANGO 1048* Ameranth’s Infringement Contentions to Micros Systems
`FANDANGO 1049* Agilysys Complaint
`FANDANGO 1050* Best Western Complaint
`FANDANGO 1051* Grubhub First Amended Complaint
`FANDANGO 1052* Hilton First Amended Complaint
`FANDANGO 1053* Hyatt First Amended Complaint
`FANDANGO 1054* Marriott Complaint
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-x-
`
`
`
`Apple, Exhibit 1016, Page 11
`
`

`

`PETITION FOR POST-GRANT REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,982,733
`
`
`DESCRIPTION (BOLDED IF USED)
`EXHIBIT NO.
`FANDANGO 1055* Mobo Systems Complaint
`FANDANGO 1056* Ordr.in Complaint
`FANDANGO 1057* Pizza Hut Complaint
`FANDANGO 1058* Seamless First Amended Complaint
`FANDANGO 1059* Starbucks Complaint
`FANDANGO 1060* Starwood First Amended Complaint
`FANDANGO 1061* Usablenet First Amended Complaint
`
`FANDANGO 1062 NOT USED
`
`FANDANGO 1063 SAP America, Inc. v. Versata Development Grp., Inc.,
`CBM2012-00001, Paper No. 70 (P.T.A.B. June 11, 2013)
`
`FANDANGO 1064 Vacation Exch. LLC v. Wyndham Exch. & Rentals, Inc., No.
`2:12-cv-04229, Dkt. No. 27 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 18, 2012)
`
`FANDANGO 1065 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.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-xi-
`
`
`
`Apple, Exhibit 1016, Page 12
`
`

`

`PETITION FOR POST-GRANT REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,982,733
`
`
`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. 6,982,733 (the “‘733 Patent”). In particular, Petitioners
`
`request a cancellation of Claims 1-16 of the ‘733 Patent (“Challenged Claims”) as
`
`unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and 112.
`
`The ‘733 Patent was originally filed on November 1, 2001 as U.S. Patent
`
`Application No. 10/016,517 (“‘517 Application”). The ‘517 Application is a
`
`continuation-in-part of U.S. Patent No. 6,384,850 (“‘850 Patent”).1
`
`The ‘733 Patent is directed to an “information management and synchronous
`
`communications system for generating and transmitting menus” for hospitability
`
`industry such as restaurant/hotel/casino food/drink ordering (Claims 1-11) and an
`
`information management and synchronous communications method for generating
`
`and modifying such a menus in a computer system (Claims 12-16).
`
`
`
`1 Petitioners along with other sued companies are contemporaneously filing
`
`a covered business method review petition on the ‘850 Patent.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-1-
`
`
`
`Apple, Exhibit 1016, Page 13
`
`

`

`PETITION FOR POST-GRANT REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,982,733
`
`
`Targeting activities that are financial in nature such as point-of-sale systems,
`
`Ameranth has filed 9 different patent infringement actions alleging infringement of
`
`the ‘733 Patent by at least three different and distinct industries.2 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.
`
`While Ameranth currently asserts the ‘733 patent against Petitioners, this is
`
`not the first time Ameranth has litigated the ‘733 Patent. On June 28, 2007,
`
`Ameranth sued Menusoft Systems Corporation and Cash Register Sales & Service
`
`
`
`2 See Exhibit 1040, Litigation Report on U.S. Patent No. 6,982,733; 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.”).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-2-
`
`
`
`Apple, Exhibit 1016, Page 14
`
`

`

`PETITION FOR POST-GRANT REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,982,733
`
`
`of Houston, Inc. (collectively, “Menusoft”) in the Eastern District of Texas for
`
`alleged infringement of the ‘850, ‘325,3 and ‘733 Patents (“Menusoft Action”).
`
`The Menusoft Action proceeded to a trial in which the jury found that all asserted
`
`claims were invalid for anticipation and obviousness. 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). While only
`
`certain of the Challenged Claims were at issue in the Menusoft Action, and the
`
`invalidity verdict was ultimately vacated as a result of settlement, 4 the jury
`
`correctly determined that the asserted claims were invalid.
`
`
`
`3 U.S. Patent. No. 6,871,325 (“’325 Patent”) is a continuation of the ‘850
`
`Patent. Petitioners are contemporaneously filing a covered business method
`
`review petition on the ‘325 Patent.
`
`4 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.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-3-
`
`
`
`Apple, Exhibit 1016, Page 15
`
`

`

`PETITION FOR POST-GRANT REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,982,733
`
`
`In addition, the claimed subject matter of Claims 1-16 of the ‘733 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 ‘733 Patent is not a patent for technological inventions. Therefore, the ‘733
`
`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 1-16 of the ‘733
`
`Patent as a covered business method patent are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§§ 101 and 112 and must be canceled.
`
`A. The Challenged Claims Fail to Satisfy the Written
`Description and Definiteness Requirements of § 112
`
`Claims 1-16 of the ‘733 Patent fail to satisfy the written description and
`
`definiteness requirements of § 112 and are therefore invalid.
`
`First, Claims 1-11 are indefinite because they recite systems including a
`
`method step. For example, independent Claim 4 in the ‘733 Patent is directed to
`
`“[a]n information management and synchronous communications system,” but also
`
`recites a method step: “said second menu is manually modified by handwriting or
`
`voice recording after generation.” As yet another example, Claim 1 is directed to
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-4-
`
`
`
`Apple, Exhibit 1016, Page 16
`
`

`

`PETITION FOR POST-GRANT REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,982,733
`
`
`“[a]n information management and synchronous communications system” but
`
`recites a method step of “said second menu is manually modified after generation.”
`
`Indeed, this same step is found in method Claim 12. Independent Claim 5 recites a
`
`system but also claims a step that “said modified menu is manually modified after
`
`generation.”
`
`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, 4, 5, and 12 are indefinite, as
`
`are their dependent claims, which comprise all of the Challenged Claims.
`
`As a second independent ground, all of the Challenged Claims are invalid
`
`based on the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112 because Ameranth
`
`claimed technology that Applicants did not invent and that is not disclosed in the
`
`specification.
`
` Ameranth asserts in concurrent litigation that the claimed
`
`synchronous communication system 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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-5-
`
`
`
`Apple, Exhibit 1016, Page 17
`
`

`

`PETITION FOR POST-GRANT REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,982,733
`
`
`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 1033, ‘733 Patent at 8:21-29 (stating that the steps taken in
`
`building a menu includes “Download the menu database to the handheld device.”);
`
`‘733 Patent at 12:13-20 (“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
`
`of 35 U.S.C. § 112.
`
`As third and fourth grounds for unpatentability under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
`
`Claims 1-3 are invalid based on the written description requirement and
`
`definiteness requirement. The claimed subject matter requiring transmission of a
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-6-
`
`
`
`Apple, Exhibit 1016, Page 18
`
`

`

`PETITION FOR POST-GRANT REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,982,733
`
`
`second menu to a web page is not adequately described in the specification. As
`
`such, the specification fails to convey with reasonable particularity that the
`
`patentee was in possession of the claimed subject matter. The claim language fails
`
`the definiteness requirement as well because the language is non-sensical: A “web
`
`page” is a document, not a device.
`
`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.
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-7-
`
`
`
`Apple, Exhibit 1016, Page 19
`
`

`

`PETITION FOR POST-GRANT REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,982,733
`
`
`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
`
`Software, Inc., No. 2011-1486, 2013 WL 4749919, at *5 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 5, 2013)
`
`(finding patent ineligible system claims that merely recited a corresponding
`
`method without other “meaningful limitations”).
`
`Indeed, Ameranth openly admits that the Challenged Claims are merely
`
`directed to a computerized system for facilitating “efficient generation of
`
`computerized menus” using a general purpose computer. Exhibit 1033, ‘733
`
`Patent at Abstract. In claiming “an information management and synchronous
`
`communications system for generating and transmitting menus,” the claims (albeit
`
`concerning use for a financial product or service) are directed to nothing more than
`
`a general purpose computer using general purpose programming, and the
`
`specification states that the system employs “typical” computer elements. Exhibit
`
`1033, ‘733 Patent at 6:47-7:3. Furthermore, the specification fails to disclose any
`
`algorithms for the synchronous communications of menus. In essence, the ‘733
`
`Patent simply computerizes the well-known concept of generating menus and
`
`facilitating orders from the menus, a concept that has been performed by humans
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-8-
`
`
`
`Apple, Exhibit 1016, Page 20
`
`

`

`PETITION FOR POST-GRANT REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,982,733
`
`
`“verbally” or by “pen and paper” for years before the patent application was filed.
`
`Although the claims recite a computer “operating system,” “central processing
`
`unit,” “data storage device,” and “wireless handheld computing device,” these
`
`computer-aided limitations are insufficient to impart patent eligibility to the
`
`otherwise abstract idea. The use of a computer adds no more than its basic
`
`function – improving the “efficient generation of computerized menus” – so that
`
`menus are generated faster than with the non-computerized process. Because the
`
`Challenged Claims cover nothing more than an abstract idea of generating menus,
`
`they fail to satisfy the patent eligibility requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 101.
`
`II. REQUIRED DISCLOSURES
`A. Mandatory Notices
`1. Real Parties-in-Interest (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1))
`
`The real parties-in-interest for this Petition are:
`
`a)
`
`b)
`
`c)
`
`d)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Apple Inc.;
`
`Domino’s Pizza, Inc.;
`
`Domino’s Pizza, LLC;
`
`Fandango, LLC (formerly known as Fandango, Inc.); and
`
`-9-
`
`
`
`Apple, Exhibit 1016, Page 21
`
`

`

`PETITION FOR POST-GRANT REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,982,733
`
`
`e)
`
`OpenTable, Inc. (collectively “Petitioners”).5
`
`2. Related Matters (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2))
`
`Petitioners have not been a party to any other post-grant review of the
`
`Challenged Claims. Petitioner notes that the following current proceedings may
`
`affect or be affected by a decision in this proceeding:
`
`a)
`
`Ameranth, Inc. v. Apple Inc., Case No. 3-12-cv-02350 (S.D.
`
`Cal., filed Sept. 26, 2012);
`
`b)
`
`Ameranth, Inc. v. Fandango, Inc., Case No. 3-12-cv-01651
`
`(S.D. Cal., filed June 29, 2012);
`
`c)
`
`Ameranth, Inc. v. Domino’s Pizza, LLC et al, Case No. 3-12-cv-
`
`00733 (S.D. Cal., filed March 27, 2012);
`
`d)
`
`Ameranth, Inc. v. OpenTable, Inc., Case No. 3-12-cv-00731
`
`(S.D. Cal., filed March 27, 2012);
`
`e)
`
`Ameranth, Inc. v. OpenTable, Inc., Case No. 3-13-cv-01840
`
`(S.D. Cal., filed August 8, 2013);
`
`
`
`5 A complete list of Petitioners and their corporate addresses are attached as
`
`Exhibit 1034.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-10-
`
`
`
`Apple, Exhibit 1016, Page 22
`
`

`

`PETITION FOR POST-GRANT REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,982,733
`
`
`f)
`
`Ameranth, Inc. v. Fandango, Inc., Case No. 3-13-cv-01525
`
`(S.D. Cal., filed July 1, 2013); and
`
`g)
`
`Ameranth, Inc. v. Domino’s Pizza, LLC et al, Case No. 3-13-cv-
`
`01520 (S.D. Cal., filed July 1, 2013).
`
`3.
`
`Lead and Back-Up Counsel (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3))
`
`Under 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.304(a)(1), and 42.8(b)(3), Apple, Inc. identifies
`
`James M. Heintz (Reg. No. 41,828) as lead counsel and Ryan W. Cobb (Reg. No.
`
`64,598) as back-up counsel, both of DLA Piper LLP (US); Domino’s Pizza, Inc.
`
`and Domino’s Pizza, LLC identify Frank A. Angileri (Reg. No. 36,733) as lead
`
`counsel and Thomas W. Cunningham (Reg. No. 48,722) as back-up counsel, both
`
`of Brooks Kushman P.C.; and Fandango, LLC and OpenTable, Inc. identify
`
`Richard S. Zembek (Reg. No. 43,306) as lead counsel and Gilbert A. Greene (Reg.
`
`No. 48,366) as back-up counsel, both of Fulbright & Jaworski LLP.
`
`4.
`
`Service Information (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4))
`
`Petitioners identify the following service information:
`
`James M. Heintz
`DLA Piper LLP (US)
`One Founta