UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`STARBUCKS CORP.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`AMERANTH, INC.
`Patent Owner
`
`____________
`
`Case CBM2015-00091
`Patent No. 6,384,850
`____________
`
`Submitted Electronically via the Patent Review Processing System
`
`PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`

`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`CBM2015-00091
`
`Page
`
`Contents
`
`I. STATEMENT OF PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED ............................................ 1
`II. INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................... 1
`III. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION.................................................................................. 3
`A. Claim Construction Proposals............................................................................... 3
`1. “wireless handheld computing device” ................................................. 4
`2. “central database”................................................................................ 4
`3. “web page” .......................................................................................... 4
`4. “web server”........................................................................................ 4
`5. “communications control module” ....................................................... 5
`6. “synchronized” .................................................................................... 5
`7. “hospitality applications”..................................................................... 6
`8. “application program interface” ..........................................................11
`9. “outside applications” .........................................................................11
`10. “integration”.......................................................................................12
`11. “single point of entry for all hospitality applications”..........................12
`12. “automatic” ........................................................................................12
`13. “Wherein the communications control module is an interface
`between the hospitality applications and any other communications
`protocol”..................................................................................................13
`IV. THERE HAS BEEN NO SHOWING THAT ANY............................................ 15
`A. Overview............................................................................................................. 15
`B. The Asserted References Do Not Render The Claims Obvious ......................... 23
`1. Neither §103 Challenge Provides Disclosure Or Suggestion Of
`Hospitality Application Functionality As Required By Claims 12-16 ........23
`
`-i-
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00091
`
`2. Neither Challenge Provides A Teaching Or Suggestion Of “A
`Central Database Containing Hospitality Applications And Data” .............24
`3. The Asserted References Do 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”................................................25
`4. The Asserted References Do Not Disclose A “Wireless Handheld
`Computing Device On Which Hospitality Applications And Data Are
`Stored” ....................................................................................................32
`5. Neither Challenge Identifies A Teaching or Suggestion Of “At
`Least One Web Page On Which Hospitality Applications And Data
`Are Stored” As Recited By Claim 12 ........................................................39
`6. Neither Reference Discloses The Claimed “Application Program
`Interface” That “Enables Integration of Outside Applications with the
`Hospitality Applications” .........................................................................39
`7. Neither Reference Discloses The Claimed “Communications
`Control Module” Nor ‘Wherein The Communications Control Module
`Is An Interface Between The Hospitality Applications And Any Other
`Communications Protocol”.......................................................................41
`8. Claim As A Whole..............................................................................45
`C. Dependent Claims ............................................................................................... 45
`D. 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
`-ii-
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00091
`
`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
`8. Objective Evidence Conclusion...........................................................80
`CONCLUSION ………………………………………………..…………….. 80
`
`V.
`
`-iii-
`
`

`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`CBM2015-00091
`
`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) .................................................. 32
`
`Crocs, Inc. v. ITC, 598 F.3d 1294
`(Fed. Cir. 2010) ........................................................................................................ 73
`
`Diamond Rubber Co. v. Consolidated Rubber Tire Co.,
`220 U.S. 428 (1911) .................................................................................................... 2
`
`Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. National Graphics, Inc.,
`800 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ................................................................................. 31
`
`Eli Lilly & Co. v. Zenith Goldline Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,
`471 F.3d 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ................................................................................. 68
`
`Ex parte Levengood, 28 USPQ2d 1300 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1993)........................ 31
`
`Gambro Lundia AB v. Baxter Healthcare Corp.,
`
`-iv-
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00091
`
`110 F.3d 1573 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ........................................................................... 53, 70
`
`In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573 (Fed. Cir. 1995) .................................................... 54, 66
`
`Graham v. John Deere Co.,
`383 U.S. 1, 17 (1966) ................................................................................................ 49
`
`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) ................................................................................. 32
`
`Hockerson-Halberstadt, Inc. v. Converse Inc.,
`183 F.3d 1369,(Fed. Cir. 1999) ................................................................................. 41
`
`In re Fulton,
`391 F.3d 1195 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ................................................................................ 16
`
`In re Ratti,
`270 F.2d 810 (CCPA 1959)....................................................................................... 20
`
`In re Roufett,
`149 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 1998) ................................................................................. 64
`
`In re Van Geuns,
`988 F.2d 1181 (Fed. Cir. 1993) ................................................................................. 10
`
`KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 U.S.P.Q.2d 1385
`(2007). ................................................................................................................ 31
`
`Kurtz v. Belle Hat Lining Co., Inc.,
`280 F. 277 (2nd Cir. 1922) ......................................................................................... 73
`
`-v-
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00091
`
`Microsoft Corp.v. Proxyconn, Inc.,
`789 F.3d 1292 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ................................................................................... 3
`
`Mintz v. Dietz & Watson, Inc.,
`679 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ................................................................................. 49
`
`PAR Pharma., Inc. v. TWI Pharm., Inc.,
`773 F.3d 1186 (Fed. Cir. 2014) …………………………………………
`
`18
`
`Power Integrations, Inc. v. Fairchild Semiconductor Int’l, Inc.,
`711 F.3d 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ................................................................................. 56
`
`Power-One v. Artesyn Techs, Inc.,
`599 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ........................................................................... 70, 77
`
`Rambus v. Rea,
`731 F.3d at 1256..................................................................................... 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) ................................................................................. 33
`
`Vandenberg v.Dairy Equip. Co., a Div. of DEC Int’l, Inc.,
`740 F.2d 1560 (Fed. Cir. 1984) ................................................................................. 77
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. §103........................................................................................................ 1, 81
`
`-vi-
`
`

`
`Rules
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104........................................................................................................ 48
`37 C.F.R. § 42.22.......................................................................................................... 48
`
`CBM2015-00091
`
`-vii-
`
`

`
`PATENT OWNER’S LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`CBM2015-00091
`
`Exhibit No.
`
`Description
`
`2001
`
`2002
`
`2003
`
`2004
`
`2005
`
`2006
`
`2007
`
`2008
`
`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
`
`“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
`
`-viii-
`
`

`
`2009
`
`2010
`
`2011
`
`2012
`
`2013
`
`2014
`
`2015
`
`2016
`
`2017
`
`2018
`2019
`
`2020
`
`2021
`
`2022
`
`CBM2015-00091
`
`“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 Appeal No. 2011-004999 (PTAB Oct. 17,
`2013)
`Transcript of FS/TEC Awards Presentation (Feb. 2009)
`App. Ser. No. 11/112,990, Declaration under 1.131 (Jan.
`2009
`App. Ser. No. 11/112,990, Declaration under 1.132 (Aug.
`2009)
`App. Ser. No. 11/112,990, Supplemental Declaration
`under 1.132 (May 2010)
`App. Ser. No. 11/112,990, Supplemental Response,
`Amendment, Nexus Declaration, Declaration under 1.132
`(Dec. 2010)
`
`-ix-
`
`

`
`2023
`
`2024
`
`2025
`
`2026
`
`2027
`
`2028
`
`2029
`2030
`
`2031
`
`2032
`
`2033
`
`2034
`
`2035
`
`2036
`
`2037
`
`2038
`
`CBM2015-00091
`
`App. Ser. No. 11/112,990, Correction to Supplemental
`Response (Feb. 2011)
`
`Final Rejection in App. Ser. No. 09/897,292
`
`Appeal Decision, No. 2013-007728 (PTAB June 4, 2015)
`
`Appeal Decision, No. 2009-010272 (BPAI April 18, 2011)
`
`Appeal Decision, No. 2009-010632 (BPAI May 24, 2010)
`
`Appeal Decision, No. 2013-006445 (PTAB June 1, 2015)
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 6,384,850 Original Figures 1-7
`Helal Background Summary
`
`Helal U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2005/0076327 (April 7, 2005)
`
`Helal Executed Inventor Declaration, U.S. App. Ser. No.
`10/758,180 (April 2, 2004)
`
`Judge Everingham Claim Construction Order, CA No.
`2:07-cv-271 (April 21, 2010)
`Edwards, et al., “Designing and Implementing
`Asynchronous Collaborative Applications with Bayou”
`(1997)
`App. Ser. No. 11/112,990, Interview Summary (Oct. 2011)
`
`Starbucks Investor Presentation (2014)
`
`The Holy Grail of Room Inventory Distribution – Cloud
`PMS, June 15, 2015
`
`Hotel brands must travel cross-channel route to bookings,
`June 15, 2015
`
`-x-
`
`

`
`2039
`
`2040
`
`2041
`
`2042
`
`2043
`
`2044
`
`2045
`
`2046
`
`2047
`
`2048
`
`2049
`
`2050
`
`2051
`
`CBM2015-00091
`
`Nov. 1, 2001 Amendment, ‘325 Prosecution History,
`Serial No. 10/015,729
`
`Dittmer, “Dimensions of the Hospitality Industry”
`(complete publication)
`
`Declaration of Dr. Alfred Weaver
`
`Excerpts from Microsoft Computer Dictionary (4th ed.
`1999)
`Judge Payne Claim Construction Order, CA No. 2:10-cv-
`294 (Aug. 10, 2012)
`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 May 1999 (both original and annotated)
`
`Press releases and announcements of various Ameranth
`patent licenses and alliances
`
`Hospitality Technology, "POS Scoreboard", 2004 and
`2006
`
`Microsoft RAD Award, 2003.
`
`Excerpts from book, "Market Busters"
`
`-xi-
`
`

`
`2052
`
`2053
`
`2054
`
`2055
`
`2056
`
`2057
`
`2058
`
`2059
`
`2060
`
`2061
`
`2062
`
`2063
`
`2064
`
`CBM2015-00091
`
`"Best New Products", QSR magazine, September 1999
`
`Email messages between Microsoft and Starbucks
`personnel, 2006-2007
`
`Scott Maw remarks, Nov. 18, 2015 Starbucks investor
`conference
`
`May 2006 Ameranth presentation to Pizza Hut
`
`Transcript of Micros remarks, 2008 FSTEC meeting
`
`Micros announcement of Simphony product
`
`Transcript of Paul Armstrong remarks, 2008 FSTEC
`meeting
`
`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.
`
`Excerpts from prosecution file of U.S. Patent No.
`6,384,850 (McNally et al.)
`
`August 2009 Declaration under 37 CFR § 1.132, from
`prosecution file of U.S. Patent No. 8,146,077 (McNally et
`al.)
`Micros HSI press releases
`
`Micros JTECH press release
`
`-xii-
`
`

`
`2065
`
`2066
`
`2067
`
`2068
`
`2069
`
`2070
`
`2071
`
`2072
`
`2073
`
`2074
`
`2075
`
`2076
`
`2077
`
`CBM2015-00091
`
`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
`
`Radiant Systems acquires Aloha Technologies, press
`release, Dec. 2003
`
`Case Study, Ameranth/Improv Comedy Clubs, Spring
`2000 (annotated)
`
`-xiii-
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00091
`
`2078
`
`2079
`
`2080
`
`2081
`
`Computerworld Award summary, 2001 (annotated)
`
`Photograph from 1999 National Restaurant Association
`meeting in Chicago, IL, including (among others) 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
`
`-xiv-
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00091
`
`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. 6,384,850 ("the '850
`
`patent"). For the reasons below, the Petition for review of claims 12-16 should be
`denied because the claims are not invalid under 35 U.S.C. §103.1
`II.
`INTRODUCTION
`Petitioner’s two 35 U.S.C. §103 challenges are both based on Brandt, which
`
`teaches away from the core inventive features of these claims and Brandt is not even a
`
`“hospitality” application. Further still, for Petitioner to have even alleged that the ‘850
`
`claims would have been “obvious” to a POSA at the time of the invention when
`Petitioner’s own expert admitted this same POSA would have been “bewildered”2 by
`the claimed synchronization of both “applications and data” at the core of these claims
`
`was disingenuous. And Petitioner’s allegation that the recited “central database” and
`storing “applications” was “not typical”3 further demonstrates the lack of credibility of
`
`1Petitioner’s standing argument merely references CBM2014-00015, 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 `850 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.
`2 “Synchronizing applications between a database, a handheld device, a web server,
`and a web page is bewildering.” Helal Decl. ¶91 (Exh. 1003) (emphasis added).
`3 Petitioner’s Declarant
`is not
`typical
`to store applications
`testified that “it
`themselves in a database.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 94 (emphasis added).
`-1-
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00091
`
`the Petition assertions.4 These admissions alone confirm that there would have been no
`motivation for a POSA to combine the asserted references to seek to replicate
`functionality which was “bewildering” (i.e., confusing and/or ‘puzzling)5 and
`“atypical” and thus clearly the opposite of “obvious.”
`
`Further, in addition to the technical and legal infirmities of Brandt vis-à-vis the
`
`actually claimed subject matter, a large quantity of objective evidence confirms
`
`nonobviousness. The introduction of Ameranth’s breakthrough inventions into the
`hospitality market–embodied in its multiple award-winning 21st Century Restaurant™
`System (“21CR”) (technology copied by Petitioner Starbucks6)–achieved almost
`immediate success and received widespread and multi-dimensional acclaim which has
`
`continued for the last 17 years. Today, 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, Ruby Tuesday’s and
`
`4 At institution, the Board overlooked these admissions of non-obviousness, just as it
`did the teaching away of Brandt, and just as it overlooked that neither Demers nor
`Alonso taught or suggested mobile web browsers (which would have been required for
`any possible combination with Brandt).
`5 See http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/bewildering (“causing utter
`confusion; puzzling”).
`6 The words of the Supreme Court a century ago in Diamond Rubber Co. v.
`Consolidated Rubber Tire Co., 220 U.S. 428, 441 (1911), are still on point:
`The prior art was open to the rubber company. That “art was crowded,” it says, “with
`numerous prototypes and predecessors” of the Grant tire, and they, it is insisted,
`possessed all of the qualities which the dreams of experts attributed to the Grant tire.
`And yet the Rubber Company uses the Grant tire. It gives the tribute of its praise to the
`prior art; it gives the Grant tire the tribute of its imitation, as others have done.
`-2-
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00091
`
`Steak N Shake. Many more restaurant chains and customers as well as reservations and
`
`ticketing companies, either directly or via one of Ameranth’s licensees, have licensed
`
`Ameranth’s patents, along with dozens of other chains and licensees (44 direct licenses
`
`to date, the vast majority of which occurred without litigation). These are not the
`
`actions taken by industry giants in regard to “obvious” patents, especially over a 17
`
`year timeframe. This broad and extensive licensing of the `850 inventions/patents
`
`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 novel features of the claims/invention as detailed below, strongly rebuts
`
`Petitioner’s flawed, incomplete and error-filled assertions of obviousness.
`III. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`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. 2041) 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,
`
`-3-
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00091
`
`and knowledge or an equivalent experience in software development in the hospitality
`
`market of at least three years. (Weaver Decl., Exh. 2041 ¶21).
`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. 2033 at 24)); Exh. 2041 ¶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.”
`
`Microsoft Comp. Dict. (4th ed.1999) (Exh. 2015, p. 123); 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. 2041 ¶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. 11; see also CBM2014-00015
`
`(Exh. 1017 thereto at 8)); Exh. 2041 ¶29.
`4.
`“web server”
`The Microsoft Computer Dictionary states in regard to “Web Server:” “See
`
`HTTP Server.” (Exh. 2042 (Page 479)). The Dictionary then states in regard to
`
`“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. 2042 (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
`
`-4-
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00091
`
`appreciated by the Petitioner or the Board, and the cited references suffer 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. 2041 ¶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. 2043 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 claimed “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)). As a functionally independent layer, 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 systems/devices such as point-of-sale (POS)
`
`systems, as discussed further below). (Exh. 2041 ¶31).
`
`“synchronized”
`6.
`In another proceeding on the same patent, the Board correctly construed this
`
`-5-
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00091
`
`term to mean “made, or configured to make, consistent.” CBM2015-00080, Inst. Dec.
`
`9. (Exh. 2041 ¶32).
`7.
`“hospitality applications”
`
`The Board correctly construed this term to mean “applications used to perform
`
`services or tasks in the hospitality industry.” However, this was incomplete because it
`
`failed to establish the actual boundaries of the “hospitality industry.” The specification
`
`states “hospitality applications, e.g., reservations, frequent customer ticketing, wait
`
`lists, etc.” Exh. 1001 4:6–7; Inst. Dec. 12. Further, in distinguishing prior art in the `325
`
`application, Patent Owner stated:
`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. 2039 at 7 (emphasis added); Exh. 2041 ¶33.
`Nonetheless, the Board relied on7 Petitioner’s misleadingly parsed excerpts from
`the Dittmer book to conclude that “hospitality” referred to the broader “travel and
`
`transportation” industry (of which “hospitality” is only a subset). The Board stated:
`
`“[o]ur construction of hospitality includes businesses, such as car rental agencies, that
`
`provide services to travelers.” Inst. Dec. 12. The Board mistakenly viewed Patent
`
`Owner’s proposed construction as a “narrowing” of Petitioner’s proposal for the
`
`broader and unclaimed “travel and transportation” industry and in so doing relied on a
`
`reference outside the correct construction. Further, the correct definition of the
`
`7 “On this record, we are persuaded that the ordinary and customary meaning of
`hospitality is broad enough to encompass car rental activities.” Inst. Dec. 12 (emphasis
`added).
`
`-6-
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00091
`
`skills/knowledge of a POSA includes actual experience in the hospitality market, and
`
`such an experienced POSA would have fully understood the difference between the
`
`actual “hospitality” market and the broader “travel and tourism” market (Weaver Dec.
`
`¶¶34-36 (Exh. 2041)). Ameranth’s patents indisputably excluded any mention of the
`
`terms “travel” and “tourism.” Thus a POSA would have clearly understood the scope
`
`of the claims to exclude “car rentals,” a subset of the broader “travel and tourism”
`
`market and not within the “hospitality” subset. Still further, as confirmed by John
`
`Harker (an independent expert), “hundreds” of hospitality customers visited and “tens
`
`of thousands” walked by Ameranth’s booth at the launch of Ameranth’s 21CR product
`
`in May 1999. (Harker Testimony at 175, 14-15 (Exh. 2045)). Thus a POSA at the time
`
`of the invention in September 1999 would have known that Ameranth’s inventions,
`
`embodied in the 21CR product (inclusive of The Improv Comedy Club’s event food
`
`ordering and event ticketing system embodying the challenged claims, as detailed
`
`below), as demonstrated publicly in May 1999 were directed to automating “the
`traditional restaurant processes.”8 Thus, the Board’s own decision, in viewing
`hospitality as including the “traditional” restaurant processes (as confirmed by
`Dittmer)9 was correct in part. However, the Board viewed the definition too broadly due
`to the fact that it did not have access to the complete Dittmer reference at the time. The
`
`full Dittmer reference, and in particular its Glossary, now fully before the Board as
`
`Exhibit 2040, compels a “hospitality” construction which excludes both “car rentals”
`
`8 See May 1999 21CR Product Launch Press Release, page 1 (Exh. 2044).
`9 “Here, the authors of the text discuss a ‘traditional view’ of hospitality that ‘refers to
`the act of providing food, beverages, or lodging to travelers.’” (Inst. Dec. at 11)
`(emphasis added); see also Dittmer Glossary of Terms (Exh. 2040).
`-7-
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00091
`
`and the broader and unclaimed “travel/tourism” industry. (Exh. 2041 ¶34).
`a.
`The Full Dittmer Book Disproves Petitioner’s Assertions
`and The Board’s Conclusions
`Critically, the Board now has before it the complete evidentiary record
`
`which refutes Petitioner’s argument regarding “hospitality” based on the
`
`Dittmer Book (full copy submitted as Exhibit 2040). Viewed in its entirety, as
`
`set forth in Patent Owner’s Request for Rehearing (Paper No. 11), Dittmer
`
`clearly demonstrates that "hospitality applications" do not include “car rentals” or
`
`other travel/transportation functions.
`The complete Dittmer book, first obtained by Patent Owner10 on September 19,
`2015 subsequent to the Institution Decision, clearly contradicts Petitioner’s purported
`
`Dittmer-based definitions of the critical terms as adopted by the Board, and confirms
`
`that the portions of Dittmer omitted by Petitioner are material to the obviousness
`
`inquiry. If Petitioner had simply produced the full Dittmer book as an exhibit,
`
`including the Glossary, which actually defines all the disputed terms, it would have
`
`been clear to the Board that institution of trial was not warranted, because Dittmer
`
`defined each disputed term to be consistent with Patent Owner's definitions of
`
`“hospitality” and in direct contradiction to Petitioner's asserted definitions.
`
`Confirming that the hospitality market definition was defined by the Dittmer
`
`authors to be "food/beverages and lodging" for guests and that hospitality is merely a
`
`subset of the larger superset "Travel and Tourism" (a different and unclaimed term),
`
`Dittmer stated:
`In this chapter and the two that follow, we will turn our attention from the
`
`10 See Exhibit 2040, which is the complete version of Petitioner Exhibit 1035.
`-8-
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00091
`
`specifics of food, beverage and lodging operations to the larger industry,
`of which hospitality operations are a part; travel and tourism.
`
`Exh. 2040, Dittmer at p. 396 (emphasis added). ). (Exh. 2041 ¶35).
`
`Thus the "hospitality industry" is not only different from the "travel and
`
`tourism" industry, it is only a "part," i.e., a subset of the larger "travel and tourism"
`
`industry superset. This is directly