UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`APPLE, INC., ET AL.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`AMERANTH, INC.
`Patent Owner
`
`____________
`
`Case CBM2015-00082
`Patent No. 6,871,325
`____________
`
`MAIL STOP PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`Post Office Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
`
`Submitted Electronically via the Patent Review Processing System
`
`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`

`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`CBM2015-00082
`
`Page
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`STATEMENT OF PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED .....................................1
`
`INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................1
`
`III. OVERVIEW......................................................................................................9
`
`A. 35 U.S.C. §103 Overview ............................................................................9
`
`B. Overview Of Turnbull Declaration Errors And Omissions........................14
`
`C. Overview Of Petition Errors And Omissions.............................................20
`
`IV.
`
`THE PETITION SHOULD BE REJECTED FOR IMPROPER
`INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE..........................................................24
`
`V.
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ............................................................................25
`
`A. PO’s Proposals In Juxtaposition To Petitioner’s Flawed Proposals
`And Non-Proposals ....................................................................................29
`
`1. “wireless handheld computing device”.................................................29
`
`2. “central database” .................................................................................29
`
`3. “web page”............................................................................................30
`
`4. “communications control module” .......................................................30
`
`5. “synchronized”......................................................................................31
`
`6. “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” .........................................................32
`
`7. “wireless handheld computing device on which hospitality
`applications and data are stored” ..........................................................33
`
`8. “hospitality applications”......................................................................37
`
`9. “API,” “outside applications” and “integration”...................................37
`
`10.“data sent to a wireless paging device”.................................................39
`i
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00082
`
`B. Claim Construction Analysis Summary.....................................................40
`
`VI.
`
`PETITIONER HAS NOT SHOWN THAT ANY OF CLAIMS 11-13
`OR 15 ARE MORE LIKELY THAN NOT OBVIOUS ........................41
`
`A. Overview....................................................................................................41
`
`B. Challenge 1 And 2: Inkpen/Digestor/Nokia/Flake.....................................44
`
`1. Overview of References........................................................................44
`
`2. Synchronization, “Applications And Data” ..........................................45
`
`3. Integration/API/Outside Applications...................................................46
`
`4. CCM, Protocols.....................................................................................48
`
`5. Wireless Handheld (Element “b”) vs. “Web Page” (Element “d”).......49
`
`6. Claims As a Whole ...............................................................................51
`
`C. Challenge 3: DeLorme ...............................................................................52
`
`1. Overview of Reference .........................................................................52
`
`2. Synchronization, “Applications and Data” ...........................................53
`
`3. Integration/API/Outside Applications...................................................55
`
`4. CCM/Protocol.......................................................................................56
`
`5. Handheld/Web page..............................................................................56
`
`6. Claims As A Whole ..............................................................................59
`
`D. Challenge 4: Blinn/Inkpen .........................................................................60
`
`1. Overview of References........................................................................60
`
`2. Synchronization, “Applications And Data” ..........................................62
`
`3. Integration/API/Outside Applications...................................................64
`
`4. CCM-Protocols .....................................................................................65
`
`5. “Wireless Handheld,” “Web Page”.......................................................66
`
`ii
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00082
`
`CBM2015-00082
`
`6. Summary As To Blinn/Inkpen ..............................................................67
`6. Summary As To Blinn/Inkpen ............................................................ ..67
`
`E. Dependent Claim 15...................................................................................68
`E. Dependent Claim 15 ................................................................................. ..68
`
`F. Objective Evidence Of Non-Obviousness..................................................69
`F. Objective Evidence Of Non-Obviousness ................................................ ..69
`
`VII. CONCLUSION ...............................................................................................80
`
`VII. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. .. 80
`
`iii
`iii
`
`

`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`
`CBM2015-00082
`
`Page
`
`Allen Archery, Inc. v. Browning Mfg. Co.
`819 F.2d 1087 (Fed. Cir. 1987).......................................................................74
`
`Apple v. ContentGuard, Inc.
`CBM2015-00046, Paper 12………..…………………………………………1
`
`Apple v. Smartflash LLC
`CBM2015-00033, Paper 11 at 15-18 (PTAB May 28, 2015) .........................42
`
`Bloomberg L.P. v. Quest Corp.
`CBM2014-00205, Paper 16...............................................................................1
`
`CBS v. Sylvania., Inc.
`415 F.2d 719 (1st Cir. 1969), cert. denied, 396 U.S. 1061 (1970)................ 71
`
`CFMT, Inc. v. Yieldup Int’l. Corp.
`349 F.3d 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ..........................................................42
`
`Cisco Systems, Inc., v. C-Cation Techs., LLC
`IPR2014-00454, Paper 12 at 10 (PTAB Aug. 29, 2014).................................25
`
`Continental Can Co. v. Monsanto Co.
`948 F.2d 1264 (Fed. Cir. 1991).......................................................................13
`
`DeSilva v. DiLeonardi
`181 F.3d 865 (7th Cir. 1999)...........................................................................25
`
`Epos Tech. Ltd. v. Pegasus Tech. Ltd.
`766 F.3d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2014).......................................................................27
`
`Ex parte Brud
`BPAI Appeal 2009-011707 at 3, 4……………………………………..……35
`
`Free Motion Fitness, Inc. v. Cybex Int’l, Inc.
`423 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2005).......................................................................68
`
`iv
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00082
`
`Fresenius USA, Inc. v. Baxter Int’l, Inc.
`582 F.3d 1288 (Fed. Cir. 2009).......................................................................42
`
`Heidelberger v. Hantscho Prods.
`21 F.3d 1068 (Fed. Cir. 1994).........................................................................77
`
`Hockerson-Halberstadt, Inc. v. Converse Inc.
`183 F.3d 1369 (Fed. Cir. 1999).................................................................... 26, 27
`
`Hoechst Celanese Corp. v. BP Chem. Ltd.
`78 F.3d 1575 (Fed. Cir. 1996)...................................................................... 23, 50
`
`In re Hoch
`428 F.2d 1341 (CCPA 1970)...........................................................................50
`
`In re Kahn
`441 F.3d at 988................................................................................................67
`
`In re McLaughlin
`443 F.2d 1392 (CCPA 1971)...........................................................................16
`
`In re Papst Licensing Patent Litigation
`778 F.3d 1255 (Fed. Cir. 2015).......................................................................28
`
`In re Roufett
`149 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 1998).......................................................................77
`
`In re Royka
`490 F.2d 981 (CCPA 1974) ................................................................42
`
`In Re Sponnoble
`405 F.2d 578 (CCPA 1969).............................................................................12
`
`In re Warner
`379 F.2d 1011 (CCPA 1967)...........................................................................42
`
`Interconnect Planning Corp. v. Feil
`774 F.2d 1132 (Fed. Cir. 1985) .......................................................................12
`
`v
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00082
`
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) ..................................................................................... 43, 67
`
`Medichem, S.A. v. Rolabo, S.L.
`353 F.3d 928 (Fed. Cir. 2003).........................................................................41
`
`Oatey Co. v. IPS Corp.
`514 F.3d 1271 (Fed. Cir. 2008).......................................................................23
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005).......................................................................28
`
`Plantronics, Inc. v. Aliph, Inc.
`724 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2013).......................................................................13
`
`Power-One, Inc. v. Artesyn Tech., Inc.
`599 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2010).......................................................................77
`
`Rambus Inc. v. Rea
`731 F.3d 1248 (Fed. Cir. 2013).......................................................................72
`
`Sensonics Inc. v. Aerosonic Corp.
`81 F.3d 1566 (Fed. Cir. 1996).........................................................................67
`
`Tempur Sealy Int'l, Inc. v. Select Comfort Corp.
`IPR 2014-01419, Paper 7 (PTAB Feb. 17, 2015) ........................................ 24, 25
`
`Teva Pharm., Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc.
`723 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2013).......................................................................72
`
`Travelocity v. Cronos Tech.
`CBM2014-00082, Paper No. 12, Oct. 16, 2014, p. 5 ......................................42
`
`Unique Concepts, Inc. v. Brown
`939 F.2d 1558 (Fed. Cir. 1991).......................................................................35
`
`Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc.
`90 F.3d 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1996)……………………………………………….50
`
`Other
`
`vi
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00082
`
`CBM2015-00082
`
`37 C.F.R. §42.6(a)(3) ..................................................................................................1
`37 C.F.R. §42.6(a)(3) ................................................................................................ ..1
`
`37 C.F.R. §42.22(a)(2) ................................................................................................1
`37 C.F.R. §42.22(a)(2) .............................................................................................. ..1
`
`37 C.F.R. §42.104(b)(4) ..............................................................................................1
`37 C.F.R. §42.104(b)(4) ............................................................................................ ..1
`
`37 C.F.R. §42.104(b)5)................................................................................................1
`37 C.F.R. §42.104(b)5) .............................................................................................. ..1
`
`37 C.F.R. §42.207(a) ...................................................................................................1
`37 C.F.R. §42.207(a) ................................................................................................. ..1
`
`37 C.F.R. §42.300(b).................................................................................................25
`37 C.F.R. §42.300(b) ............................................................................................... ..25
`
`77 Fed. Reg. 157 at 48697-98 (Aug. 14, 2012) .........................................................25
`77 Fed. Reg. 157 at 48697-98 (Aug. 14, 2012) ....................................................... ..25
`
`35 U.S.C. §101 ............................................................................................................1
`35 U.S.C. §1o1 .......................................................................................................... ..1
`
`35 U.S.C. §103 ..................................................................................................... 1, 9, 79
`35 U.S.C. §1o3 ................................................................................................... .. 1, 9, 79
`
`35 U.S.C. §112 ......................................................................................................... 1, 23
`35 U.S.C. §112 ....................................................................................................... .. 1, 23
`
`35 U.S.C. §312(a)(3) ...................................................................................................1
`35 U.S.C. §312(a)(3) ................................................................................................. ..1
`Microsoft Comp. Dict. (4th ed.1999) .....................................................26, 29, 30, 38, 56
`Microsoft Comp. Diet. (4“‘ ed.1999) ................................................... ..26, 29, 30, 38, 56
`
`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
`
`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)
`
`ix
`
`

`
`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 Preliminary Response to Petitioner’s belated, second,
`
`Covered Business Method (“CBM”) review (“Petition” or “Pet.”) against U.S.
`
`Patent No. 6,871,325 ("the '325 patent"). For the reasons below, the Petition for
`
`review of claims 11-13 and 15 should be denied because the claims are not
`invalid under 35 U.S.C. §103.1
`II.
`INTRODUCTION
`Petitioner’s first attempt to invalidate claims 11-13 and 15 of Ameranth’s `325
`
`patent based on 35 U.S.C. §101/112 (filed 16 months earlier) failed entirely against
`
`the challenged claims, just as this belated second attempt under 35 U.S.C. §103 fails.
`
`Petitioner’s six asserted references, comprising four different obviousness
`
`challenges, each have fatal shortcomings. They teach away from the claimed
`
`invention, would require substantial changes to their principles of operation, and fail to
`
`teach or suggest critical claimed features (mostly ignored by the Petition while relying
`
`on incorrect constructions and failing to even consider the most important claim
`
`terms). The Petition also violates multiple case law directives, rules and regulations,
`each violation individually compelling denial.2 Additionally, the Petition fails because
`
`1 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. Also note that the PTAB has recently held that claims having
`structural similarities to the ‘325 claims were directed to a technological invention. See
`Bloomberg L.P. v. Quest Corp., CBM2014-00205, Paper 16; Apple v. ContentGuard,
`Inc., CBM2015-00046, Paper 12.
`2 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);
`1
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00082
`
`it fails to identify sufficiently the differences between the claims-at-issue and the
`
`purported prior art references.
`
`Most importantly, Petitioner and its expert entirely read out and/or misapplied
`
`the correct constructions for the specific hospitality based claims 11-13, which clearly
`
`are, in effect, just more limited/precise versions of `850 claim 12, claiming
`
`respectively food ordering, waitlisting and reservations embodiments, as opposed to
`the broader “hospitality applications” element of `850 claim 12.3 Despite Petitioner
`relying on the correct construction of ordering as “food ordering” for its “standing”
`argument,4 Petitioner attempts to elude that correct construction in its attempts to apply
`the alleged prior art. It cannot be reasonably disputed that the ordering in the `325
`
`claims is directed to “food ordering” as a POSA would know from reading the
`
`specification and the prosecution history. Nor can it be reasonably disputed that the
`
`waitlist and reservations recited in various claims are distinct hospitality applications
`
`which are alternative to food ordering. This is clear from the prosecution record:
`As known in the art, a hospitality software application is, for example, a
`piece of software used to provide operational solutions in hospitality
`industries such as restaurants and hotels, concerning, for example, food
`ordering, menus, wait-lists, and reservations.
`Exh. 1008 at 92 (emphasis added).
`
`Petitioner tries to distort the meanings of words at odds with what a POSA
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(5) and 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3).
`3 Further Petitioner also read out the “paging” functionality from dependent claim 15.
`4 Petitioner stated: “The ‘ordering’ in this phrase relates to the ordering of a meal at
`a restaurant (Ex. 1003 at Abstract), and therefore is at least incidental to and
`complementary to the sale of the meal.” (Pet. at 7) (emphasis added).
`2
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00082
`
`would have known. For example, Petitioner asserts that a sub-function of a non-
`
`hospitality application (e.g., “back orders”) of non-hospitality items could be the
`
`claimed hospitality “waitlisting” alternative of independent claim 12 or that hotel
`
`reservations could be the food ordering in claim 11 (while at the same time being the
`
`reservations application of claim 13). However, a POSA would have known that the
`
`very fact that the inventors chose to submit entirely independent claims for these
`
`very different embodiments was strongly indicative of each of independent claims 11-
`
`13 representing significantly different applications. Clearly, claim differentiation
`
`prohibits the same structures in prior art being used to meet entirely different claim
`
`terms, especially different independent claims having different terms. Further, in the
`
`specification, the inventors specifically limited the claims to “hospitality applications”
`
`and distinguished ordering, waitlisting and reservations, from each other, again,
`
`confirming that these were distinct from one another and not sub-functions.
`[T]he hospitality industry, e.g. for restaurant ordering, reservations
`and wait-list management
`Exh. 1003 at 1:27-28 (emphasis added).
`
`The hospitality food ordering, waitlists and reservations based claims of the ‘325
`
`patent represent an extraordinarily visionary and multi-faceted “system of systems”–
`
`with both the applications and the data innovatively and uniquely synchronized and
`
`integrated–between both hospitality and non-hospitality applications, and including
`
`web, wireless, and handheld devices (for both consumer and staff use)–all leveraging a
`
`single central database storing the hospitality applications and data. The PTAB clearly
`
`recognized the multi-faceted specificity of these claims in the prior proceeding:
`The combination of these components interact in a specific way to
`
`3
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00082
`
`synchronize applications and data between the components and outside
`application that is integral to the claimed invention and meaningfully
`limit these claims.
`CBM2014-00016, Paper 19 at 25 (emphasis added).
`[C]laim 11-13’s limitation “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” is a further
`limitation that is directed to the system’s ability to synchronize
`applications and data.
`Id. at 15-16 (emphasis added). The claimed inventive features/elements recognized by
`
`the PTAB as meaningfully specific were clearly core to Ameranth’s 1998-99
`invention, the claims of the ‘325 patent and to Ameranth’s own 21st Century
`Restaurant™ and 21st Century Hotel™ “system of systems.” Such “systems of
`systems” have become a ubiquitous reality now in 2015, and are in widespread use
`
`across the entire spectrum of hospitality companies and applications. The recognition
`
`of this claimed subject matter as innovative and non-obvious has been repeatedly
`
`confirmed by petitioners and defendants themselves whom, after copying Ameranth’s
`
`inventions, cannot refrain from boasting about their own uses of those inventions–
`
`often claiming the ‘325 inventions as their own breakthroughs, and in some cases
`
`even seeking awards for themselves for Ameranth’s technology (including defendant
`
`Marriott, who’s late-1990s system is the subject of the very base reference that
`Petitioner’s obviousness challenges now seek to rely on).5
`
`5 Marriott, Starwood, Starbucks, Pizza Hut, Hilton, Dominos, Papa John’s, Micros,
`Agilysys and many others all received detailed briefings and/or demonstrations of
`Ameranth’s patented technology during the inventive time frame or thereafter from
`Keith McNally, lead inventor of Ameranth’s ‘850 patent family, or from his staff.
`4
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00082
`
`Significantly, Marriott copied and claimed for itself the very inventions of
`
`claims 11-13 and 15 of the ‘325 patent after Ameranth provided information regarding
`the subject matter in 1999/2000 at Marriott’s request.6 In a February 3, 2000 letter
`from Steve Glen, Marriott VP, to Ameranth’s Keith McNally, Glen confirmed that
`
`Marriott was “very interested” in the “innovative features” of Ameranth’s 21st
`
`Century Restaurant™ technology, and that Marriott would be “closely monitoring
`
`your [Ameranth’s] progress with the domestic side of Marriott” and that Marriott
`
`hoped that this would “deliver the breakthrough solutions that we are seeking.”
`
`(Exh. 1012 at 647, 964) (emphasis added).
`
`Then, after Ameranth disclosed its “breakthrough” inventions to Marriott,
`
`Marriott brazenly sought an award from Computerworld for upgrading its MARSHA
`
`system based on the very technology it had learned about from Ameranth. Marriott
`
`won that award in 2006, clearly based on Ameranth’s `850 and `325 technology as
`
`embodied in the same key inventive elements of `325 claim 13 as were recognized by
`
`the Board in the prior CBM (i.e., “synchronization” and “integration” with “outside
`
`applications” from a “central database” and across “all elements” for “consistency”),
`
`thus proving nexus between the copying and the claims.
`
`The following excerpts from the 2006 Computerworld Award make Marriott’s
`
`copying abundantly clear, with the bold highlighting emphasizing Marriott’s claiming,
`
`as its own, the functions of the same key `325 claim 13 elements shown in brackets:
`
`6 Contemporaneous facts detailing the conception of the invention, secondary factors
`demonstrating non-obviousness and nexus to the claimed invention is further provided
`below in the section titled “Objective Evidence of Non-Obviousness.”
`5
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00082
`
`In 2003, Marriott successfully completed an aggressive 11-month
`upgrade to its entire Internet technology architecture and operating
`environment … Based on open-systems standards and fully-integrated
`[“integration”] with key inventory, marketing and loyalty programs.
`[“outside applications,” e.g., “affinity program companies” as disclosed
`in the `325 patent (Exh. 10017 at 2:13)]
`The integrated infrastructure [“integration”] is focused on delivering
`value, with impressive results, including: … Consistency of information
`across systems [app/data synchronization] … delivered consistently at all
`locations. [app/data synchronization]
`Marriott integrated MARSHA with all of the company’s key business
`applications and made its entire inventory available as a single image
`[“central database”] in real-time across all channels [synchronization].
`Exh. 2016 at 2, 3. Noteworthy is Marriott asserting that the “consistency” of the
`
`information, i.e., “synchronization,” needed to occur across both “systems” and “all
`
`locations” and with a “single image” and “integrated” with “marketing and loyalty
`
`programs” just as the `325 claims recite and Ameranth had disclosed to Marriott.
`
`All three major pizza company defendants also copied the claimed technology
`
`and received a joint technology innovation award in 2009 for deploying it, including
`
`the “mobile device ordering platforms” and “interfaces with social networks” (“outside
`
`applications”) aspects of claim 11 of the ‘325 patent (“outside applications” include,
`
`e.g., “affinity program groups” – social networks):
`[T]he 2009 FS/TEC innovation awards are simultaneously being
`presented to Domino’s Pizza Inc., Papa John’s International Inc., and
`Pizza Hut Division of Yum Brands Inc. From development of mobile
`device ordering platforms to interfaces with social networks
`
`7 The ‘850 and ‘325 patents share an identical specification.
`6
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00082
`
`Presentation of Rob Grimes (FS/TEC CEO), FS/TEC 2009 Awards transcript8 at 10:33
`(Exh. 2018) (emphasis added). Further, in receiving its award, Pizza Hut admitted that
`
`it had tried but failed to integrate mobile ordering with affinity program groups:
`[I]n the late 90s, we really made a run at this and it wasn’t successful
`Statement of Delaney Bellingers - Pizza Hut, FSTEC 2009 Awards transcript at 12:29
`
`(Exh. 2018) (emphasis added) (demonstrating "failure of others").
`
`This copying and claiming for themselves by giant company infringers has
`
`continued unabated into 2015, and they now use even more self-laudatory terms to
`
`describe what they copied from Ameranth. For instance, Starbucks claimed the entirety
`of Ameranth’s inventions/claims as its own self-described “holy grail” in 2014,9 just
`before filing Petitions of its own (CBM2015-00091, -00099) asserting the opposite–
`
`i.e., that everything Starbucks now refers to as a “holy grail” for itself was
`
`obvious/known back in 1998. The very subject matter of ‘325 claims 11-13, including
`
`hospitality applications integrated with a mobile application on handhelds was, less
`
`than two months ago, on April 27, 2015, praised by Starbucks as its own “ecosystem”
`
`which is providing Starbucks the very benefits Ameranth envisioned, invented and
`
`claimed long ago:
`Kevin Johnson, Starbucks’ president and COO, said the company is
`seeing the benefits of having a mobile commerce platform that integrates
`loyalty, a mobile application, a loyalty card program and in-store
`
`8 Audio/Video in possession of PO.
`9 “Starbucks to roll out innovations in mobile platform,” March 13, 2014 (Exh. 2008)
`(“Starbucks is poised to unveil innovations within its mobile platform that will
`include ordering ahead and new payment features that the company has called a
`potential “holy grail” for throughput. … Management referred to mobile ordering as
`the potential “holy grail” of throughput”) (emphasis added).
`7
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00082
`
`point of sale system. This is not a bolt-on, this gets to leverage that
`existing ecosystem.
`(Exh. 2009) (emphasis added). And just shortly before that, the CTO of a petitioner
`
`against these same `325 claims (in CBM2014-00016), Hyatt Hotels, also claimed the
`
`core inventive aspects of claim 13 as his own and in effect declared “eureka” for
`
`himself and Hyatt:
`There’s a metaphor that I like to use to describe what this technology
`platform is: I compare it to mise en place, which is a French phase that
`translates to “everything in its place.” In a technology platform, the
`ingredients are our data from different sources, for example reservations
`systems, loyalty systems, the CRM platform, and so on. These are
`typically all housed in different places on the back end. Using what we
`call an API façade, we are presenting what appears to be a single API
`that front-end developers can use to access this data very quickly and
`efficiently. We can enable front-end developers to quickly create and
`iterate on new user interfaces. The goal is to simplify a collection of APIs
`into one uniform API.
`Quotes from Matt O’Keefe, Hyatt CTO, April 8, 2015 (Exh. 2005) (emphasis added).
`
`Thus, as recently as a few months ago, the core ideas long ago conceived,
`
`claimed and first deployed by Ameranth were being praised and claimed as
`
`breakthroughs by co-petitioners and co-defendants of the present Petitioner companies
`
`who nonetheless are arguing obviousness in their Petition. Despite these readily
`
`apparent contradictions and conflicting positions (those above are just exemplary,
`
`many more are detailed below in the objective evidence section of this response),
`
`Petitioner challenges these same `325 claims yet again, but they were simply not
`
`obvious in 1998 as evidenced, inter alia, by what is going on right now.
`
`Ameranth was the first to identify the actual problem to be solved, first to
`
`8
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00082
`
`invent the synchronous and integrated technology to solve it, first to introduce
`
`products based on its inventive solution, first to win multiple best-product awards for
`
`the products/technology embodying the claims of the ‘325 patent, first to receive
`
`public praise for its products and the inventive technology (including from Petitioner
`
`companies), first to patent that technology and first to license the patented technology.
`
`In fact, the ‘325 inventions first publicly disclosed in the Fall of 1998 were
`
`almost immediately recognized as such by the entire hospitality market (and they were
`
`not inventions by, e.g., Marriott, Starbucks or Hyatt), as demonstrated by the
`
`overwhelming objective evidence in the record of the family of the five issued patents,
`
`as discussed below. Just recently, and once again, claims in this family were
`
`determined to be non-obvious, this time unanimously by a panel of three other ALJs,
`when Ameranth’s 5th patent of the family (U.S. 9,009,060), issued on April 14, 2015.10
`Only by a fictionalized hindsight-induced telling of the actual story of what happened
`
`in the hospitality field could `325 claims 11-13 and 15 be determined to have been
`
`obvious in 1998. However, 35 U.S.C. §103 requires actual evidence, not fiction, and
`
`in accordance with precedent and the Rules of the Board. The Petition clearly fails.
`III. OVERVIEW
`35 U.S.C. §103 Overview
`A.
`Analyzing obviousness at the time of the invention, as required, is not a simple
`
`or easy task, particularly because the invention was first conceived in 1998, many
`
`10 Ex Parte McNally, No. 2012-001503 at 4 (PT