throbber
Paper No. 25
`
`Trials@uspto.gov
` Entered: March 21, 2016
`
`
`571.272.7822
`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 6,871,325 B1
`____________
`
`
`Before MEREDITH C. PETRAVICK, RICHARD E. RICE, and
`STACEY G. WHITE, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`PETRAVICK, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`DECISION ON REQUEST FOR REHEARING
`37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d)
`
`
`1 CBM2015-00097 has been consolidated with this proceeding.
`
`
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00082
`Patent 6,871,325 B1
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`Apple Inc. et al. (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition requesting covered
`business method patent review of claims 11–13 and 15 of U.S. Patent No.
`6,871,325 B1 (Ex. 1003, “the ’325 patent”). Paper 1 (“Pet.”). On
`September 1, 2015, we entered a Decision instituting covered business
`method patent review of U.S. Patent No. 6,871,325 B1 (Ex. 1003, “the ’325
`patent”) based upon the sole ground of claims 11–13 and 15 being
`unpatentable over DeLorme.2 Paper 13, 30 (“Dec. to Inst.”); see also Paper
`15, 4.
`On September 15, 2015, Patent Owner filed a Request for Rehearing
`asking the Board to reconsider its Decision. Paper 16 (“Req.”). Patent
`Owner requests that we reconsider our decision to institute covered business
`method patent review on the ground of claims 11, 12, and 15 being
`unpatentable over DeLorme.
`For the reasons discussed below, we deny Patent Owner’s request as
`to claims 11 and 15 and grant Patent Owner’s request as to claim 12.
`
`
`II. DISCUSSION
`A. Standard of Review
`When rehearing a decision on petition, the Board will review the
`decision for an abuse of discretion. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). An abuse of
`discretion may be determined if a decision is based on an erroneous
`interpretation of law, if a factual finding is not supported by substantial
`
`
`2 DeLorme et al., U.S. Patent No. 5,948,040 (issued Sept. 7, 1999) (Ex.
`1024).
`
`2
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00082
`Patent 6,871,325 B1
`evidence, or if the decision represents an unreasonable judgment in weighing
`relevant factors. See Arnold P’ship v. Dudas, 362 F.3d 1338, 1340 (Fed.
`Cir. 2004).
`The party challenging the decision has the burden of showing a
`decision should be modified. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). In its Request for
`Rehearing, the dissatisfied party must (1) specifically identify all matters the
`party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked and (2) identify the
`place where each matter was previously addressed. Id.
`
`
`B. Analysis
`i. Claims 12 and 15
`Patent Owner contends that we erroneously instituted trial on
`
`independent claim 12 because the Petition only challenges claims 11, 13,
`and 15, not claim 12, based upon obviousness over DeLorme. Req. 4–5.
`
`Patent Owner is correct that claim 12 was not challenged in the
`Petition and should not have been included in the instituted ground. See Pet.
`52–62; Paper 8, 2 (“Petitioner clarified that claim 12 is not included in the
`ground based upon obviousness over DeLorme and that the reference to
`claim 12 on pages 62 and 63 [of the Petition] was a typographical or clerical
`error.”).
`
`In our Decision, we analyzed independent claims 11–13, with respect
`to the ground based upon DeLorme, as a group due to the similarity of these
`claims.3 See Dec. to Inst. 20–22. We modify our Decision to exclude claim
`12 from this analysis and the instituted ground based upon DeLorme.
`
`
`3 Independent claims 11–13 recite identical limitations except for requiring
`the synchronized data to relate to orders, relate to waitlists, or relate to
`reservations, respectively. See Ex. 1003, col. 17, l. 4–col. 18, l. 32.
`
`3
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00082
`Patent 6,871,325 B1
`
`Patent Owner also contends that we erroneously instituted trial on
`dependent claim 15 because our Decision was based upon arguments and
`evidence related to claim 12. Req. 6–7.
`
`Patent Owner’s contention is misplaced. As discussed above, we
`analyzed independent claims 11–13 as a group. Claim 15 is a multiple
`dependent claim as it depends from “claim 11, 12, or 13” and our analysis
`was not based upon arguments and evidences related only to claim 12. See
`Dec. to Inst. 27. Our analysis of claim 15 with respect to DeLorme
`addresses the additional element recited by claim 15 and does not rely only
`upon its dependency from claim 12. See id.
`
`We are not persuaded by Patent Owner that we abused our discretion
`in determining that there is a reasonable likelihood that claim 15 is
`unpatentable over DeLorme. We decline to modify our Decision with
`respect to claim 15 as it depends from claims 11 and 13.
`
`
`ii. Claim 11
`Claim 11 recites “wherein the synchronized data relates to orders.”
`
`Patent Owner contends that we erroneously instituted trial on the ground of
`claim 11 being obvious over DeLorme. Req. 7–12. According to Patent
`Owner, we construed the claimed order to be an order for a restaurant meal
`and DeLorme does not disclose an order for a restaurant meal. Req. 7
`(citing Dec. to Inst. 13).
`
`Patent Owner contention is misplaced. On page 13 of our Decision,
`we determined that claim 1 of the ’325 patent satisfied the financial product
`or service requirement for being a covered business method patent. Dec. to
`Inst. 12–13. In that regard, we stated “[w]e are persuaded by Petitioner that
`ordering relates to ordering a restaurant meal, which is at least incidental or
`
`4
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00082
`Patent 6,871,325 B1
`complementary to the sale of the meal.” Id. at 13; see Pet. 6–7. Contrary to
`Patent Owner’s contention, this is not a construction of the term “order” as
`recited by claim 1 or claim 11.
`We did not construe claim 11 to require the claimed order to be an
`order for a restaurant meal or preclude the claimed order from being other
`types of orders. Although claim 11 encompasses an order for a restaurant
`meal, as described in the ’325 patent, claim 11 does not require the “order”
`to be an order for a restaurant meal.
`We, thus, are not persuaded by Patent Owner that we abused our
`discretion in determining that there is a reasonable likelihood that claim 11
`is unpatentable over DeLorme.
`
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`Patent Owner’s Request for Rehearing as to claims 11 and 15 is
`denied. Patent Owner’s Request as to claim 12 is granted. Accordingly, we
`modify our Decision to institute covered business method patent review as to
`claims 11, 13, and 15, and not as to claim 12, of the ’325 patent on the
`ground of obviousness over DeLorme.
`
`
`IV. ORDER
`In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby:
`ORDERED that Patent Owner’s Request for Rehearing as to claim 12
`is granted and as to claims 11 and 15 is denied.
`
`5
`
`
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00082
`Patent 6,871,325 B1
`
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`James M. Heintz
`Robert C. Williams
`Ryan W. Cobb
`ameranthCBMService@dlapiper.com
`robert.williams@dlapiper.com
`ryan.cobb@dlapiper.com
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`John Osborne
`Michael Fabiano
`josborne@osborneipl.com
`mdfabiano@fabianolawfirm.com
`
`
`6

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