throbber
Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper 44
`Entered: August 26, 2016
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`APPLE, INC., EVENTBRITE INC., STARWOOD HOTELS & RESORTS
`WORLDWIDE, INC., EXPEDIA, INC., FANDANGO, LLC,
`HOTELS.COM, L.P., HOTEL TONIGHT, INC., HOTWIRE, INC.,
`KAYAK SOFTWARE CORP., OPENTABLE, INC., ORBITZ, LLC, PAPA
`JOHN’S USA, INC., STUBHUB, INC., TICKETMASTER, LLC, LIVE
`NATION ENTERTAINMENT, INC., TRAVELOCITY.COM LP,
`WANDERSPOT LLC, AGILYSYS, INC., DOMINO’S PIZZA, INC.,
`DOMINO’S PIZZA, LLC, HILTON RESORTS CORPORATION,
`HILTON WORLDWIDE, INC., HILTON INTERNATIONAL CO., MOBO
`SYSTEMS, INC., PIZZA HUT OF AMERICA, INC., PIZZA HUT, INC.,
`and USABLENET, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`AMERANTH, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case CBM2015-000801
`Patent No. 6,384,850 B1
`____________
`
`Before MEREDITH C. PETRAVICK, RICHARD E. RICE, and
`STACEY G. WHITE, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`PETRAVICK, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
`Covered Business Method Patent Review
`35 U.S.C. § 328(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73
`
`1 CBM2015-00096 has been consolidated with this proceeding.
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00080
`Patent 6,384,850 B1
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`A number of entities including Apple, Inc. (“collectively, Petitioner”)
`filed a Petition (Paper 1, “Pet.”) requesting review under the transitional
`program for covered business method patents of claims 12–16 (“the
`challenged claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 6,384,850 B1 (Ex. 1001, “the ’850
`patent”). On September 1, 2015, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 324, we instituted
`this trial as to claims 12–16 on one ground of unpatentability — claims 12–
`16 being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over DeLorme1. Paper 13, 30
`(“Dec. to Inst.”). We did not institute as to any of the other grounds
`proposed in the Petition. Id.
`Ameranth, Inc. (“Patent Owner”) filed a Corrected Patent Owner’s
`Response (Paper 21, “PO Resp.”) and Petitioner filed a Reply (Paper 24,
`“Pet. Reply”). Patent Owner filed a Sur-Reply. Paper 30, (“PO Sur-
`Reply”).
`
`An oral hearing in this proceeding was held on May 10, 2016. A
`transcript of the hearing is included in the record. Paper 43, (“Tr.”).
`
`We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(c). This Final Written
`Decision is issued pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 328(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73.
`
`For the reasons that follow, we determine that Petitioner has shown by
`a preponderance of the evidence that claims 12–16 of the ’850 patent are
`unpatentable.
`
`
`A. The ’850 Patent
`The ’850 patent is titled “Information Management and Synchronous
`Communications System with Menu Generation” and issued on May 7,
`
`1 U.S. Patent No. 5,948,040 (issued Sept. 7, 1999) (Ex. 1024).
`2
`
`
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00080
`Patent 6,384,850 B1
`
`2002, based on Application No. 09/400,413, filed on September 21, 1999.
`Ex. 1001, (54), (45), (21), (22). There are two aspects to the system: menu
`generation and synchronous communication. See, e.g., id. at col. 3, ll. 15–
`23. The first aspect includes a “desktop software application that enables the
`rapid creation and building of a menu.” Id. at col. 3, ll. 15–17. Claims 1–
`11, which are not challenged in this proceeding, are directed to this first
`aspect.
`
`Claims 12–16, which are challenged in this proceeding, are directed to
`the second aspect of the system, synchronous communication. See id. at col.
`2, ll. 56–62, col. 3, ll. 1–5, col. 10, ll. 57–59. The ’850 patent discloses a
`synchronous communication system, which includes a computer
`workstation, a central database, multiple wireless handheld devices, a web
`server, and a web page. Id. at col. 3, ll. 59–63, col. 6, l. 14. The
`synchronous communication system, for example, can be used in the
`restaurant menu ordering context. A menu database can be updated on a
`desktop PC can be synched with the menu databases on the wireless
`handheld device, web server, and web page by downloading the new menu
`database. Id. at col. 8, ll. 45–62; see also col. 2, ll. 16–28, col. 9, l. 66–col.
`10, l. 1. The menu can then be used to place orders from the wireless
`handheld devices or through the internet. Id. at col. 12, ll. 1–4.
`
`In another aspect, a communications control module provides a single
`point of entry for all hospitality applications, on the central database,
`wireless handheld devices, web server and web pages, to communicate with
`one another. Id. at col. 9, ll. 21–27, col. 11, ll. 24–30.
`This communications module is a layer that sits on top of
`any communication protocol and acts as an interface between
`hospitality applications and the communication protocol. . . .
`
`3
`
`
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00080
`Patent 6,384,850 B1
`
`
`The single point of entry works to keep all wireless handheld
`devices and linked [w]eb 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.
`
`Id. at col. 11, ll. 27–36.
`For example, a reservation made online would be
`automatically communicated to the backoffice server and then
`synchronized with all the wireless handheld devices wirelessly.
`Similarly, changes made on any of the wireless handheld
`devices would be reflected instantaneously on the backoffice
`server, [w]eb pages and the other handheld devices.
`
`Id. at col. 2, ll. 26–32; see also id. at col. 11, ll. 36–42.
`In a further aspect, third parties, such as point-of-sale companies,
`affinity program companies, and internet content providers, can integrate
`fully with the system through an application program interface. Id. at col. 2,
`ll. 12–15, col. 11, ll. 15–19.
`
`
`B. Illustrative Claim
`Claim 12 of the ’850 patent is the only independent claim challenged
`and is illustrative of the claims at issue. Claim 12 reads as follows:
`12. An information management and synchronous
`communications system for use with wireless handheld
`computing devices and the internet comprising:
`a. a central database containing hospitality applications
`and data,
`
`b. at least one wireless handheld computing device on
`which hospitality applications and data are stored,
`c. at least one [w]eb server on which hospitality
`applications and data are stored,
`
`4
`
`
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00080
`Patent 6,384,850 B1
`
`
`d. at least one [w]eb page on which hospitality
`applications and data are stored,
`e. an application program interface, and
`f. a communications control module,
`wherein applications and data are synchronized between the
`central [database], at least one wireless handheld computing
`device, at least one [w]eb server and at least one [w]eb page;
`wherein the application program interface enables integration of
`outside applications with the hospitality applications and
`wherein the communications control module is an interface
`between the hospitality applications and any other
`communications protocol.
`
`
`C. Related Proceedings
`Both Petitioner and Patent Owner identify numerous related ongoing
`district court proceedings. Pet. 2–4; Paper 7, 5–6. The ’850 patent is related
`to U.S. Patent No. 6,871,325 B1, U.S. Patent No. 6,982,733 B1, and U.S.
`Patent No. 8,146,077 B2. These patents were or are the subject of the
`following covered business method patent reviews:
`U.S. Patent No.
`Previous CBM Reviews
`6,384,850 B1
`CBM2014-00015
`
`6,871,325 B1
`
`CBM2014-00016
`
`Pending CBM Reviews
`CBM2015-00091
`CBM2015-00096
`CBM2015-00082
`CBM2015-00097
`CBM2015-00099
`
`
`
`6,982,733 B1
`8,146,077 B2
`
`CBM2014-00013
`CBM2014-00014
`CBM2015-00081
`CBM2015-00095
`In case CBM2014-00015, a Final Written Decision, determining
`claims 1–11 to be unpatentable, was issued on March 20, 2015 and is on
`appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
`
`5
`
`
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00080
`Patent 6,384,850 B1
`
`
`D. Patent Owner’s Incorporated by Reference of Standing Arguments
`Patent Owner attempts to incorporate certain arguments made in its
`Preliminary Response (Paper 9) into the Patent Owner’s Response. PO
`Resp. 1 n.2 (“Patent Owner incorporates herein its Preliminary Response
`arguments regarding standing and preserves its right to appeal the Board’s
`determination thereof.”). Our Rules prohibit incorporating arguments by
`reference. 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3) states: “[a]rguments must not be
`incorporated by reference from one document into another document.”
`Incorporation by reference circumvents our Rule limiting the pages in the
`Patent Owner response to 80 pages. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.24(b)(2).2
`Further, the Patent Owner’s Response provides no citations or
`otherwise clearly indicates what argument in the Preliminary Response
`Patent Owner is attempting to incorporation by reference. See PO Resp. 1
`n.2. The Preliminary Response includes no arguments under a heading
`concerning “standing” or labeled otherwise. The only mention of standing is
`in footnote 1 of the Preliminary Response, which states: “Petitioner’s
`standing argument merely references CBM2014-00016, and is thus
`insufficient. PO submits that Petitioner was required to provide, in the
`Petition, the basis for standing.” Id. As explained in our Institution
`Decision, we determined that the Petition sufficiently established that the
`’850 patent was eligible for covered business method patent review and that
`Patent Owner’s arguments in footnote 1 of the Preliminary Response were
`unpersuasive. See Paper 13, 11–14.
`
`
`2 Rule 42.24(b)(2) was amended, effective May 2, 2016. The Corrected
`Patent Owner’s Response, however, was filed February 1, 2016, prior to that
`date and, thus, we refer to the prior version of 37 C.F.R. § 42.24(b)(2).
`6
`
`
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00080
`Patent 6,384,850 B1
`
`Inasmuch as Patent Owner may be attempting to incorporate material
`
`from other portions of the Preliminary Response, such as the Introduction
`section, Patent Owner should not expect the Board to search the record and
`piece together the arguments and evidence necessary to support a standing
`argument not made in the Patent Owner’s Response. Cf. DeSilva v.
`DiLeonardi, 181 F.3d 865, 866–67 (7th Cir. 1999) (“A brief must make all
`arguments accessible to the judges, rather than ask them to play archeologist
`with the record.”); Ernst Haas Studio, Inc. v. Palm Press, Inc., 164 F.3d 110,
`111–12 (2d Cir. 1999) (“Appellant's Brief is at best an invitation to the court
`to scour the record, research any legal theory that comes to mind, and serve
`generally as an advocate for appellant. We decline the invitation.”).
`
`Arguments that are not developed and presented in the Patent Owner
`Response, itself, are not entitled to consideration. See Paper 14, 3.
`(cautioning Patent Owner “that any arguments for patentability not raised
`and fully briefed in the response will be deemed waived.”).
`
`
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`A. Claim Construction
`The Board interprets claims of unexpired patents using the broadest
`reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which
`they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.300(b); Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136
`S. Ct. 2131, 2144–46 (2016) (upholding the use of the broadest reasonable
`interpretation approach).
`Under the broadest reasonable construction standard, claim terms are
`given their ordinary and customary meaning, as would be understood by one
`of ordinary skill in the art in the context of the entire disclosure. In re
`
`7
`
`
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00080
`Patent 6,384,850 B1
`
`Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Any special
`definition for a claim term must be set forth with reasonable clarity,
`deliberateness, and precision. In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir.
`1994). In the absence of such a definition, limitations are not to be read
`from the specification into the claims. In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181,
`1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
`
`
`i. “wireless handheld computing device”
`
`The challenged claims require “at least one wireless handheld
`computing device.” Ex. 1001, claims 12–16. Patent Owner proposes that
`the term be construed as “a wireless computing device that is sized to be
`held in one’s hand.” PO Resp. 4 (citing Ex. 1032, 24 (district court
`construing order the term); Ex. 2019 ¶ 27 (Declaration of Dr. Alfred
`Weaver). Patent Owner also argues “sized to be held in one’s hand”
`requires that the wireless handheld computing device is sized to be held in a
`single hand and precludes wireless computing devices that are held in two
`hands. See PO Resp. 27–28 (“the [wireless communication unit] in
`DeLorme is a ‘two hand’ portable device and is not sized as a wireless
`handheld device as properly construed”); id. at 28 n.14 (arguing that a
`device that needed a GPS at the time could not be held in a single hand).
`
`Petitioner does not provide an explicit construction of the term
`“wireless handheld computing device,” but argues that the term does not
`require that the device to be held in a single hand or preclude the device
`from being held in both hands. Pet. Reply 6.
`
`To resolve the issues of patentability of the claims over DeLorme, it is
`not necessary for us to determine whether the broadest reasonable
`
`8
`
`
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00080
`Patent 6,384,850 B1
`
`construction of “wireless handheld computing device” requires that the
`device be held in a single hand or allows for the device to be held in two
`hands. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803
`(Fed. Cir. 1999) (stating that “only those terms need be construed that are in
`controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy”).
`Regardless, DeLorme explicitly discloses that its wireless communication
`unit (“WCU”) 907 is handheld. Ex. 1024, col. 72, l. 1 (“WCU 907, typically
`hand-held 906”), col. 72, l. 31 (“handheld devices equipped with GPS 908”);
`see also id. at col. 7, l. 34, col. 16, ll. 40–49 (further describing wireless
`“handheld” device). Further, DeLorme discloses that WCU 907 could be a
`personal digital assistant (“PDA”) and describes PDAs as “handheld”
`wireless devices. Id. at col. 71, l. 61–col. 72, l. 2, col. 75, ll. 33–45; see Ex.
`1076, 53:12–25 (testimony of Dr. Weaver indicating that a PDA or
`smartphone is a wireless hand-held computing device). The ’850 patent
`describes PDAs as an example of a wireless handheld device. Ex. 1001, col.
`1, ll. 62–63, col. 13, l. 50. Given this, we determine that it is not necessary
`for us to determine whether the broadest reasonable construction of
`“wireless handheld computing device” requires that the device be held in a
`single hand or allows for the device to be held in two hands.
`
`
`ii. “hospitality applications”
`
`The challenged claims require “hospitality applications,” which are
`contained in the central database, and are stored on the wireless handheld
`computing device, Web server, and Webpage. Ex. 1001, claim 12. In the
`Institution Decision, we construed this term to mean “applications used to
`perform services or tasks in the hospitality industry.” Dec. to Inst. 9. Patent
`
`9
`
`
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00080
`Patent 6,384,850 B1
`
`Owner agrees with this construction. PO Resp. 6–9. Petitioner does not
`contest this construction in its Reply.
`
`Petitioner proposes that “applications” be construed to mean
`“sequences of instructions that can be executed on a computer that are
`designed to help people perform a specific task.” Pet. 22. To support its
`proposed construction, Petitioner cites to the Microsoft Computer
`Dictionary, 4th ed., which defines “application” as “a program designed to
`assist in the performance of a specific task” and “program” as “[a] sequence
`of instructions that can be executed by a computer.” Ex. 1034, 4, 10.
`
`Patent Owner does not propose an explicit construction of
`“applications” but does state that “[i]t is clear from the specification,
`consistent with the ordinary meaning as would be understood by a POSA,
`that an application is a software program, not data.” PO Resp. 32 n.15. This
`is consistent with Petitioner’s proposed construction, which is based in-part
`on the definition of application, as a program.
`
`Given the above, we determine that the broadest reasonable
`interpretation, in light of the specification of the ’850 patent, of “hospitality
`applications” is a sequences of instructions that can be executed on a
`computer (i.e., a program) that are designed to assist in the performance of a
`specific task in the hospitality industry.
`
`
`iii. “synchronized”
`The challenged claims require that “applications and data are
`
`synchronized between the central data base, at least one wireless handheld
`computing device, at least one Web server and at least one Web page.” Ex.
`1001, claim 12. In the Institution Decision, we construed synchronized to
`
`10
`
`
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00080
`Patent 6,384,850 B1
`
`mean “made, or configured to make, consistent.” Dec. to Inst. 8–9. Patent
`Owner agrees with this construction. PO Resp. 6. Petitioner does not
`contest this construction in its Reply.
`
`Absent from this construction is any temporal limitation that requires
`the devices to be consistent at all times. The absence of a temporal
`limitation is consistent with the specification of the ’850 patent which
`describes the use of “batch processing that can be done periodically
`throughout the day to keep multiple sites in synch with the central database.”
`Ex. 1001, col. 2, ll. 17–19; see also Tr. 53:17–23.
`
`
`iv. “application program interface” that “enables integration of outside
`applications with the hospitality applications”
`
`The challenged claims require an “application program interface” that
`“enables integration of outside applications with the hospitality
`applications.” Petitioner proposes that application program interface
`(“API”) should be construed to be “a set of routines used by an application
`program to direct the performance of procedures by the computer’s
`operating system or to communicate with another application program.”
`Pet. 22 (citing Ex. 1034, 5 (Microsoft Computer Dictionary, 4th ed.,
`definition of application program interface)).
`
`Patent Owner proposes that the API is not a generic interface but an
`API that enable integration of outside applications with the hospitality
`applications. PO Resp. 7. Patent Owner proposes that “integration” should
`be construed to mean “combining of different activities, programs, or
`hardware components into a functional unit.” Id. (citing Dec. to Inst. 11).
`Patent Owner also argues that integrating requires “integrating the different
`applications from within the applications themselves.” PO Resp. 40.
`11
`
`
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00080
`Patent 6,384,850 B1
`
`Given the above, we determine that the broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation, in light of the specification of the ’850 patent, of an API that
`enables integration of outside applications with the hospitality applications is
`a set of routines used by an application program that enables the combining
`of the outside applications with the hospitality applications into a functional
`unit by allow them to communicate with each other. We are not persuaded
`that integrating requires integrating the different applications from within the
`applications themselves. Such a limitation is not consistent with the ’850
`patent, which does not disclose integrating different applications from within
`the applications themselves.
`
`
`v. “communications control module” that “is an interface between the
`hospitality applications and any other communications protocol”
`The challenged claims require “a communications control module . . .
`
`wherein the communications control module is an interface between the
`hospitality applications and any other communications protocol.” Ex. 1001,
`claim 12.
`
`Petitioner proposes that “communications control module” be
`construed as “a device used as an intermediary in transferring
`communications to and from the host computer to which it is connected.”
`Pet. 22 (citing Ex. 1034, 7 (Microsoft Computer Dictionary, 4th ed.,
`definition of communications controller); Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 76–78).
`
`Patent Owner proposes that “communications control module” should
`be construed as “a layer that sits on top of any communication protocol and
`acts as an interface between hospitality applications and the communication
`protocol.” PO Resp. 5–6 (quoting Ex. 1001, col. 4, ll. 9–13). Patent Owner
`argues that this is the correct construction because it is how the
`12
`
`
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00080
`Patent 6,384,850 B1
`
`communications control module is described in the ’850 patent and how a
`district court construed the limitation in a related proceeding. PO Resp. 5–6
`(citing Ex. 1033, 13).
`
`Patent Owner also argues that “communication control module”
`should be construed in conjunction with the wherein clause “wherein the
`communications control module is an interface between the hospitality
`applications and any other communications protocol” to require “a server
`side software layer that provides an interface between the hospitality
`applications and communication protocols and which monitors and routes
`communications between different devices while concurrently using
`different protocols.” PO Resp. 10–11 (citing Ex. 1001, col. 4, ll. 9–13; Ex.
`1003, 13; Ex. 2019 ¶¶ 31, 39–42). Patent Owner again argues that this is the
`correct construction because it is how the communications control module is
`described in the ’850 patent. PO Resp. 10–11.
`
`Petitioner responds that Patent Owner’s construction is not required
`by the language of the claims and improperly imports elements from the
`specification of the ’850 patent into the claims. Pet. Reply 18.
`
`As an initial matter, we are not persuaded by Patent Owner that we
`should wholesale adopt the construction of “communications control
`module” from a previous district court infringement action. The standard for
`claim construction in a district court infringement action is different than the
`standard applied by the Board. See In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1053–54
`(Fed. Cir. 1997). In covered business method patent review proceedings, the
`Board applies the broadest reasonable construction consistent with the
`specification. 37 C.F.R. § 42.300(b).
`
`13
`
`
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00080
`Patent 6,384,850 B1
`
`We determine that the broadest reasonable construction, in light of the
`
`specification of the ’850 patent, of “a communications control module . . .
`wherein the communications control module is an interface between the
`hospitality applications and any other communications protocol” is a device
`used as an intermediary in transferring communications to and from the host
`computer to which it is connected, wherein the device is an interface
`between the hospitality applications and any other communications protocol.
`This construction is consistent with the plain language of claim 12, which
`requires the communication control module to be an interface between the
`hospitality applications and any other communications protocol. This
`construction is also consistent with the description of the communication
`control module in the specification of the ’850 patent, as a “control program
`[that] monitors and routes all communications [as] to the appropriate
`devices” in the ’850 patent and as “a single point of entry for all hospitality
`application to communicate with one another wirelessly or over the Web.”
`Ex. 1001, col. 9, ll. 21–22, col. 11, ll. 24–27.
`
`This construction, unlike Patent Owner’s proposed construction, does
`not import extraneous features from the Specification of the ’850 patent into
`the claims. Although the specification of the ’850 patent describes
`additional features of the communication control module, such as it is “a
`layer that sits on top of any communication protocol.” The plain language
`of claim 12, does not require the claimed communication control module to
`have such features. If a feature is not necessary to give meaning to what the
`inventor means by a claim term, it would be “extraneous,” and should not be
`read into the claim. Renishaw PLC v. Marposs Societa’ per Azioni, 158
`
`14
`
`
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00080
`Patent 6,384,850 B1
`
`F.3d 1243, 1249 (Fed. Cir. 1998); E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Phillips
`Petroleum Co., 849 F.2d 1430, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
`
`
`
`We, thus, determine that the broadest reasonable construction, in light
`of the specification of the ’850 patent, of “a communications control module
`. . . wherein the communications control module is an interface between the
`hospitality applications and any other communications protocol” is a device
`used as an intermediary in transferring communications to and from the host
`computer to which it is connected, wherein the device is an interface
`between the hospitality applications and any other communications protocol.
`
`vi. other terms
`
`Petitioner and Patent Owner propose constructions for various other
`claim terms. See Pet. 21–24; PO Resp. 4–8. These claim terms, however,
`need no explicit construction. See Vivid Techs., Inc., 200 F.3d at 803.
`
`
`B. Unpatentability Over DeLorme
`Under 35 U.S.C. § 103, a claim is unpatentable if:
`the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented
`and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole
`would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to
`a person having ordinary skill in the art.
`
`The ultimate determination of obviousness under § 103 is a question
`
`of law based on underlying factual findings. In re Baxter Int’l, Inc., 678
`F.3d 1357, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (citing Graham v. John Deere Co., 383
`U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966)). These underlying factual considerations consist of:
`(1) the “level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art,” (2) the “scope and
`content of the prior art,” (3) the “differences between the prior art and the
`
`15
`
`
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00080
`Patent 6,384,850 B1
`
`claims at issue,” and (4) “secondary considerations” of non-obviousness
`such as “commercial success, long-felt but unsolved needs, failure of others,
`etc.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007) (quoting
`Graham, 338 U.S. at 17–18).
`
`Petitioner contends that claims 12–16 are unpatentable under
`35 U.S.C. § 103 over DeLorme. Pet. 50–62. To support its contention,
`Petitioner provides explanations as to how the prior art meets each claim
`element. Id. Petitioner also cites the Declaration of Dr. Don Turnbull for
`support. See Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 180–237. Taking into account Patent Owner’s
`argument and evidence (PO Resp. 1–4, 12–80; PO Sur-Reply 1–5), for the
`reasons discussed below, we determine that Petitioner has shown by a
`preponderance of the evidence that claims 12–16 are unpatentable under
`35 U.S.C. § 103 over DeLorme.
`
`
`i. Overview of DeLorme
`DeLorme is titled “Travel Reservation Information and Planning
`
`System,” and issued on September 7, 1999, from an application filed on
`February 6, 1997. Ex. 1024, (54), (45), (22).
`DeLorme discloses a computerized travel reservation information and
`planning system (“TRIPS”) which generates travel plan information in the
`form of a “map ticket,” in response to inquiries from consumers. Id. at
`Abstract. Figure 2 of DeLorme is reproduced below.
`
`16
`
`
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00080
`Patent 6,384,850 B1
`
`
`
`Figure 2, reproduced above, is a block diagram of TRIPS. Id. at col.
`12, ll. 62–65. The Interface and Interaction Bus at block 209 processes
`consumer inquiries for planning travel. Id. at col. 3, ll. 15–41. The system
`receives inquiries from consumers, as illustrated by block 205, for travel
`related data (id. at col. 30, l. 66–col. 31, l. 14) and outputs, as illustrated by
`block 227, digital displays, such as the preferred “map ticket,” or electronic
`communications containing such data, such as reservations and/or tickets for
`accommodations or events (id. at col. 31, ll. 42–58; Fig. 1B). TRIPS
`includes subsystems (e.g., topical subsystem 213) that have geographical,
`topical, temporal, and accounting data, organized in a relational database,
`which is managed by software. Id. at col. 17, ll. 7–13, col. 32, ll. 1–7; col.
`30, ll. 58–65. TRIPS also includes provider input/output 231 for third-party
`providers of travel information and services. Id. at col. 31, ll. 42–51.
`17
`
`
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00080
`Patent 6,384,850 B1
`
`
`DeLorme discloses multiple embodiments of TRIPS. In one
`embodiment, a user makes travel plans using TRIPS software on a desktop
`PC, which is connected to the Internet to provide access to updated TRIPS
`information and functions and communication with third-party providers.
`Id. at col. 13, ll. 48–52. Once installed, the TRIPS software interacts with
`online TRIPS services, and TRIPS map data, functions, and topical travel
`information can be updated and online reservations and ticket buys can be
`made. Id. at col. 14, ll. 9–42; see also col. 10, ll. 10–18, col. 10, ll. 22–32.
`Alternatively, all TRIPS functions, data and services can
`be provided entirely online (i.e.[,] without significant
`standalone software components)—for example, from a central
`TRIPS service bureau, (or by means of a TRIPS Internet World
`Wide Web Site). Such purely online TRIPS embodiments can
`be implemented utilizing recent advances in distributed
`applications, “agents” or online “applets” developed in Java, or
`equivalent computer languages—plus other state-of-the-art
`software enhancements for online or Internet usage.
`
`Id. at col. 14, ll. 43–52.
`DeLorme discloses that TRIPS can also work with hardware other
`than a desktop PC, such as “network work stations; . . . terminals linked to a
`central server, . . . or handheld personal digital assistant (PDA) portable
`computer devices typically equipped with a wireless communications and/or
`user location, e.g., Global Positioning System (GPS) capabilities.” Id. at col.
`14, l. 66–col. 15, l. 5; see also id. at col. 7, ll. 30–35, col. 16, ll. 41–49, col.
`75, ll. 38–45 (describing other compact portable devices).
`
`
`DeLorme discloses a “portable TRIPS embodiments” which can be
`used with the desktop PC setups. Id. at col. 71, ll. 61–962, col. 72, ll. 20–23.
`In this embodiment, a TRIPS user can make advanced travel plans and
`arrangements on a desktop PC and then transfer advanced travel plans to
`18
`
`
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00080
`Patent 6,384,850 B1
`
`TRIPS goods and server providers and wireless communication units
`(“WCU”) to use the advance travel plan on a trip. Id. at col. 72, ll. 44–61.;
`see also id. at col. 12, ll. 10–16, col. 15, ll. 40–46, col. 16, ll. 37–55, col. 18,
`ll. 35–42, col. 72, ll. 26–36. The travel plans includes not only maps and
`travel information, but also tickets, reservations and other special offers for
`goods/services. Id. at col. 7, ll. 30–32; col. 17, ll. 18–36; see also Fig. 1B-3
`(depicting advanced travel plans, which include a reservation confirmation
`for a restaurant).
`
`The advanced travel plans on the WCU can be used for “in the field
`operations” such “as text/audio directions; GPS waypoint guidance;
`claiming, confirmation and/or verification of discount offers; selected user
`notes on scheduled events of interest (EOIs); even sounding an alarm . . .
`and various other timely, topical, locations and transactional travel
`information chores.” Id. at col. 16, ll. 49–55. The WCU can also be used
`for making reservations on the go, which then “can be memorized in the
`TRIPS user’s WCU 907 and/or transferred to, or put ‘on file’ with, the
`TRIPS online service Provider 904.” Id. at col. 72, ll. 55–61.
`
`
`
`ii. Independent Claim 12
`1. “[a]n information management and synchronous communications system
`for use with wireless handheld computing devices and the internet”
`
`Petitioner contends that DeLorme’s TRIPS discloses an information
`management and synchronous communication system for use with wireless
`handheld computing devices and the internet. Pet. 50–52 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶
`184–187). Patent Owner does not specifically dispute this contention.
`
`After review of Petitioner’s evidence and analysis, we are persuaded
`by that evidence and analysis that TRIPS is an information management and
`19
`
`
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00080
`Patent 6,384,850 B1
`
`synchronous communications system for use with wireless handheld
`computing devices and the internet. See Pet. 50–52. We, thus, determine

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