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 CBM2015-000821
`Patent No. 6,871,325
`____________
`
`Submitted Electronically via the Patent Review Processing System
`
`PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`1 CBM2015-00097 has been consolidated with this proceeding.
`
`

`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`CBM2015-00082
`
`Page
`
`Contents
`I. STATEMENT OF PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED ............................................ 1
`II. INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................... 1
`III. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION.................................................................................. 7
`A. Claim Construction Proposals............................................................................... 7
`1. “wireless handheld computing device” ............................................................. 7
`2. “central database” ............................................................................................ 7
`3. “web page”........................................................................................................ 8
`4. “web server”...................................................................................................... 8
`5. “communications control module”.................................................................... 9
`6. “synchronized”................................................................................................ 10
`7. “hospitality applications”................................................................................ 10
`8. “application program interface”..................................................................... 10
`9. “outside applications”..................................................................................... 10
`10. “integration” ................................................................................................... 10
`11. “Wherein the communications control module is an interface between
`the hospitality applications and any other communications protocol” ................. 11
`12. “wherein the synchronized data relates to ‘orders,’ ‘waitlists’ and
`‘reservations’” respectively as to claims 11, 12 and 13 ........................................ 14
`13. “Relates to orders”.......................................................................................... 15
`14. “Relates to waitlists”....................................................................................... 16
`15. “Relates to reservations”................................................................................. 17
`IV. THERE HAS BEEN NO SHOWING THAT ANY OF CLAIMS 11-13 OR
`15 ARE OBVIOUS .................................................................................................... 17
`A. Overview............................................................................................................ 17
`B. DeLorme Does Not Render The Claims Obvious......................................... 18
`-i-
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00082
`
`1. DeLorme Does Not Disclose “Wherein Applications And Data
`[which] Are Synchronized Between The Central Database, At Least
`One Wireless Handheld Computing Device, At Least One Web Server
`And At Least One Web Page”............................................................................ 18
`2. DeLorme Does Not Disclose A “Wireless Handheld Computing
`Device On Which Hospitality Applications And Data Are Stored”.............. 31
`3. DeLorme Does Not Disclose The Claimed “Application Program
`Interface” That Enables Integration of Outside Applications with the
`Hospitality Applications’.................................................................................... 41
`4. DeLorme Does Not Disclose The Claimed “Communications
`Control Module” Nor ‘Wherein The Communications Control Module Is
`An Interface Between The Hospitality Applications And Any Other
`Communications Protocol” .................................................................................... 43
`5. Claim As A Whole......................................................................................... 46
`6. DeLorme Does Not Disclose The Fourth Wherein Clause Of ‘325
`Claims 11-13 .......................................................................................................... 47
`C. Objective Evidence Of Non-Obviousness........................................................... 48
`1. There is a very strong nexus between the evidence of "secondary
`considerations" and the challenged claims............................................................. 52
`2. The Ameranth patents in this family, including the challenged claims,
`have been successfully and extensively licensed. .................................................. 63
`3. Ameranth's products enjoyed substantial, widespread commercial
`success.................................................................................................................... 66
`4. Ameranth's 21st Century Restaurant received numerous technology
`awards and industry acclaim after its introduction................................................. 68
`5. Ameranth received overwhelming industry praise for the 21st Century
`Restaurant technology............................................................................................ 70
`6. Starbucks and numerous other companies copied the Ameranth
`technology reflected in the challenged claims. ...................................................... 73
`7. Other companies in the industry tried and failed to develop the
`integrated, synchronized innovation of the Ameranth technology and patent
`claims. .................................................................................................................... 78
`-ii-
`
`

`
`8. Objective Evidence Conclusion....................................................................... 80
`8. Objective Evidence Conclusion. .................................................................... ..80
`CONCLUSION ……………………………………………………….. 80
`
`80
`
`V.
`
`V.
`
`CBM2015-00082
`
`CBM2015-00082
`
`-iii-
`-iii-
`
`

`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`CBM2015-00082
`
`Page
`
`Cases
`
`Allen Archery, Inc. v. Browning Mfg. Co.,
`819 F.2d 1087 (Fed. Cir. 1987) ................................................................................. 70
`
`Ameranth v. Pizza Hut et al.,
`Case No. 3-11-cv-01810 (S.D. Cal. 2013) ................................................................ 55
`
`Apple Inc. v. International Trade Commission,
`725 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ................................................................................. 49
`
`Ashland Oil, Inc. v. Delta Resins & Refractories, Inc.,
`776 F.2d 281 (Fed. Cir. 1985) ................................................................................... 53
`
`Berk-Tek LLC. v. Belden Techs., Inc.,
`IPR2013-00059, FWD 34 (PTAB April 28, 2014)....................................................... 26
`
`CAE Screenplates Inc. v. Heinrich Fiedler GmbH & Co. KG,
`224 F.3d 1308 (Fed. Cir. 2000) ................................................................................. 14
`
`CFMT, Inc. v. Yieldup Int’l. Corp.,
`349 F.3d 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2003)............................................................................. 21
`
`Crocs, Inc. v. ITC,
`598 F.3d 1294 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ................................................................................. 73
`
`Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. National Graphics, Inc.,
`800 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ................................................................................. 26
`
`Eli Lilly & Co. v. Zenith Goldline Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,
`471 F.3d 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ................................................................................. 68
`
`-iv-
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00082
`
`Gambro Lunda AB v. Baxter Healthcare Corp.,
`110 F.3d 1573 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ............................................................................ 53,70
`
`Grain Processing Corp. v. Am. Maize-Products Co.,
`840 F.2d 902 (Fed. Cir. 1988) ................................................................................... 36
`
`Heidelberger v. Hantscho Prods.,
`21 F.3d 1068 (Fed. Cir. 1994) ................................................................................... 73
`
`HIMPP v. Hear-Wear Techs., LLC,
`751 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ................................................................................. 27
`
`In re Roufett, 149 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 1998).............................................................. 64
`
`In re Warner,
`379 F.2d 1011 (CCPA 1967)..................................................................................... 21
`
`In re Zurko,
`258 F.3d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2001) ................................................................................. 26
`
`In re Wesslau,
`147 USPQ 391,393 (CCPA 1965) ………………………………………… ………30
`
`Kurtz v. Belle Hat Lining Co., Inc.,
`280 F. 277 (2nd Cir. 1922) ......................................................................................... 73
`
`Lantech, Inc. v. Keip Machine Co.,
`32 F.3d 542 (Fed. Cir. 1994) ..................................................................................... 48
`
`Mintz v. Dietz & Watson, Inc.,
`679 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ................................................................................. 49
`
`Power Integrations, Inc. v. Fairchild Semiconductor Int’l, Inc.,
`711 F.3d 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ................................................................................. 56
`
`-v-
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00082
`
`Power-One v. Artesyn Techs, Inc.,
`599 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ........................................................................... 70,77
`
`Rambus Inc. v. Rea,
`731 F.3d 1248 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ................................................................. 49, 50,53,70
`
`Teva Pharm., Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc.,
`723 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ................................................................................. 53
`
`Unique Concepts, Inc. v. Brown,
`939 F.2d 1558 (Fed. Cir. 1991) ................................................................................. 30
`
`Vandenberg v. Dairy Equip. Co., a Div. of DEC Int’l, Inc.,
`740 F.2d 1560, 1567 (Fed. Cir. 1984)……………………………………………..77
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. §101 ............................................................................................................. 27
`35 U.S.C. § 312 .............................................................................................................. 5
`35 U.S.C. § 103............................................................................................ 1, 24,47, 80
`35 U.S.C. § 316 ............................................................................................................ 36
`Rules
`
`37 C.F.R. §42.207......................................................................................................... 1
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104.................................................................................................... 5, 47
`37 C.F.R. § 42.22...................................................................................................... 5, 47
`37 C.F.R. § 42.6…………………………………………………………………… 5
`
`-vi-
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00082
`
`CBM2015-00082
`
`-vii-
`-Vii-
`
`

`
`PATENT OWNER’S LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`CBM2015-00082
`
`Exhibit No.
`
`Description
`
`2001
`
`2002
`
`2003
`
`2004
`
`2005
`
`2006
`
`2007
`
`Food.com Internal Memorandum, “Ameranth Licensing
`Contract,” Sept. 13, 1999
`
`iOS Simulator User Guide, March 9, 2015
`
`Ameranth/Par Technology Corp. License Announcement,
`Jan. 28, 2013
`
`http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2014/04/02/apples-jobs-
`declared-holy-war-on-google-over-android/, discussing
`Apple 2010 emails made public in Apple v. Samsung
`Litigation
`
`The House that Tech Builds,
`http://hospitalitytechnology.edgl.com/news/the-house-
`thattech-builds99460?referaltype=newsletter, Hyatt CTO
`Interview, April 8. 2015
`
`Domino’s Press Release,
`http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/dominos-
`pizza-first-in-industry-to-offer-mobile-ordering58317297.
`html, Sept. 27, 2007
`
`“Domino's app let's you voice-order pizza,”
`http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2014/06/1
`6/dominos-voice-ordering-app-nuancefast-
`food-restaurants/10626419/, June 16, 2014
`
`-viii-
`
`

`
`2008
`
`2009
`
`2010
`
`2011
`
`2012
`
`2013
`
`2014
`
`2015
`
`2016
`
`2017
`
`2018
`
`2019
`
`CBM2015-00082
`
`“Starbucks to roll out innovations in mobile platform--
`Company says new mobile features could be ‘holy grail’
`of throughput,” http://nrn.com/quick-service/starbucks-
`roll-out-innovations-mobile-platform, March 13, 2014
`
`“Starbucks’ mobile order and pay sees hot start, aided by
`Integration,” www.mobilecommercedaily.com, April 27,
`2015
`
`“Agilysys Introduces InfoGenesis Roam Mobile
`Software,” June 21, 2011
`
`Ex parte McNally, Appeal No. 2012-001503 (PTAB
`Nov. 4, 2014)
`
`Decision in Appeal No. 2010-000055 (BPAI March 3,
`2011)
`
`Decision in Appeal No. 2009-011707 (BPAI Feb. 14,
`2011)
`
`Decision in Appeal No. 2009-008033 (BPAI Jan. 28,
`2011)
`
`Excerpts from Microsoft Computer Dictionary (4th ed.
`1999)
`
`“The Computerworld Honors Program--Case Study,”
`Award to Marriott International, Inc. (2006)
`
`Decision in BPAI Appeal No. 2011-004999 (PTAB Oct.
`17, 2013 )
`
`Transcript of FS/TEC Awards Presentation (Feb. 2009)
`
`Declaration of Dr. Alfred Weaver
`
`-ix-
`
`

`
`2020
`
`2021
`
`2022
`
`2023
`
`2024
`
`2025
`
`2026
`
`2038
`
`2039
`
`2040
`
`2041
`
`2042
`
`2043
`
`2044
`
`2045
`
`2046
`
`2047
`
`2048
`
`CBM2015-00082
`
`Microsoft Computer Dictionary (4th ed.) excerpts
`
`May 1999 announcement from National Restaurant
`Association (NRA) show in Chicago, IL.
`Excerpts from transcript of Deposition of John Harker,
`May 3, 2010
`May 14, 2012 press release re Skywire
`
`Ameranth 21st Century System Product Brochure (two-
`sided), distributed September 1999
`Press releases and announcements of various Ameranth
`patent licenses and alliances
`Hospitality Technology, "POS Scoreboard", 2004 and
`2006
`Micros mycentral/Simphony press release
`
`Mark Nance PowerPoint presentation, 2009 FS/TEC
`meeting
`NCR/Radiant press release, July 2011
`
`PAR Technology acquires PixelPoint, article, August 2005
`
`Dominos AnyWare announcement, August 2015
`
`Agilysys/InfoGenesis Mobile brochure
`
`"Wireless finds a welcome in hospitality," Bloomberg,
`Feb. 2004
`Mobile Commerce Daily article re Agilysys InfoGenesis,
`May 2015
`Agilysys/InfoGenesis press release, June 2012
`
`Agilysys Announces Availability of InfoGenesis™ Mobile
`v2.0, Sept. 2013
`Xpient acquires Progressive, press release, August 2004
`
`-x-
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00082
`
`2049
`
`2050
`
`2051
`
`2052
`
`2053
`
`2054
`
`2055
`
`2056
`
`Radiant Systems acquires Aloha Technologies, press
`release, Dec. 2003
`Case Study, Ameranth/Improv Comedy Clubs, Spring
`2000 (annotated)
`Computerworld Award summary, 2001 (annotated)
`
`Photograph from 1999 NRA meeting in Chicago, IL,
`including Keith McNally and Graham Granger
`Dunkin’ Donuts Selects CARDFREE as its Mobile
`Platform, Business Wire, Dec. 2015.
`Transcript of remarks from 2009 FSTEC meeting,
`Technology Executives Panel
`PowerPoint slides and screen shots from Ameranth
`presentation to Starbucks, December 1, 2006
`"Starbucks Claims 90 Percent Mobile Payments Market
`Share", PYMTS, Oct. 31, 2014.
`
`-xi-
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00082
`
`I.
`
`STATEMENT OF PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED
`In accordance with 37 C.F.R. §42.207(a), Patent Owner, Ameranth, Inc.,
`
`(“PO”) submits this Response to Petitioner’s Covered Business Method (“CBM”)
`
`review (“Petition” or “Pet.”) against U.S. Patent No. 6,871,325 ("the '325
`patent")2. For the reasons below, the Petition for review of claims 11-13 and 153
`should be denied because the claims are not invalid under 35 U.S.C. §103.4
`II.
`INTRODUCTION
`The only issue remaining for the Board to resolve is whether Petitioner met its
`
`burden to prove that a POSA at the time of the invention would have found the
`
`challenged ‘325 claims to be obvious based only on the DeLorme reference. However,
`
`2 The ‘325 Patent shares a common specification with U.S. Patent No. 6,384,850 (the
`“’850 Patent”). Citations to the ‘850 Patent herein thus apply equally to the ‘325
`Patent. Similarly, citations to the ‘850 case (CBM-2015-00080) apply equally to the
`challenged ‘325 claims because the ‘325 independent claims contain all of the
`elements of ‘850 independent claim 12.
`3 Note that Patent Owner filed a Request for Rehearing of the Institution Decision on
`Sept 15, 2015, highlighting that ‘325 claim 12 was not challenged in the Petition, and
`presenting other issues regarding obviousness of other claims based on DeLorme
`which the Board misapprehended. The Board has not taken action on that Request.
`This Response thus addresses the extant Institution Ruling. Nonetheless, Patent Owner
`asserts that institution was improper as to claims 11, 12 and 15 for the reasons given in
`the Rehearing Request, and as to all claims for the reasons given herein.
`4 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. Further, if the Federal Circuit rules that the `325 patent in CBM
`2014-00015 is not a CBM patent and that institution was improper, having relied on
`that
`institution for this CBM dooms the current petition as well. Patent Owner
`incorporates herein its Preliminary Response arguments regarding standing and
`preserves its right to appeal the Board’s determination thereof.
`-1-
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00082
`
`three facts are indisputable. First, Petitioner did not even challenge claim 12 based on
`
`Delorme. Second, the DeLorme inventors did not conceive or possess Ameranth’s
`
`inventions. Petitioner does not dispute this reality, otherwise it would have argued
`
`anticipation based on DeLorme and, as confirmed by the Board, Petitioner admitted
`that DeLorme did not disclose the claimed communications control module (“CCM”).5
`Third,, due to the challenge being based on this single reference, it is indisputable that
`
`the DeLorme inventors, who were clearly POSA and who clearly had access to their
`
`own patent, did not find Ameranth’s inventions to be obvious, otherwise they would
`
`have themselves “conceived” it and included it in their specification to solve their
`
`stated problem. But they did not.
`
`In fact they did not even recognize the need for
`
`“synchronization” of both “applications and data,” i.e., “making or configuring the
`
`applications and data to be consistent” between disparate elements, devices and
`
`protocols, the particular aspect which the Board itself has recognized was core to the
`
`patentability of these claims. No form of the term “synchronized,” nor any concept
`
`related thereto, appears even once in DeLorme, despite its very lengthy 80 page
`
`specification. Thus actual POSA having access at the time to DeLorme’s’ specification
`
`(the DeLorme inventors) did not find Ameranth’s invention to be obvious.
`
`Further, since it is clear that the DeLorme inventors did not recognize even the
`
`need for synchronization of both “applications and data,” clearly they did not teach
`
`how to synchronously integrate combined web/wireless/database
`
`5 “Petitioner argues that DeLorme discloses the claimed system except that DeLorme
`does not disclose explicitly that the communication control module is configured as an
`interface between the hospitality applications and any other communications protocol.”
`CBM2015-00080, Inst. Dec. 20 (emphasis added).
`-2-
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00082
`
`systems/embodiments with varying communications protocols, as recited in the
`
`challenged “hospitality” application claims. As admitted, DeLorme did not invent or
`
`teach the claimed “communications control module” that, when properly construed
`
`consistent with the specification disclosure, is a software “layer and which “sits on top
`
`of a communications protocol”–so that it allows for planned updates, i.e., it “can be
`
`easily updated to work with a new communication protocol without modifying the
`
`core hospitality applications.” (Exh. 1001 4:9-13). The “system of systems” concept
`
`of the ‘850 patent, as reflected in the “synchronous communication system” claims,
`
`was designed for smooth growth/changes for multiple and ever-varying
`
`communications. Delorme’s limited concept was not. Delorme admitted that his
`
`“preferred embodiment” relied on “tangible media,” e.g. CDs, which were clearly
`
`distributed by hand, not computer system or network:
`Thus, the preferred TRIPS embodiment, shown in use in FIG. lA,
`comes partly on tangible media, for example, as a North American
`Atlas on CD-ROM with a TRIPS "starter" kit.
`Exh. 1024 14:19-21 (emphasis added). DeLorme also only described various
`
`independent “alternative” embodiments:
`Alternatively, all TRIPS function, data and service 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.
`FIG. 9 also depicts alternative TRIPS embodiments and remote usage
`scenarios which facilitate "on the spot" simplified travel planning and
`transactions, via WCU 907 from remote locations
`
`-3-
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00082
`
`Exh. 1024 43-47, 72:37-43 (emphasis added); see also Exh. 1002 ¶¶ 210-12. In
`
`contrast, the ‘850 claims recite integration and synchronization of disparate
`
`embodiments using varying protocols to create a synchronized “system of systems.”
`
`Petitioner’s challenge is no more than impermissible use of hindsight and the
`
`claims themselves as a guide to cherry-pick independent and non-integrated
`
`embodiments and disclosures of DeLorme to reconstruct Ameranth’s inventions.
`
`In contrast, Ameranth was the first to integrate and synchronize multiple and
`
`disparate “alternative” embodiments together, including both hospitality
`
`applications/data and with varying communications protocols and devices. It was not
`
`obvious to so, as was widely confirmed by the marketplace after Ameranth invented
`and introduced its synchronous 21st Century Restaurant™ “system of systems” into the
`hospitality marketplace in 1998-1999. No other company had Ameranth’s unique
`
`systemic solution, integrated and synchronized, and both Web and wireless, as was
`
`confirmed by the owner of Improv Comedy Theatres after seeing Ameranth’s 21CR
`
`system demonstrated to him in May 1999:
`Looking for a total solution, Castillo was particularly impressed with the
`fact that Ameranth could develop and install the entire web, PC and
`wireless system, something no other company could match.
`Computerworld 21CR Award Summary, 2001, page 1 (Exh. 1012 at 697) (emphasis
`
`added).
`
`Nor did Delorme invent or disclose how to do so or that such “system of
`
`systems” integration and synchronization should or could have been done. In fact,
`Petitioner itself did not even allege that Ameranth’s actual claimed inventive concepts
`
`were obvious to a POSA at the time of the invention. The Board already determined
`
`-4-
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00082
`
`what that core invention was in response to Petitioner’s first petition against the
`
`challenged claims:
`We do not view these claims as reciting merely the abstract idea of
`“placing an order or reservation using a general purpose computer and
`wireless handheld device,” but rather as a particular practical
`application of the idea of application and data synchronization.
`The combination of these components interact in a specific way to
`synchronize applications and data between the components and outside
`application that is integral to the claimed invention and meaningfully
`limit these claims
`CBM2014-00015, Inst. Dec. 24 (emphasis added). The Board correctly recognized
`
`that the synchronization of both the “applications and data” was a core inventive
`
`aspect of these claims and that the claimed components “interact in a specific way”
`
`that is “integral to the claimed invention” and thus “meaningfully limit these claims.”
`
`The Petition also violates multiple case law directives, rules and regulations,
`each violation individually compelling denial.6
`Further, in addition to the technical infirmities of the DeLorme disclosure vis-à-
`
`vis the claimed subject matter, a large quantity of objective evidence demonstrates
`
`nonobviousness. The introduction of Ameranth’s breakthrough inventions into the
`hospitality market–embodied in its multiple award-winning 21st Century Restaurant™
`System (“21CR”)–achieved almost immediate success and received widespread and
`
`multi-dimensional acclaim which has continued for the last 17 years. 21CR was in
`
`actuality a unique “system of systems” which were synchronously and seamlessly
`
`6 The Petition violated numerous rules/requirements promulgated under the AIA,
`including: 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3); 37 C.F.R. § 42.22(a)(2); 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4);
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(5) and 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3).
`-5-
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00082
`
`integrated together. In the hospitality market, software point of sale (“POS”) systems
`
`are the “brains” and “mission-critical” aspect of an IT system, and thus Ameranth
`
`sought to partner with or license the market leaders. Most significant hospitality
`
`software POS company either partnered with, licensed, or sought to license
`
`Ameranth’s revolutionary inventions, many of which are licensees today. Those that
`
`did not license the inventions have copied them and many now tout Ameranth’s
`
`inventions as their own “breakthroughs.” More than 50,000 restaurant locations are
`
`licensed for the `850 family of patents, including renowned chains such as Taco Bell,
`
`Dunkin Donuts, Burger King, Jersey Mike’s Subs, BJ’s Pizza and Steak N Shake.
`
`These giant companies chose to license Ameranth’s patents due to recognition and
`
`respect for Ameranth’s innovations, just as Bill Gates did in 2000 when he stated:
`
`“Ameranth is one of the leading pioneers of the information technology age for the
`
`betterment of mankind.” (Exh. 1012 at 543, 952). Ameranth, a tiny company, had a
`single core product7 at the time (21CR), and thus this praise for 21CR was
`unquestionably linked to Ameranth’s inventions as clearly demonstrated in this
`
`Response. This broad and extensive licensing of the `325 inventions along with an
`
`extraordinary amount of other objective evidence against obviousness consisting of six
`
`separate categories of secondary factors, all with a confirmed nexus to the
`
`claims/invention as detailed below, strongly rebuts the infringing Petitioner’s flawed,
`
`incomplete and error-filled assertions of obviousness.
`III. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`7 Note: Ameranth also marketed the 21CR product
`line with some additional
`hospitality applications, but those were all based on the same core 21CR product and
`technology and had the 21CR system embedded within them.
`-6-
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00082
`
`A BRI construction cannot read elements out of the claims and cannot be
`
`inconsistent with the intrinsic evidence. Microsoft Corp.v. Proxyconn, Inc., 789 F.3d
`
`1292, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
`A.
`Claim Construction Proposals
`Patent Owner presents the following proposals, all of which are supported by the
`
`intrinsic evidence. The Declaration of Dr. Alfred Weaver (Exh. 2019) in support of
`
`Ameranth’s positions on nonobviousness is critical in the claim construction analysis
`
`because it provides the perspective of a POSA in viewing the claims in light of his own
`
`knowledge and the specification disclosure. Per Dr. Weaver, a POSA would have had
`
`a Bachelor’s degree in either electrical engineering or computer science and at least
`
`three years of experience in the hospitality market in the fields of developing software
`
`for wireless networks and devices, developing Internet-based systems or applications,
`
`with knowledge of or equivalent experience in software development in the hospitality
`
`market for at least three years. (Exh. 2019 ¶21).
`
`PO proposes the following constructions. An ultimate conclusion on
`
`obviousness in view of the Delorme reference cannot be made without first properly
`
`construing the following terms and elements.
`1.
`“wireless handheld computing device”
`Patent Owner proposes “a wireless computing device that is sized to be held in
`
`one’s hand.” See Everingham Order (Exh. 1032 at 24); Exh. 2019 ¶27.
`2.
`“central database”
`Patent Owner proposes “a database file structure connected to the system in
`
`association with a central server, comprised of records, each containing fields, together
`
`with a set of operations for searching, sorting, recombining and other functions.”
`-7-
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00082
`
`Microsoft Comp. Dict. (4th ed.1999) (Exh. 1034 at 8); Exh. 1001 at 2:24, 11-34-35
`
`(“backoffice server (central database)”); id. at 2:8-10, 11:13-15 (“synchronization
`
`between a central database and multiple handheld devices”). (Exh. 2019 ¶28).
`3.
`“web page”
`The PTAB construed consistent with its prior rulings to mean “a document,
`
`with associated files for graphics, scripts, and other resources, accessible over the
`
`internet and viewable in a web browser.” Inst. Dec. 7; see also CBM2014-00015
`
`(Exh. 1017 thereto at 8)). (Exh. 2019 ¶29).
`
`The PTAB also separately construed the non-recited term “document” in
`
`accordance with the Petitioner’s request. Patent Owner objects to that construction
`
`because it is not a term in the claims. Patent Owner submits that nothing in the
`
`principles of BRI allows for construction of a non-claimed term, especially considering
`
`that the Board did not even construe critical terms which are actually recited in the
`
`claims, and which PO proposed should be construed and thus are in controversy.
`
`Further, not only is Petitioner’s proposal not a BRI construction for this term, the
`proposed construction is inconsistent with the web context and the specification8 and
`thus inconsistent with how a POSA would view “web based” documents served via the
`
`claimed “web server.” (Exh. 2019 ¶29).
`4.
`“web server”
`The Microsoft Computer Dictionary states in regard to “Web Server:” “See
`
`HTTP Server.” (Exh. 2020 (Page 479)). The Dictionary then states in regard to
`
`8 “The HTML documents are stored on Web server computers, typically in a
`hierarchical fashion with the root document being referred to as the home page”
`(Exh. 1001 12:20-24).
`
`-8-
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00082
`
`“HTTP Server:” “Server software that uses HTTP to serve up HTML documents and
`
`any associated files and scripts when requested by a client such as a web browser.”
`
`(Exh. 2020 (Page 224)). Patent Owner proposes that this definition be adopted. Web
`
`Server is a recited element, its critical functionality in the claims has not been
`
`appreciated by the Petitioner or the Board, and DeLorme suffers critical infirmities in
`
`meeting this limitation as properly construed and relative to the CCM and the third
`
`wherein clause of claim 12, as discussed below. (Exh. 2019 ¶30).
`5.
`“communications control module”
`This is a software layer, as Judge Payne concluded in prior district court
`
`litigation stating that “the specification itself provides the best construction for the
`
`term at issue.” (Exh. 1033 at 13). Based on the District Court constructions and
`
`intrinsic evidence, Patent Owner proposes the following construction for the CCM:
`a layer that sits on top of any communication protocol and acts as an
`interface between hospitality applications and the communication
`protocol.
`
`See Exh. 1001 4:9-13. Further it is clear that it is the software-based CCM that
`
`provides the “automatic” communications “routing” functionality as shown by the
`
`specification, e.g., “[a]communication control program monitors and routes all
`
`communications to the appropriate devices,” which “must be running for proper
`
`communications to exist between all devices on the network.” (Exh. 1001 9: 21-22,
`
`38-39 (emphasis added)). It is also the CCM that deals concurrently with both HTTP
`
`and non-HTTP communications messaging protocols of the system, as claimed, and
`
`which also supports the integration of the separately recited API (which then also deals
`
`with software application-to-application direct integration and with third party
`
`-9-
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00082
`
`systems/devices such as POS systems, as discussed further below). (Exh. 2019 ¶31).
`
`“synchronized”
`6.
`The Board correctly construed this term to mean “made, or configured to make,
`
`consistent.” Inst. Dec. 9; Exh. 2019 ¶32.
`7.
`“hospitality applications”
`
`The Board correctly construed this term to mean “applications used to perform
`
`services or tasks in the hospitality industry.” This const