UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`STARBUCKS CORPORATION
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`AMERANTH, INC.
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CASE: CBM2015-00091
`Patent No. 6,384,850 B1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CASE: CBM2015-00099
`Patent No. No. 6,871,325
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF ABDELSALAM HELAL, PH.D.
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER REPLIES TO PATENT OWNER
`RESPONSES
`
`
`
`Starbucks, Ex. 1063
`Starbucks v. Ameranth, CBM2015-00091
`
`

`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`Page
`
`
`I.
`II.
`
`V.
`
`Introduction ..................................................................................................... 1
`Summary of Opinions ..................................................................................... 3
`A. Opinions Concerning the ’850 Patent .................................................. 3
`B. Opinions Concerning the ’325 Patent .................................................. 4
`III. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art .................................................................. 6
`IV. Claim Construction ......................................................................................... 9
`A.
`“Hospitality Applications” ................................................................... 9
`B. Other Terms ........................................................................................ 11
`1. Wireless Handheld Computing Device .................................... 11
`2.
`Central Database ...................................................................... 11
`3. Web Page ................................................................................. 12
`4. Web Server ............................................................................... 12
`5.
`Communications Control Module ........................................... 12
`6.
`Synchronized ............................................................................ 13
`7.
`Application Program Interface ................................................. 13
`8.
`Outside Applications ................................................................ 13
`9.
`Integration ................................................................................ 13
`10. Single Point of Entry for All Hospitality Applications ........... 14
`11. Automatic ................................................................................. 14
`12. Wherein the communications control module is an
`interface between the hospitality applications and any
`other communications protocol................................................ 14
`13. Wherein the synchronized data relates to orders; …
`waitlists; and … reservations ................................................... 15
`Rebuttals to Arguments Raised by Patent Owner / Dr. Weaver .................. 15
`A.
`Common Limitations Between Challenged Claims of ’850
`Patent & ’325 Patent .......................................................................... 15
`1.
`Hospitality Applications .......................................................... 15
`-i-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Starbucks, Ex. 1063
`Starbucks v. Ameranth, CBM2015-00091
`
`

`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`2.
`
`Central Database Containing Hospitality Applications
`and Data ................................................................................... 19
`a.
`Brandt’s Disclosures of a Central Database .................. 19
`b.
`The Central Database in the Brandt-Demers-
`Alonso Combination ...................................................... 22
`3. Web Pages Storing Hospitality Applications and Data ........... 29
`4.
`Handheld Devices Storing Hospitality Applications and
`Data .......................................................................................... 29
`Synchronization of the Hospitality Applications and Data ..... 35
`An API that Enables Integration With Outside
`Applications ............................................................................. 41
`Communications Control Module (“CCM”) ........................... 44
`a.
`Brandt’s Disclosure of the Required CCM ................... 44
`b.
`The CCM in the Brandt-Demers-Alonso
`Combination .................................................................. 50
`Limitations Unique to ’850 Patent ..................................................... 53
`1.
`’850 Patent, Claim 13 – “Single Point of Entry” ..................... 53
`2.
`’850 Patent, Claims 14 & 15 – “Automatic”
`Communication ........................................................................ 55
`’850 Patent, Claim 16 – “Digital Data Transmission” ............ 59
`3.
`Limitations Unique to the ’325 Patent ............................................... 61
`1.
`Synchronized Data Relates to “Orders” (’325 Patent,
`Claim 11), “Waitlists” (’325 Patent, Claim 12),
`“Reservations” (’325 Patent, Claim 13) .................................. 61
`Data Sent to Wireless Paging Device (’325 Patent, Claim
`15) ............................................................................................ 61
`Secondary Considerations .................................................................. 62
`1.
`Patent Owner Did Not Invent “Synchronization,
`Integration, and Consistency” .................................................. 62
`
`5.
`6.
`
`7.
`
`2.
`
`-ii-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`Starbucks, Ex. 1063
`Starbucks v. Ameranth, CBM2015-00091
`
`

`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`2.
`
`3.
`4.
`5.
`6.
`7.
`
`
`
`Lack of Nexus to the Challenged Claims ................................ 64
`a.
`The 21st Century Restaurant “Screen Shots” ................ 66
`b.
`The 21st Century Restaurant Brochure (Ex. 2047) ....... 67
`c.
`The Microsoft Case Studies ........................................... 72
`d.
`Computerworld Case Study ........................................... 78
`Licensing of the ’850 and ’325 Patents ................................... 79
`Lack of Commercial Success ................................................... 80
`Purported Technology Awards ................................................ 82
`Purported Industry Praise ......................................................... 88
`No Evidence of Copying .......................................................... 91
`a.
`Patent Owner Did Not Invent Online Ordering or
`Ordering from a Wireless Handheld Device ................. 92
`No Evidence of Copying by Starbucks ......................... 93
`b.
`No Evidence of Copying by Pizza Companies.............. 98
`c.
`No Evidence of Copying by Micros .............................. 99
`d.
`No Evidence of Copying by Agilisys .......................... 100
`e.
`No evidence of Copying by Marriott or Hyatt ............ 100
`f.
`No Evidence of Failure by Others ......................................... 101
`8.
`Conclusion Regarding Secondary Considerations ................. 103
`9.
`VI. Concluding Remarks .................................................................................. 105
`
`
`
`
`
`-iii-
`
`
`
`Starbucks, Ex. 1063
`Starbucks v. Ameranth, CBM2015-00091
`
`

`
`DECLARATION OF ABDELSALAM HELAL, PH.D.
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER REPLIES TO PATENT OWNER RESPONSES
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1. My name is Abdelsalam Helal. I am a Professor in the Computer and
`
`Information Science and Engineering Department at the University of Florida
`
`(1998 – present) and was a Finland Distinguished Professor at Aalto University,
`
`Finland (2011 – 2013).
`
`2.
`
`I have been engaged by Starbucks Corp. (“Starbucks”) to investigate
`
`and opine on certain issues relating to U.S. Patent No. 6,384,850 (the “’850
`
`patent”) and U.S. Patent No. 6,871,325 (the “’325 patent”), both of which are
`
`being asserted against Petitioner Starbucks in a patent infringement lawsuit,
`
`Ameranth, Inc. v. Starbucks Corp., No. 13CV1072 DMS (WVG), filed in the U.S.
`
`District Court, Southern District of California, on May 6, 2013.
`
`3.
`
`I previously provided a declaration in support of Starbucks’ Petition
`
`for CBM Review on the ’850 patent which was filed on March 2, 2015 (“’850
`
`Petition”). My 2015 declaration is Exhibit 1003 in the ’850 case (CBM2015-
`
`00091). My 2015 declaration provides an explanation of my credentials and
`
`experience, a discussion of the technology relevant to the ’850 patent, and my
`
`opinions with respect to the ’850 patent.
`
`4.
`
`I also previously provided a declaration in support of Starbucks’
`
`Petition for CBM Review of the ’325 patent which was filed on March 6, 2015.
`
`My 2015 declaration is Exhibit 1003 in the ’325 case (CBM2015-00099). My
`
`
`
`- 1 -
`
`Starbucks, Ex. 1063
`Starbucks v. Ameranth, CBM2015-00091
`
`

`
`DECLARATION OF ABDELSALAM HELAL, PH.D.
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER REPLIES TO PATENT OWNER RESPONSES
`
`2015 declaration provides an explanation of my credentials and experience, a
`
`discussion of the technology relevant to the ’325 patent, and my opinions with
`
`respect to the ’325 patent.
`
`5.
`
`I make this declaration to address issues newly raised in the Corrected
`
`Patent Owner’s Response in both proceedings (Paper 17 in both the ’91 and ’99
`
`proceedings) and the Declaration of Alfred C. Weaver, Ph.D. (Ex. 2041, “Weaver
`
`declaration”).
`
`6.
`
`In several instances below, I refer back to my 2015 declarations.
`
`Because both declarations were Exhibits 1003 in their respective cases, I will refer
`
`to them instead as “Helal ’850 Decl.” and “Helal ’325 Decl.” here for clarity.
`
`7.
`
`In several instances below, I refer to arguments made in the Corrected
`
`Patent Owner’s Responses. Many of the same arguments are made in both Patent
`
`Owner’s Responses for the ’850 and ’325 patents. For brevity, I cite the arguments
`
`made in the Corrected Patent Owner’s Response in the ’91 proceeding (on the ’850
`
`patent) if the same argument is repeated in the Patent Owner response in the ’99
`
`proceeding (on the ’325 patent).
`
`8.
`
`This declaration is based on the information currently available to me,
`
`including the ’850 and ’325 patents, their prosecution histories, and the documents
`
`in these CBM cases. Those documents include the prior art references and other
`
`exhibits discussed in my 2015 declarations and in this declaration, the Board’s
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`Starbucks, Ex. 1063
`Starbucks v. Ameranth, CBM2015-00091
`
`

`
`DECLARATION OF ABDELSALAM HELAL, PH.D.
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER REPLIES TO PATENT OWNER RESPONSES
`
`decisions instituting CBM review (Paper 9 in both the ’91 and ’99 proceedings),
`
`the Corrected Patent Owner’s Responses (Paper 17 in both proceedings), the
`
`Weaver declaration (Exhibit 2041 in both proceedings) and the exhibits referenced
`
`in the Corrected Patent Owner’s Responses and Weaver declaration. I also rely
`
`upon my education, experience, and expertise in the relevant technologies and
`
`concepts. If additional information becomes available, I reserve the right to
`
`continue my investigation and study.
`
`II.
`
`SUMMARY OF OPINIONS
`
`9.
`
`For purposes of this declaration, I have been asked to provide facts,
`
`analysis, and opinions in response to specific arguments and evidence raised by the
`
`Patent Owner Response and the Weaver declaration.
`
`A. Opinions Concerning the ’850 Patent
`10.
`In my opinion, as I stated in my 2015 declaration, claims 12-16 of the
`
`’850 patent (the “Challenged Claims”) are obvious in view of the prior art,
`
`including Brandt (Ex. 1005), NetHopper (Ex. 1006), Demers (Ex. 1009), and
`
`Alonso (Ex. 1012).
`
`11.
`
`In particular, the identified prior art discloses or suggests the subject
`
`matter of the Challenged Claims of the ’850 patent as follows:
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`Starbucks, Ex. 1063
`Starbucks v. Ameranth, CBM2015-00091
`
`

`
`DECLARATION OF ABDELSALAM HELAL, PH.D.
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER REPLIES TO PATENT OWNER RESPONSES
`
`• Claims 12-16 are obvious based on Brandt in view of NetHopper
`
`(Helal ’850 Decl., ¶¶ 139 - 242);1
`
`• Claims 12-16 are obvious based on Brandt in view of Demers and
`
`Alonso (Helal ’850 Decl., ¶¶ 243 - 265).2
`
`I include in the above listing the reference to specific sections of my prior
`
`declaration addressing the prior art combinations.
`
`12.
`
`In light of all the evidence submitted by the parties in this proceeding
`
`as of the date of this declaration, I continue to maintain my opinions discussed in
`
`my prior declaration and provide additional remarks and discussion below
`
`regarding arguments and evidence raised by the Corrected Patent Owner Response
`
`and the Weaver declaration concerning Challenged Claims 12-16 of the ’850
`
`patent.
`
`B. Opinions Concerning the ’325 Patent
`13.
`In my opinion, as I stated in my 2015 declaration and continue to
`
`maintain in this declaration, claims 11-13 and 15 of the ’325 patent (the
`
`
`1 This Brandt-NetHopper combination was identified as “Ground 9” in the Petition
`
`and in my 2015 declaration.
`
`2 This Brandt-Demers-Alonso combination was identified as “Ground 10” in the
`
`Petition and in my 2015 declaration.
`
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`Starbucks, Ex. 1063
`Starbucks v. Ameranth, CBM2015-00091
`
`

`
`DECLARATION OF ABDELSALAM HELAL, PH.D.
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER REPLIES TO PATENT OWNER RESPONSES
`
`“Challenged Claims”) are obvious in view of the prior art, including Brandt,
`
`NetHopper, Demers, Carter (Ex. 1052), and Rossmann (Ex. 1053).
`
`14.
`
`In particular, the identified prior art discloses or suggests the subject
`
`matter of the Challenged Claims of the ’325 patent as follows:
`
`• Claims 11-13 are obvious based on Brandt in view of NetHopper and
`
`Carter (Helal ’325 Decl., ¶¶ 139-265);3
`
`• Claim 15 is obvious based on Brandt in view of NetHopper, Carter,
`
`and Rossmann (Helal ’325 Decl., ¶¶ 266-269);4
`
`• Claims 11-13 are obvious based on Brandt in view of Demers,
`
`Alonso, and Carter (Helal ’325 Decl., ¶¶ 270-301);5
`
`• Claim 15 is obvious based on Brandt in view of Demers, Alonso,
`
`Carter, and Rossmann (Helal ’325 Decl., ¶¶ 302-303).6
`
`3 This Brandt-NetHopper-Carter combination was identified as Ground 9 in the
`
`Petition and in my 2015 declaration.
`
`4 This Brandt-NetHopper-Carter-Rossmann combination was identified as Ground
`
`10 in the Petition and in my 2015 declaration.
`
`5 This Brandt-Demers-Alonso-Carter combination was identified as Ground 11 in
`
`the Petition and in my 2015 declaration.
`
`6 This Brandt-Demers-Alonso-Carter-Rossmann combination was identified as
`
`Ground 12 in the Petition and in my 2015 declaration.
`
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`Starbucks, Ex. 1063
`Starbucks v. Ameranth, CBM2015-00091
`
`

`
`DECLARATION OF ABDELSALAM HELAL, PH.D.
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER REPLIES TO PATENT OWNER RESPONSES
`
`I include in the above listing the reference to specific sections of my prior
`
`declaration addressing the prior art combinations.
`
`15.
`
`In light of all the evidence submitted by the parties in this proceeding
`
`as of the date of this declaration, I continue to maintain my opinions discussed in
`
`my prior declaration and provide additional remarks and discussion below
`
`regarding arguments and evidence raised by the Corrected Patent Owner Response
`
`and the Weaver declaration concerning Challenged Claims 11-13 and 15 of the
`
`’325 patent.
`
`III. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`
`16. As I discussed in my 2015 declarations (Helal ’850 Decl., ¶¶ 78-81,
`
`Helal ’325 Decl., ¶¶ 78-81), it is my opinion that a person having ordinary skill in
`
`the art would have had a Bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer
`
`engineering, or electrical engineering and two years of experience developing web-
`
`based software or other software for client/server systems. This person would be
`
`familiar with relational databases, handheld computing systems, and basic wireless
`
`technologies. This description is approximate and additional programming
`
`experience could make up for less education and vice versa.
`
`17.
`
`In contrast, Patent Owner and Dr. Weaver suggest that a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) would have had:
`
`
`
`- 6 -
`
`Starbucks, Ex. 1063
`Starbucks v. Ameranth, CBM2015-00091
`
`

`
`DECLARATION OF ABDELSALAM HELAL, PH.D.
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER REPLIES TO PATENT OWNER RESPONSES
`
`
`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, and knowledge or
`an equivalent experience in software development in the
`hospitality market of at least three years.
`
`’91 Paper 17 at 3; Ex. 2041, ¶ 21.
`
`18.
`
`I disagree with Patent Owner’s suggestion that a person of ordinary
`
`skill would have had three years of hospitality market-specific experience. Dr.
`
`Weaver does not explain why a POSITA would have such experience or what kind
`
`of people would have obtained years of hospitality industry-specific experience in
`
`1999. See Ex. 2041, ¶ 21.
`
`19.
`
`In 1999, when the ’850 patent was filed, the software and systems
`
`used in the hospitality industry were not fundamentally different from the software
`
`and systems used in other industries and businesses. Take the Challenged Claims
`
`of the ’850 patent, for example. The claims require a central database, a web
`
`server, a web page, and a handheld device. None of these components are unique
`
`to applications and systems in the hospitality industry.
`
`20. As I discussed in my 2015 declarations (Helal ’850 Decl., ¶¶ 75-77,
`
`Helal ’850 Decl., ¶¶ 75-77), Kasavana’s 1997 book, Managing Computers in the
`
`Hospitality Industry, discusses network-based applications, client/server system
`- 7 -
`
`
`
`Starbucks, Ex. 1063
`Starbucks v. Ameranth, CBM2015-00091
`
`

`
`DECLARATION OF ABDELSALAM HELAL, PH.D.
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER REPLIES TO PATENT OWNER RESPONSES
`
`configurations, and the use of the Internet and intranets in the hospitality industry.
`
`Ex 1033 at 285 - 288.
`
`21. Patent Owner’s suggestion that a POSITA would need years of
`
`hospitality industry-specific experience is at odds with the specification of the ’850
`
`patent. The specification states, for example, that the “present invention uses
`
`typical hardware elements,” including a “typical file server platform” with a
`
`Windows-based operating system, “e.g., Windows(R) 95, 98, NT, or CE,
`
`networking software (including Web server software) and database software.” Ex.
`
`1001 at 5:33-55.
`
`22. The specification of the ’850 patent also states that all the software
`
`needed to practice the invention is “commonly known”:
`
`The software applications for performing the functions
`falling within the described invention can be written in
`any commonly used computer language. The discrete
`programming steps are commonly known and thus
`programming details are not necessary to a full
`description of the invention.
`
`Ex. 1001 at 11:43-48.
`
`23. Patent Owner has also submitted evidence that the Dallas Improv
`
`Comedy Club implementation of its 21st Century Restaurant system (“21CR”) was
`
`“built using 100 percent Microsoft products.” Ex. 2062 at 117.
`
`
`
`- 8 -
`
`Starbucks, Ex. 1063
`Starbucks v. Ameranth, CBM2015-00091
`
`

`
`DECLARATION OF ABDELSALAM HELAL, PH.D.
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER REPLIES TO PATENT OWNER RESPONSES
`
`
`24. Neither Patent Owner nor Dr. Weaver identifies any evidence or
`
`explanation why a POSITA under the standard I endorsed above and in my prior
`
`declaration would be unable to implement the claimed system.
`
`IV. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`25.
`
`I understand that claim terms in this proceeding are given the
`
`“broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in
`
`which it appears.” Helal ’325 Decl., ¶ 39; Helal ’325 Decl., ¶ 39.
`
`A.
`
`“Hospitality Applications”
`
`26. The Board has at least preliminarily found that the broadest
`
`reasonable construction of “hospitality applications” is “applications used to
`
`perform services or tasks in the hospitality industry.” ’91 Paper 9 at 12. The
`
`Board also clarified that its construction “includes businesses, such as car rental
`
`agencies, that provide services to travelers.” ’91 Paper 9 at 12. In my opinion, the
`
`Board’s construction of “hospitality applications” is consistent with the broadest
`
`reasonable interpretation of the phrase in view of the specification of the ’850
`
`patent.
`
`27.
`
`I have also reviewed Dr. Khan’s declaration (Ex. 1064) which
`
`addresses the narrower interpretation of “hospitality” advanced by Patent Owner.
`
`Dr. Khan’s declaration and the cited additional evidence further supports the
`
`Board’s construction of “hospitality applications” because he explains that, by
`
`
`
`- 9 -
`
`Starbucks, Ex. 1063
`Starbucks v. Ameranth, CBM2015-00091
`
`

`
`DECLARATION OF ABDELSALAM HELAL, PH.D.
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER REPLIES TO PATENT OWNER RESPONSES
`
`1999 when the ’850 patent’s application was filed, the hospitality industry was
`
`seen as broadly including businesses that cater to travelers. This evidence is
`
`consistent with the interpretation I applied in my prior declarations. Helal ’850
`
`Decl., ¶ 155; Helal ’325 Decl., ¶ 160.
`
`28. Based primarily on Dittmer’s glossary definition of “hospitality
`
`industry,” Patent Owner argues that hospitality applications must relate to
`
`providing food, beverages, or lodging. ’91 Paper 17 at 10. In my opinion, this
`
`definition is too narrow and cannot be the broadest reasonable interpretation. The
`
`specification of the ’850 and ’325 patents does not indicate that “hospitality
`
`applications” are limited to food, beverages, or lodging. In fact, the patent
`
`specifications do not even use the terms “lodging” or “hotels.”
`
`29. The ’850 and ’325 patents identify examples of hospitality
`
`applications “e.g., reservations, frequent customer[,] ticketing, wait lists, etc.” Ex.
`
`1001 at 4:5-8. The patents do not limit these applications to the restaurant context.
`
`Further, “frequent customer” appears to refer to loyalty programs which are widely
`
`used in both the retail industry and travel industry (e.g., frequent flyer programs)
`
`and are not strongly tied to the restaurant context. Similarly, “ticketing” is not a
`
`restaurant-related application and does not fall within the narrow definition from
`
`Dittmer that Patent Owner relies upon.
`
`
`
`- 10 -
`
`Starbucks, Ex. 1063
`Starbucks v. Ameranth, CBM2015-00091
`
`

`
`DECLARATION OF ABDELSALAM HELAL, PH.D.
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER REPLIES TO PATENT OWNER RESPONSES
`
`
`30.
`
`In summary, Patent Owner’s proposed construction appears to be
`
`arbitrary and inconsistent with the specification and claims of the ’850 and ’325
`
`patents.
`
`B. Other Terms
`
`31. Patent Owner and Dr. Weaver suggest that a large number of claim
`
`terms need to be construed. ’91 Paper 17 at 2-15; ’99 Paper 17 at 3-18; Ex. 2041,
`
`¶¶ 26-51. I understand that claim terms do not require explicit construction where
`
`they have an ordinary meaning that is apparent to a POSITA. I also understand
`
`that claim terms do not need to be construed where construction is not necessary to
`
`resolve the disputes in the case.
`
`1. Wireless Handheld Computing Device
`In my opinion, no construction other than ordinary meaning is
`
`32.
`
`required for this phrase. The meaning of this phrase is clear and there is no dispute
`
`that the PDAs disclosed in Brandt, NetHopper, and Demers are wireless handheld
`
`computing devices.
`
`Central Database
`
`2.
`I disagree with Patent Owner’s proposed construction of “central
`
`33.
`
`database.” This term need not be construed because the prior art references in this
`
`proceeding expressly disclose “databases.” The databases identified as the “central
`
`databases” in the proposed prior art combinations are network-side or server-side
`
`
`
`- 11 -
`
`Starbucks, Ex. 1063
`Starbucks v. Ameranth, CBM2015-00091
`
`

`
`DECLARATION OF ABDELSALAM HELAL, PH.D.
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER REPLIES TO PATENT OWNER RESPONSES
`
`databases and would be seen as “central” databases. Patent Owner’s proposed
`
`construction is ambiguous because it requires a “database file structure connected
`
`to the system in association with a central server ….” The proposed construction
`
`includes both of the original terms “database” and “central.”
`
`3. Web Page
`34. While I do not see why “web page” needs to be construed given
`
`Brandt expressly discloses web pages, I do not take issue with the Board’s
`
`construction, i.e., “a document with associated files for graphics, scripts, and other
`
`resources, accessible over the Internet and viewable in a web browser.” ’91 Paper
`
`9 at 11.
`
`4. Web Server
`35. Construction of this term is not necessary because Brandt expressly
`
`discloses a “web server” and Patent Owner does not dispute this limitation.
`
`Communications Control Module
`
`5.
`In my opinion, no construction other than ordinary meaning is
`
`36.
`
`required for this phrase. The Challenged Claims expressly state that the CCM “is
`
`an interface between the hospitality applications and any other communications
`
`protocol.” Patent Owner’s proposed construction repeats that limitation and adds
`
`some ambiguity. For example, Patent Owner’s construction requires the CCM to
`
`be a “layer that sits on top of any communication protocol.” This added
`
`requirement appears to be taken from the specification. Ex. 1001 at 4:8-13. Patent
`- 12 -
`
`
`
`Starbucks, Ex. 1063
`Starbucks v. Ameranth, CBM2015-00091
`
`

`
`DECLARATION OF ABDELSALAM HELAL, PH.D.
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER REPLIES TO PATENT OWNER RESPONSES
`
`Owner’s interpretation of “layer” is not clear (see, e.g., ’91 Paper 17 at 46). Both
`
`the Board and Patent Owner have suggested that the CCM is a centralized / server-
`
`side module and the prior art discloses the claimed CCM under that interpretation.
`
`6.
`Synchronized
`37. Construction of this term is also not necessary, but under Patent
`
`Owner’s proposed construction (“made, or configured to make, consistent”), there
`
`can be no dispute that the “synchronized” limitation is met.
`
`7.
`Application Program Interface
`38. Construction of this term is not necessary because Brandt expressly
`
`discloses APIs. See, e.g., Ex. 1005, ¶ 22.
`
`8. Outside Applications
`39. Construction of this term is also not necessary, but under Patent
`
`Owner’s construction, there can be no dispute that the limitation is met because
`
`Brandt’s APIs allow integration with third party applications. See, e.g., Ex. 1005,
`
`¶ 22 (“Each application program will have APIs that allow third parties to access
`
`certain features, to interface the application program with other programs, and to
`
`provide access for end-users.”).
`
`9.
`Integration
`40. Construction of this term is also not necessary, but under Patent
`
`Owner’s construction, there can be no dispute that the limitation is met because
`
`
`
`- 13 -
`
`Starbucks, Ex. 1063
`Starbucks v. Ameranth, CBM2015-00091
`
`

`
`DECLARATION OF ABDELSALAM HELAL, PH.D.
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER REPLIES TO PATENT OWNER RESPONSES
`
`Brandt’s expressly discloses APIs that allow other applications to “access” features
`
`and “interface” with the applications. Ex. 1005, ¶ 22.
`
`10. Single Point of Entry for All Hospitality Applications
`41. Construction of this term is also not necessary. There can be no
`
`dispute that Patent Owner’s construction (“a center of communication for all
`
`hospitality applications”) is satisfied by the prior art in this proceeding.
`
`11. Automatic
`42. Construction of this term is also not necessary. “Automatic” has a
`
`well-known meaning and there can be no dispute that the prior art discloses
`
`“automatic” communication of information as claimed. Some of Patent Owner’s
`
`arguments suggest that “automatic” limits the claims to push-style systems. I
`
`disagree with that interpretation as discussed below in addressing claims 14 and 15
`
`of the ’850 patent.
`
`12. Wherein the communications control module is an interface
`between the hospitality applications and any other
`communications protocol
`43. This language also does not need to be construed. Patent Owner’s
`
`proposed construction attempts to read into the claims several limitations from the
`
`specification which are clearly not present in the claims (e.g., concurrent use of
`
`different protocols, monitoring and routing communications between different
`
`devices).
`
`
`
`- 14 -
`
`Starbucks, Ex. 1063
`Starbucks v. Ameranth, CBM2015-00091
`
`

`
`DECLARATION OF ABDELSALAM HELAL, PH.D.
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER REPLIES TO PATENT OWNER RESPONSES
`
`13. Wherein the synchronized data relates to orders; …
`waitlists; and … reservations
`44. These limitations from the Challenged Claims of the ‘’325 patent also
`
`need not be construed. The terms “orders,” “waitlists,” and “reservations” have
`
`well known meanings. Patent Owner’s attempt to limit these terms to food orders,
`
`restaurant waitlists, and restaurant / hotel / event ticketing reservations is not
`
`consistent with the broadest reasonable interpretation standard.
`
`V. REBUTTALS TO ARGUMENTS RAISED BY PATENT OWNER /
`DR. WEAVER
`
`45.
`
`I have reviewed the Corrected Patent Owner Responses and Dr.
`
`Weaver’s declaration. In the sections that follow, I provide my responses to and
`
`opinions about the points raised by Patent Owner and Dr. Weaver.
`
`A. Common Limitations Between Challenged Claims of ’850 Patent
`& ’325 Patent
`
`1. Hospitality Applications
`
`46. Car rental applications are “hospitality applications” under the
`
`Board’s construction of that phrase which I see as consistent with the broadest
`
`reasonable interpretation as discussed above. Rental cars companies cater
`
`primarily to travelers and are therefore part of the “hospitality industry.”
`
`47. Patent Owner appears to argue that the “hospitality industry” is
`
`limited to businesses that provide food, beverages, and lodging. ’91 Paper 17 at 5-
`
`11. Even if this narrower view was correct, it is my opinion that the Brandt prior
`
`
`
`- 15 -
`
`Starbucks, Ex. 1063
`Starbucks v. Ameranth, CBM2015-00091
`
`

`
`DECLARATION OF ABDELSALAM HELAL, PH.D.
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER REPLIES TO PATENT OWNER RESPONSES
`
`art would still render hospitality applications (e.g., reservations applications for
`
`hotel rooms) obvious.
`
`48. Patent Owner does not dispute that car rentals are at least closely
`
`related to the “hospitality industry.” In fact Patent Owner argues that the
`
`“hospitality industry” is part of the “travel and tourism” industry. ’91 Paper 17 at
`
`8-9. Therefore, Patent Owner concedes that Brandt discloses an application which
`
`is at least closely related to the hospitality industry.
`
`49. Brandt makes clear that the car rental application is just an example
`
`used to illustrate how the system components work and interoperate. Ex. 1005, ¶¶
`
`40 (“While the steps shown in FIG. 5 have been described and illustrated as being
`
`independent and sequential, these various steps are not necessarily sequential and
`
`are preferably integrated within the same web transaction, as illustrated in the
`
`rental car example shown below.”); 76 (“One example of using FlowMark to
`
`accomplish a specific task will be presented in detail below.”); 78 (“For example,
`
`if a process model 440 and activity programs 432 implement a rental car work flow
`
`process, FlowMark database 438 would be used to store information relating to the
`
`rental car process, such as which cars are available, etc.”).
`
`50. Brandt explains that the disclosed system is flexible and not limited to
`
`any specific application:
`
`
`
`- 16 -
`
`Starbucks, Ex. 1063
`Starbucks v. Ameranth, CBM2015-00091
`
`

`
`DECLARATION OF ABDELSALAM HELAL, PH.D.
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER REPLIES TO PATENT OWNER RESPONSES
`
`
`While the steps shown in FIG. 5 have been described and
`illustrated as being independent and sequential, these
`various steps are not necessarily sequential and are
`preferably integrated within the same web transaction, as
`illustrated in the rental car example shown below. The
`steps may be performed as needed and in any
`combination or order desired. Some software
`applications may require completion of all of the steps
`shown while other processes and requests may require
`only one or two of the steps for completion. The actual
`sequence of steps and the detailed requirements for
`each step will remain largely a design choice for a
`specific software application.
`
`Ex. 1005, ¶ 40.
`
`51. The preferred embodiment in Brandt is built on a workflow
`
`management platform, IBM’s FlowMark platform. Ex. 1005, ¶ 75. Consistent
`
`with Brandt’s description, a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand
`
`that workflow management platforms can be used to model and automate all sorts
`
`of business processes. See Ex. 1005, ¶ 76 (discussing us