throbber
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, HILKTON 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.
`
`
`
`Case CBM CBM2015-00080, CBM2015-000821
`Patent Nos. 6,384,850, 6,871,325
`
`
`
`Supplemental Declaration of Don Turnbull, Ph.D.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 CBM2015-00096 and CBM2015-00097 have been consolidated with CBM2015-
`00080 and CBM2015-00082, respectively.
`
`WEST\268707834.2
`
`Apple, Inc., Exhibit 1070, Page 1
`
`

`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`B.
`C.
`
`D.
`
`Analysis of Patent Owner’s Responses Regarding Patentability of the
`’850 and ’325 Patents .................................................................................... 4
`A. DeLorme discloses “wherein the applications and data are
`synchronized between the central database, at least one wireless
`handheld computing device, at least one web server and at least
`one web page” ..................................................................................... 4
`DeLorme’s WCU Is a Handheld Device ............................................. 9
`DeLorme’s WCU Has Hospitality Applications and Data Stored
`Thereon .............................................................................................. 11
`Transmission of an Application to the Wireless Handheld
`Device Is Not Required by the Claims .............................................. 16
`DeLorme Discloses Use of the WCU with Desktop Internet
`Embodiments ..................................................................................... 17
`DeLorme Discloses an “application program interface” that
`“enables integration of outside applications” .................................... 20
`G. DeLorme Discloses a “communications control module”
`(“CCM”) ............................................................................................ 23
`H. DeLorme Renders Dependent Claims 13-15 of the ’850 Patent
`Obvious ............................................................................................. 27
`DeLorme Discloses “wherein the synchronized data relates to
`orders” in Claim 11 of the ’325 Patent .............................................. 33
`Patent Owner’s Secondary Considerations Evidence Fails to
`Demonstrate Non-obviousness .......................................................... 34
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`I.
`
`J.
`
`
`I.
`
`
`
`WEST\268707834.2
`
`Apple, Inc., Exhibit 1070, Page 2
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent Nos. 6,384,850; 6,871,325
`Supplemental Declaration of Don Turnbull, Ph.D.
`
`
`
`I, Don Turnbull, do hereby declare:
`
`1.
`
`I am making this declaration at the request of the Petitioners in
`
`Covered Business Method Reviews of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,384,850 (the “’850
`
`patent”) and 6,871,325 (the “’325 patent”) (collectively, the “Ameranth Patents”),
`
`CBM2015-00080, CBM2015-00082, CBM2015-00096 and CBM2015-00097.
`
`2.
`
`My compensation, qualifications, and professional experience are set
`
`forth in the declaration I submitted along with the petitions in these proceedings
`
`(my “Original Declaration”), along with an overview of the background of the
`
`background of the ’850 and ’325 patents, my understanding of the applicable legal
`
`principles and a description of the state of the art at the filing date of the patents.
`
`My Original Declaration also sets forth my analysis and opinions regarding the
`
`invalidity of claims 12-15 of the ’850 patent and claims 11, 13 and 15 of the ’325
`
`patent (“Challenged Claims”), including my opinions and the bases for my
`
`opinions that the Challenged Claims are obvious in view of U.S. Patent No.
`
`5,984,040 to DeLorme, et. al. (“DeLorme”), as well as the materials I reviewed in
`
`forming these opinions.
`
`3.
`
`I have additionally reviewed Patent Owner’s Responses in CBM2015-
`
`00080 (“’850 POR”) and in CBM2015-00082 (“’325 POR”), the declaration and
`
`deposition transcript of Patent Owner’s expert, Dr. Alfred Weaver, and the Board’s
`
`Apple, Inc., Exhibit 1070, Page 3
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent Nos. 6,384,850; 6,871,325
`Supplemental Declaration of Don Turnbull, Ph.D.
`
`
`institution decisions. I have been asked by counsel for Petitioner to respond to
`
`certain arguments raised by Patent Owner and Dr. Weaver.
`
`4.
`
`Based upon my review of the Patent Owner’s responses, Dr. Weaver’s
`
`opinions, and the Board’s institution decisions, it remains my opinion that the
`
`Challenged Claims are invalid as obvious in view of U.S. Patent No. 5,948,040 to
`
`DeLorme et al. (“DeLorme”).
`
`I.
`
`Analysis of Patent Owner’s Responses Regarding Patentability of the
`’850 and ’325 Patents
`A. DeLorme discloses “wherein the applications and data are
`synchronized between the central database, at least one wireless
`handheld computing device, at least one web server and at least
`one web page”
`
`5.
`
`Patent Owner appears to contend that DeLorme fails to disclose this
`
`limitation because applications cannot be synchronized by synchronizing the data
`
`used by those applications. For example, Patent Owner’s Responses state “one of
`
`the fundamental aspects of the claims, i.e., that both the ‘application’ and the
`
`‘data’ are synchronized, not merely the ‘data.’” ’850 POR at 14 n.9; ’325 POR at
`
`17 n.13. I disagree for the following reasons.
`
`6.
`
`In my opinion, a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) would
`
`understand that one way in which hospitality applications can be synchronized is
`
`by synchronizing the data used by those applications. This understanding is
`
`WEST\268707834.2
`
`Apple, Exhibit 1070, Page 4
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent Nos. 6,384,850; 6,871,325
`Supplemental Declaration of Don Turnbull, Ph.D.
`
`
`consistent with the use of the phrase in both the Challenged Claims and in the
`
`patent specification.
`
`7.
`
`First, the language of the Challenged Claims indicates that one way to
`
`synchronize applications is by synchronizing the data used by those applications.
`
`For example, claim 16 of the ’850 patent depends from claim 12 and recites:
`
`16. The information management and synchronous communications
`system of claim 12 wherein the applications and data are
`synchronized by digital data transmission between the central
`database, at least one wireless handheld computing device, at least one
`Web Server and at least one Web page.
`
`8.
`
`The additional limitation of claim 16 modifies the claim 12 limitation
`
`“wherein the applications and data are synchronized…,” and recites a particular
`
`means for performing the synchronization of applications and data. Specifically,
`
`claim 16 recites that the applications and data are synchronized by digital data
`
`transmission between the four recited components. Thus, a POSITA would
`
`understand that one way to synchronize applications (as well as data) would be
`
`through the transmission of data.
`
`9.
`
`Second, the description of synchronization in the patent specification
`
`confirms that hospitality applications in the central database, wireless handheld
`
`WEST\268707834.2
`
`Apple, Exhibit 1070, Page 5
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent Nos. 6,384,850; 6,871,325
`Supplemental Declaration of Don Turnbull, Ph.D.
`
`
`device, web server and web page may be synchronized by synchronizing the data
`
`used by those applications. For example, the patent specifications teach:
`
`The synchronous communications control module . . . provides a
`single point of entry for all hospitality applications to communicate
`with one another wirelessly or over the Web . . . The single point of
`entry works to keep all wireless handheld devices and linked Web
`sites in synch with the backoffice server (central database) so that
`the different components are in equilibrium at any given time and an
`overall consistency is achieved. For example, a reservation made
`online is automatically communicated to the backoffice server which
`then synchronizes with all the wireless handheld devices wirelessly.
`Similarly, changes made on any of the wireless handheld devices will
`be reflected instantaneously on the backoffice server and the other
`handheld devices. Ex. 1001 at 11:24-42; Ex. 1003 at 11:37-55.
`
`10. As evident from this passage, applications on each of the four claimed
`
`components (database, wireless device, web server and web page) are kept “in
`
`synch” (i.e. synchronized) by communicating data between the claimed
`
`components. As one example, a reservation (which a POSITA would understand
`
`to be data as opposed to, e.g., software application code) made online (i.e. via a
`
`webpage) is automatically communicated to the server (which includes the central
`
`database), which then synchronizes this data with wireless handheld devices.
`
`Likewise, changes made on a wireless device (which a POSITA would understand
`
`WEST\268707834.2
`
`Apple, Exhibit 1070, Page 6
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent Nos. 6,384,850; 6,871,325
`Supplemental Declaration of Don Turnbull, Ph.D.
`
`
`to be changes to data as opposed to, e.g., software application code) are
`
`communicated to the backoffice server and to other devices in the system. Nothing
`
`in this passage discusses the transmission of anything other than data to keep the
`
`applications in the central database in synch with those on wireless devices, web
`
`pages or the web server.
`
`11.
`
`Patent Owner’s Responses do not clearly articulate what Patent
`
`Owner contends is required to synchronize an application, instead stating:
`
`Data is communicated from both sides (client and server), but
`software/ applications are not synchronized between the server and
`WCU client. Thus, for example, the updating of a restaurant menu to
`achieve “consistency” between the wireless handheld device of claim
`element “b” and the central database so that the updated menu is
`synchronized with the central database and then “stored” as part of
`the hospitality application on the handheld to facilitate future
`ordering, was not taught by DeLorme, nor possible with the DeLorme
`WCU. There is no mention in DeLorme of synchronizing application
`software between server side and client side. ’850 POR at 18; ’325
`POR at 21-22.
`
`12. However, a POSITA would understand that an updated menu is
`
`simply data, as opposed to, e.g., application code. Furthermore, there is no
`
`disclosure in the Ameranth patent specifications of storing updated menu data as
`
`part of a hospitality application. Indeed, the patent specifications do not disclose
`
`WEST\268707834.2
`
`Apple, Exhibit 1070, Page 7
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent Nos. 6,384,850; 6,871,325
`Supplemental Declaration of Don Turnbull, Ph.D.
`
`
`any way of synchronizing applications other than by transmitting updated data
`
`amongst the claimed components.
`
`13.
`
`Even if Patent Owner was correct that the specifications described
`
`transmitting an updated menu and then storing it as part of a hospitality application
`
`(which I disagree with for the reasons stated above), Patent Owner appears to
`
`recognize that this would be simply one example of how applications could be
`
`synchronized. Nothing in the patent specifications precludes other ways of
`
`synchronizing applications, such as by synchronizing the data used by those
`
`applications.
`
`14.
`
`I note that Patent Owner’s expert Dr. Weaver admitted at his
`
`deposition that applications can be synchronized by sending updated data to a
`
`wireless device. Ex. 1076 at 149:12-16. And, that DeLorme discloses sending
`
`updated data to wireless devices and client devices accessing the TRIPS system via
`
`web pages. Id. at 150:10-21. This testimony is consistent with my opinion that
`
`DeLorme discloses the limitation “wherein the applications and data are
`
`synchronized between the central database, at least one wireless handheld
`
`computing device, at least one web server and at least one web page.”
`
`15. Dr. Weaver further testified that in his opinion synchronizing
`
`applications required checking whether the software on each of the claimed
`
`WEST\268707834.2
`
`Apple, Exhibit 1070, Page 8
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent Nos. 6,384,850; 6,871,325
`Supplemental Declaration of Don Turnbull, Ph.D.
`
`
`devices was the same version, and if not, transmitting updated software code. Id.
`
`at 153:3-19. I disagree.
`
`16. None of the Challenged Claims include a requirement for checking
`
`software versions. Nor is there any support for such a requirement in the
`
`Ameranth patents. The patent specifications do not describe any embodiments in
`
`which the version of any hospitality applications are checked, much less any
`
`description of synchronizing applications by checking software versions. Nor is
`
`there any support for a version-checking requirement in the prosecution history.
`
`Dr. Weaver admitted as much at his deposition. Id. at 154:9-155:4.
`
`17.
`
`Likewise, none of the Challenged Claims recite any requirement for
`
`the transmission of software code. Nor is there any description in the specification
`
`or prosecution history of transmitting updated software code, much less any
`
`description of synchronizing applications by transmitting updated software code to
`
`a wireless device, web server, database or web page. Again, Dr. Weaver agreed
`
`with me on this point at his deposition. Id.
`
`B. DeLorme’s WCU Is a Handheld Device
`18.
`Patent Owner’s Responses argue that DeLorme’s WCU is not a
`
`“wireless handheld device,” because DeLorme’s WCU needs to be held with both
`
`hands. ’850 POR at 27-28 and n.9; ’325 POR at 30-31 and n.17. I disagree for the
`
`following reasons.
`
`WEST\268707834.2
`
`Apple, Exhibit 1070, Page 9
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent Nos. 6,384,850; 6,871,325
`Supplemental Declaration of Don Turnbull, Ph.D.
`
`
`
`19.
`
`First, in my opinion, the broadest reasonable interpretation of
`
`“wireless handheld device” should not be limited to devices that are held in a
`
`single hand. A POSITA would understand that the plain meaning of “handheld” is
`
`not limited to devices held in a single hand. For example, the American Heritage
`
`Dictionary defines “handheld” to mean “compact enough to be used or operated
`
`while being held in the hand or hands”. Ex. 1069.
`
`20.
`
`The Ameranth patents describe “PDAs” and “PDA type devices,”
`
`such as those manufactured by Palm as examples of wireless handheld computing
`
`devices. See, e.g. Ex. 1001 at 1:32-65, 13:50. In the late 1990s, PDAs typically
`
`were operated using two hands. Thus, a POSITA would conclude that “wireless
`
`handheld devices” encompass PDA devices operated using two hands.
`
`21.
`
`Second, DeLorme’s WCU is a handheld device even under Patent
`
`Owner’s construction. DeLorme expressly discloses that its WCUs “are typically
`
`handheld.” Ex. 1024 at 71:67-72:2. DeLorme further discloses that the WCU
`
`functions can be performed, among other things, by a PDA or a “smart” phone. Id.
`
`at 75:38-45. Both PDAs and smartphones are devices that can be held and
`
`operated with a single hand. Finally, DeLorme’s Fig. 9 depicts a user holding
`
`WCU 907 with only one hand and using his other hand only to operate the device.
`
`WEST\268707834.2
`
`Apple, Exhibit 1070, Page 10
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent Nos. 6,384,850; 6,871,325
`Supplemental Declaration of Don Turnbull, Ph.D.
`
`
`
`C. DeLorme’s WCU Has Hospitality Applications and Data Stored
`Thereon
`
`22.
`
`Patent Owner’s Responses argue that “DeLorme clearly provides no
`
`disclosure of a locally-stored software application and associated data for the
`
`claimed wireless device.” ’850 POR at 29; ’325 POR at 32. I disagree for the
`
`following reasons.
`
`23.
`
`First, I note that elsewhere in Patent Owner’s Responses, Patent
`
`Owner admits that DeLorme’s WCUs include software stored on the WCU for
`
`communicating with the TRIPS server:
`
`DeLorme discloses that the WCU is “programmed” to transmit data to
`the server side and to receive data back from the server side. (Exh.
`1024 75:59 et seq.). “Programmed” means that software is stored on
`the WCU. ’325 POR at 18; ’325 POR at 21.
`
`24.
`
`I agree that the WCU includes software stored on the device for
`
`transmitting data to, and receiving data from, the TRIPS server. For example,
`
`DeLorme expressly teaches that “TRIPS WCUs 907 facilitate two way
`
`communications at 903 of standard TRIPS data packets 939 with at least one
`
`TRIPS travel information and service provider 904.” Ex. 1024 at 72:12-15.
`
`I understand that Dr. Weaver agrees as well. Ex. 1076 at 162:4-12. I also note that
`
`one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that a WCU, particularly those
`
`embodiments that employ PDAs and smart phones (Ex. 1024 at 75:38-41) would
`
`WEST\268707834.2
`
`Apple, Exhibit 1070, Page 11
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent Nos. 6,384,850; 6,871,325
`Supplemental Declaration of Don Turnbull, Ph.D.
`
`
`include an operating system and additional application software to perform the
`
`WCU functions disclosed in DeLorme and discussed below.
`
`25.
`
`In order for DeLorme’s WCUs to transmit data to and receive data
`
`from the TRIPS server, the WCU must necessarily store the data at least
`
`temporarily. If data is sent from the WCU, it must necessarily be stored on the
`
`WCU prior to transmission. And, if data is received by the WCU, it must be stored
`
`at least temporarily on the device. Thus, the WCU inherently stores TRIPS data.
`
`26.
`
`Furthermore, the software on the WCU is an application. DeLorme
`
`discloses that software on the WCU performs a number of tasks in addition to
`
`transmitting data to and receiving data from the TRIPS server. For example,
`
`DeLorme discloses that software on the WCU can perform voice recognition (Ex.
`
`1024 at 76:46-59), convert output to audio form (id.) and process data from a GPS
`
`receiver (id. at 75:46-59), among other things.
`
`27. More specifically, the WCU application is a hospitality application,
`
`because the data exchanged with the TRIPS server and presented to the user is
`
`hospitality data, and because this hospitality data is exchanged using a format
`
`specific to DeLorme’s TRIPS hospitality system (Ex. 1024 at 73:30-41). The
`
`exchanged data relates to travel, e.g., selections of “hotel, restaurant or menu,”
`
`travel position information, “transportation or performance tickets and diverse
`
`WEST\268707834.2
`
`Apple, Exhibit 1070, Page 12
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent Nos. 6,384,850; 6,871,325
`Supplemental Declaration of Don Turnbull, Ph.D.
`
`
`accommodation reservations,” etc. Ex. 1024 at 76:29-67; 74:2-29; 1:32-47. This
`
`data is thus hospitality data and the WCU application is thus a hospitality
`
`application, i.e. “applications used to perform services or tasks in the hospitality
`
`industry.” Ex. 1019 at 16-17.
`
`28.
`
`I understand that Dr. Weaver contends that the WCU application is
`
`not a hospitality application, because TRIPS data relates to the “travel and
`
`tourism” industry as opposed to the “hospitality industry.” Ex. 1076 at 178:5-
`
`179:4. However, in my opinion, Dr. Weaver applies an overly narrow construction
`
`of “hospitality application” in his analysis for the following reasons.
`
`29.
`
`First, I note that in the related CBM proceedings, CBM2015-00091
`
`and CBM2015-00099, the Board construed “hospitality applications” as
`
`“applications used to perform services or tasks in the hospitality industry,” and
`
`further concluded that its “construction of hospitality includes businesses, such as
`
`car rental agencies, that provide services to travelers.” Ex. 1078 (CBM2015-00091
`
`Institution Decision) at 12; Ex. 1079 (CBM2015-00099 Institution Decision) at 12.
`
`Under this construction, DeLorme’s TRIPS system clearly is directed to the
`
`hospitality industry, as it provides car rental and other services to travelers. Ex.
`
`1024 at 14:27-32; 21:38-48.
`
`WEST\268707834.2
`
`Apple, Exhibit 1070, Page 13
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent Nos. 6,384,850; 6,871,325
`Supplemental Declaration of Don Turnbull, Ph.D.
`
`
`
`30.
`
`Second, while the Ameranth patent specifications provide examples of
`
`“hospitality applications,” the specifications do not provide an express definition of
`
`the term. Nor is there any express definition of “hospitality” in the prosecution
`
`history. I note that Dr. Weaver agrees with me on these points. Ex. 1076 at
`
`179:20-180:22. Thus, in my opinion, the broadest reasonable interpretation of
`
`“hospitality” should encompass the common meaning of the term.
`
`31. Numerous industry publications include “travel and tourism” within
`
`the “hospitality” industry. See, e.g. Ex. 1071 at 2 (“The hospitality industry also
`
`includes tourism support commercial activities like cabin staff and travel agents.
`
`Travel technology like applied information technology (IT) and its workers in
`
`hospitality, travel and tourism are included in the hospitality industry.”); Ex. 1072
`
`at 1 (“hotels are only one section of the [hospitality] industry. Many forms of
`
`transportation that cater to tourists are also part of this business world. For
`
`example, this niche includes airlines, cruise ships and even fancier trains.
`
`Restaurants, general tourism and even planning also belong to this niche.”); Ex.
`
`1073 (“At Microsoft, we consider Hospitality to be Lodging, Gaming,
`
`Foodservice, Entertainment and Travel”).
`
`WEST\268707834.2
`
`Apple, Exhibit 1070, Page 14
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent Nos. 6,384,850; 6,871,325
`Supplemental Declaration of Don Turnbull, Ph.D.
`
`
`
`32.
`
`Because the WCU applications disclosed in DeLorme enable users to
`
`access travel related information, the WCU applications are “hospitality
`
`applications” under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term.
`
`33.
`
`I note that DeLorme expressly discloses reservations, including both
`
`hotel and restaurant reservations. Ex. 1024 at 74:20-24; 8:44-48. Thus, the WCU
`
`applications are “hospitality applications” even under PO’s construction.
`
`34.
`
`Patent Owner also argues that the use of Java applets on DeLorme’s
`
`WCU would be “directly contrary” to claim 12’s requirements for an application to
`
`be stored on the wireless device and for that application to be synchronized. ’850
`
`POR at 37-38; ’325 POR at 36. I disagree.
`
`35. Once a Java applet is downloaded to the WCU, “smart cell phone” or
`
`other wireless device, it is stored on the device. The claims do not include a
`
`requirement that the application be stored on non-volatile or permanent storage.
`
`36.
`
`I note that downloading a Java applet to the wireless device
`
`constitutes synchronizing of the application on the wireless device even under
`
`PO’s construction of synchronized applications. In any event, the ability of a Java
`
`applet on the WCU to synchronize data with the rest of the TRIPS system is
`
`sufficient to satisfy the synchronized applications limitation, for the reasons
`
`discussed above. Patent Owner also argues that DeLorme fails to teach use of Java
`
`WEST\268707834.2
`
`Apple, Exhibit 1070, Page 15
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent Nos. 6,384,850; 6,871,325
`Supplemental Declaration of Don Turnbull, Ph.D.
`
`
`applets on a mobile device because a web browser would be required. ‘850 POR
`
`at 32. For example, despite the disclosure of a PDA and smartphone by DeLorme,
`
`PO argues that DeLorme fails to disclose a browser-equipped wireless handheld
`
`device. I disagree. A POSITA would appreciate that in the late 1990s a browser
`
`feature indeed existed for wireless handheld devices.
`
`D. Transmission of an Application to the Wireless Handheld Device
`Is Not Required by the Claims
`
`37.
`
`Patent Owner’s Responses argue that DeLorme fails to disclose
`
`element b) of claim 12 of the ’850 patent and claims 11 and 13 of the ’325 patent,
`
`because DeLorme does not disclose transmitting any applet or software code to the
`
`WCU. ’850 POR at 34; ’325 POR at 37. I disagree for the following reasons.
`
`38.
`
`First, the Challenged Claims do not include a requirement that
`
`software be transmitted to the wireless handheld computing device. Element b)
`
`recites: “at least one wireless handheld computing device on which hospitality
`
`applications and data are stored.” Ex. 1001 at claim 12; Ex. 1003 at claims 11, 13.
`
`39.
`
`The plain and ordinary meaning of “store” is “to retain information in
`
`a device from which the information can later be withdrawn.” See Ex. 1074 at
`
`739. In my opinion, the broadest reasonable of element b) should encompass the
`
`plain meaning of the word. DeLorme discloses an application stored on the WCU,
`
`WEST\268707834.2
`
`Apple, Exhibit 1070, Page 16
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent Nos. 6,384,850; 6,871,325
`Supplemental Declaration of Don Turnbull, Ph.D.
`
`
`as discussed above. Thus, DeLorme discloses element b) under the broadest
`
`reasonable interpretation.
`
`40.
`
`Even under Patent Owner’s interpretation of this limitation, DeLorme
`
`still discloses element b). DeLorme discloses an application on the WCU, which
`
`must necessarily have been stored on the device. A POSITA would appreciate that
`
`the application could not be resident on the device if it was not stored on the device
`
`at some point. Because an application must inherently have been stored on the
`
`device in order to operate, DeLorme’s disclosure of an application on the WCU
`
`inherently discloses at least one storage operation performed on the WCU. And,
`
`DeLorme therefore discloses this limitation even under Patent Owner’s
`
`construction.
`
`E. DeLorme Discloses Use of the WCU with Desktop Internet
`Embodiments
`
`41.
`
`Patent Owner’s Responses argue that DeLorme precludes the
`
`combination of its desktop online via a World Wide Web site embodiment with the
`
`WCU embodiment. ’850 POR at 39-40; ’325 POR at 42-43. I disagree.
`
`42. DeLorme discloses an “entirely online” embodiment of the TRIPS
`
`system, which is described as an alternative to a version of the TRIPS system that
`
`comes partially on a CD-ROM. Ex. 1024 at 14:1-52. Both of these embodiments
`
`are described as running on a desktop PC. Id. And, both embodiments involve
`
`WEST\268707834.2
`
`Apple, Exhibit 1070, Page 17
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent Nos. 6,384,850; 6,871,325
`Supplemental Declaration of Don Turnbull, Ph.D.
`
`
`Web-based communications, including map data updates, special discount offers,
`
`and other travel information. Id. at 14:19-42.
`
`43.
`
`I note that in the CD-ROM based embodiments, the CD-ROM serves
`
`two purposes: it facilitates an internet connection via a modem, and provides an
`
`atlas. Id. at 14:19-23. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that this
`
`was a means for compensating for what were relatively slow internet connections
`
`at the time of DeLorme.
`
`44. DeLorme further makes clear that the WCU (discussed in connection
`
`with Fig. 9) can be used in systems that include such PC-based embodiments
`
`which communicate with the TRIPS server using web based protocols. For
`
`example, DeLorme discloses:
`
`“Fig. 9 illustrates an important alternative or additional embodiment
`of TRIPS – that permits mobile users 901, at remote locations . . .
`two-way access by wireless communications 903 to engage the novel
`travel reservation information planning system of one or more TRIPS
`904 communications facilities or service bureaus.” Ex. 1024 at 71:61-
`66.
`
`45.
`
`The description of Fig. 9 with its WCU 907 as an alternative or
`
`additional embodiment is an indication that the WCU can be used as an addition to
`
`the “entirely online” or partially CD-ROM based desktop systems I discussed
`
`above. DeLorme further confirms that the WCU embodiments can operate with
`
`WEST\268707834.2
`
`Apple, Exhibit 1070, Page 18
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent Nos. 6,384,850; 6,871,325
`Supplemental Declaration of Don Turnbull, Ph.D.
`
`
`web-based embodiments, by stating that the WCU embodiments “can function
`
`either with or without (elation [sic, relation] to desktop TRIPS user setups as
`
`described heretofore with reference to Fig. 1A” Id. at 72:20-23. Thus, DeLorme
`
`discloses that WCUs can be used in the same system as desktop PCs, and both PC
`
`embodiments (the “web only” and CD-ROM embodiments) involve web-based
`
`communications.
`
`46. DeLorme’s discussion of Fig. 4 further confirms that the WCU can be
`
`used with the web-based desktop PC embodiments. DeLorme states that the flow
`
`chart of Fig. 4 includes features that are preferable for the internet-only desktop
`
`embodiment. Ex. 1024 at 36:31-36. DeLorme further discloses:
`
`Moreover, the Main Menu 413 and Interaction Bus 414 in FIG. 4
`correspond to, and coordinate the response to, alternative input means
`embedded in specialized TRIPS field or in-vehicle embodiments that
`typically include the wireless communication of GPS position sensor
`data along with simplified, "push-button" travel information inquiries
`sent by users actually en route or at remote locations. Such automated,
`standardized operational TRIPS sequences are further described
`hereinafter--particularly referring to FIG. 9. Id. at 37:58-67.
`
`47.
`
`The “specialized TRIPs field or in-vehicle embodiments” referenced
`
`in this passage are clearly the WCUs of Fig. 9. Id. at 71:67-72:2 (describing WCU
`
`mounted in a vehicle), 73:13 (WCU used in the field), 73:26-30 (WCU configured
`
`WEST\268707834.2
`
`Apple, Exhibit 1070, Page 19
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent Nos. 6,384,850; 6,871,325
`Supplemental Declaration of Don Turnbull, Ph.D.
`
`
`for push button inquires). Thus, the discussion of the WCU and the internet-only
`
`desktop embodiment in connection with Fig. 4 further indicates that both can be
`
`used in the same system.
`
`48.
`
`I note that Dr. Weaver appears to agree with me that DeLorme
`
`discloses the use of both Web-based and WCU embodiments in the same system.
`
`Dr. Weaver testified that the “same” TRIPS server could be accessed by users
`
`using web browsers or WCUs. Ex. 1076 at 169:3-15.
`
`F. DeLorme Discloses an “application program interface” that
`“enables integration of outside applications”
`
`49.
`
`Patent Owner argues that DeLorme does not disclose the claimed
`
`“application program interface,” because DeLorme does not disclose outside
`
`applications that are integrated with the TRIPS system “from within the
`
`applications themselves.” ’850 POR at 40; ’325 POR at 43-44. Patent Owner’s
`
`argument is not entirely clear. Nonetheless, I disagree with Patent Owner’s
`
`argument that DeLorme fails to disclose an “application program interface” that
`
`enables integration with outside applications.
`
`50. DeLorme discloses that the TRIPS server communicates with third
`
`party applications “optimally in real time” via Provider Input/Output 231:
`
`“Preferably, TRIPS 203 further offers/brokers Provider Input/Output
`231 to and from third-party providers of travel information and
`services – optimally in real time online. Such third party participation
`
`WEST\268707834.2
`
`Apple, Exhibit 1070, Page 20
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent Nos. 6,384,850; 6,871,325
`Supplemental Declaration of Don Turnbull, Ph.D.
`
`
`
`online enables enrolled TRIPS users to enjoy more immediate
`offerings, such as updated information on accommodations
`availability i.e. vacancies, special offers for price discounts or extra
`services, reservations and/or tickets for diverse accommodations or
`events and so forth – as described in more detail hereinafter,
`particularly referring to FIG. 8.” Ex. 1024 at 31:42-51.
`
`51.
`
`These third party applications provide various additional functionality
`
`to TRIPS users through the TRIPS system, such as the ability to make reservations,
`
`purchase tickets, etc. Id.
`
`52. A POSITA would understand that the functionality of the TRIPS
`
`server is implemented in software. A POSITA would further understand that the
`
`third party applications disclosed by DeLorme also are implemented in software.
`
`A POSITA would further understand that in order to provide “real time online”
`
`access to the third party applications via the TRIPS system, the TRIPS server must
`
`communicate programmatically with the third party applications. And, the
`
`mechanism by which the third party applications communicate with the TRIPS
`
`server is Provider Input/Output 231. A POSITA would further understand that in
`
`order for the TRIPS server software to communicate with the third party
`
`application software, there must necessarily be a programmatic interface by wh

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