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
`
`__________________
`
`
`PETITIONER’S REPLY TO PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`Paper No. 19
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`STARBUCKS CORPORATION
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`Ameranth, Inc.
`Patent Owner
`
`__________________
`
`
`
`Case CBM2015-00091
`Patent No. 6,384,850 B1
`
`__________________
`
`
`PETITIONER’S REPLY TO PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`Paper No. 19
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CBM2015-00091, Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response, Paper No. 19
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`II.
`
`Claim Construction ......................................................................................... 1
`Responses to Patent Owner’s Arguments ....................................................... 4
`A. Hospitality Applications ....................................................................... 5
`B.
`Central Database Containing Hospitality Application and Data ......... 6
`C. Web Pages Storing Hospitality Applications and Data ....................... 7
`D. Handheld Devices Storing Hospitality Applications and Data ............ 8
`E.
`Synchronization of the Hospitality Applications and Data .................. 9
`F.
`API that Enables Integration .............................................................. 11
`G.
`Communications Control Module (“CCM”) ...................................... 12
`H. Dependent Claim 13 – “Single Point of Entry” ................................. 16
`I.
`Dependent Claims 14 and 15 – “Automatic” Communication .......... 17
`J.
`Dependent Claim 16 – “Digital Data Transmission” ......................... 18
`Secondary Considerations ............................................................................ 18
`III.
`IV. Conclusion .................................................................................................... 25
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`CBM2015-00091, Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response, Paper No. 19
`
`
`
`UPDATED 850 EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Ex. 1001 U.S. Patent No. 6,384,850 B1 to McNally, et al. (the “’850 Patent”)
`
`Ex. 1002 U.S. Patent No. 6,871,325 B1 to McNally, et al. (the “’325 patent”)
`
`Ex. 1003 Declaration of Abdelsalam Helal, Ph.D. including Appendix A
`(Curriculum Vitae)
`
`Ex. 1004
`
`Ex. 1005
`
`Japanese Unexamined Application No. H10-247183 to Brandt et al
`(“Brandt”)
`
`English translation of Brandt (Ex. 1004) and executed affidavit
`attesting to the accuracy of the English translation
`
`Ex. 1006 NetHopper Version 3.2 User’s Manual (“NetHopper”)
`
`Ex. 1007 Declaration of Wayne Yurtin with respect to NetHopper (Ex. 1006)
`
`Ex. 1008
`
`Jeff Walsh, Apple Releases MesssagePad 2100 Handheld PCs,
`InfoWorld, Oct. 27, 1997, at 50
`
`Ex. 1009 Alan Demers et al., The Bayou Architecture: Support for Data Sharing
`Among Mobile Users (“Demers”)
`
`Ex. 1010
`
`IEEE Abstract for Demers
`
`Ex. 1011
`
`Library of Congress catalog entry for book containing Demers
`
`Ex. 1012 Gustavo Alonso et al., Exotica/FMDC: A Workflow Management
`System for Mobile and Disconnected Clients (“Alonso”)
`
`Ex. 1013
`
`Springer Abstract for Alonso
`
`Ex. 1014
`
`Library of Congress catalog entry for book containing Alonso
`
`Ex. 1015
`
`’850 Patent Prosecution History, Nov. 29, 2000 Office Action
`
`Ex. 1016
`
`’850 Patent Prosecution History, Feb. 26, 2001 Amendment
`
`Ex. 1017
`
`’850 Patent Prosecution History, May 22, 2001 Office Action
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`Ex. 1018
`
`Ex. 1019
`
`CBM2015-00091, Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response, Paper No. 19
`
`
`’850 Patent Prosecution History, July 19, 2001 Amendment
`
`Excerpts from John December and Mark Ginsburg, HTML & CGI
`Unleashed (1995)
`
`Ex. 1020
`
`Excerpts from Brian Francis et al., Active Server Pages 2.0 (1998)
`
`Ex. 1021
`
`Excerpts from John Rodley, Writing Java Applets (1996)
`
`Ex. 1022
`
`Ex. 1023
`
`Excerpts from Mark C. Reynolds and Andrew Woolridge, Using
`JavaScript (1996)
`
`Excerpts from Abdelsalam (Sumi) Helal et al, Any Time, Anywhere
`Computing, Mobile Computing Concepts and Technology (1999)
`
`Ex. 1024 Newton Solutions Guide, Issue 1 (1995)
`
`Ex. 1025 Newton Solutions Guide, Issue 2 (1996)
`
`Ex. 1026 Newton Connection Utilities User’s Manual for the Macintosh
`Operating System (1997)
`
`Ex. 1027 Newton Connection Utilities User’s Manual for Windows (1997)
`
`Ex. 1028 Newton MessagePad 2100 User’s Manual (1997)
`
`Ex. 1029 Nokia 9000i Communicator Owner’s Manual (1997)
`
`Ex. 1030
`
`Ex. 1031
`
`Ex. 1032
`
`Ex. 1033
`
`Ex. 1034
`
`
`
`Excerpts from Douglas Boling, Programming Microsoft Windows CE
`(1998)
`
`Excerpts from Terence A. Goggin, Windows CE Developer’s
`Handbook (1999)
`
`Excerpts from Evaggelia Pitoura and George Samaras, Data
`Management for Mobile Computing (1998)
`
`Excerpts from Michael L. Kasavana and John J. Cahill, Managing
`Computers in the Hospitality Industry (1997)
`
`Excerpts from Gary Inkpen, Information Technology for Travel and
`Tourism (1998)
`
`ii
`
`
`
`Ex. 1035
`
`Ex. 1036
`
`Ex. 1037
`
`CBM2015-00091, Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response, Paper No. 19
`
`
`Excerpts from Paul R. Dittmer and Gerald G. Griffin, Dimensions of
`the Hospitality Industry: An Introduction (2d ed. 1997)
`
`Excerpts from Frank Buschmann et al., Pattern-Oriented Software
`Architecture: A System of Patterns (1996)
`
`F. Leymann and W. Altenhuber, Managing Business Processes as an
`Information Resource, IBM Systems Journal, Vol. 33, No. 2, 326-348
`(1994)
`
`Ex. 1038 Bob Stegmaier, Image and Workflow Library: FlowMark V2.3
`Design Guidelines (Feb. 1998)
`
`Ex. 1039 U.S. Patent No. 5,970,479 to Shepherd (Alice Corp. patent)
`
`Ex. 1040 Ameranth Press Release (April 1, 2014) – Ameranth Signs a New
`Patent License with Taco Bell Corp. for Ameranth’s Patented 21st
`Century CommunicationsTM Data Synchronization Inventions
`
`Ex. 1041 Ameranth Press Release (July 30, 2014) – Ameranth’s 21st Century
`CommunicationsTM, ‘Data Synchronization’ Patent Licensing
`Program Expands, and Accelerates
`
`Ex. 1042 Ameranth, Inc. v. Par Tech. Corp., Ameranth’s Opening Claim
`Construction Brief
`
`Ex. 1043 Ameranth, Inc. v. Par Technology Corp., Transcript of Claim
`Construction Hearing held May 30, 2012
`
`Ex. 1044 Ameranth, Inc. v. Par Technology Corp., Claim Construction Order
`
`Ex. 1045 Ameranth Complaint against Starbucks
`
`Ex. 1046
`
`List of Patent Infringement Lawsuits filed by Ameranth
`
`Ex. 1047 CBM2014-00015, Paper 11 (Jan. 13, 2014) – Patent Owner
`Preliminary Response
`
`Ex. 1048 CBM2014-00015, Paper 20 (Mar. 26, 2014) – Institution Decision
`
`Ex. 1049 CBM2014-00014, Paper 19 (Mar. 26, 2014) – Order Denying
`Institution
`
`iii
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex. 1050
`
`Ex. 1051
`
`CBM2015-00091, Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response, Paper No. 19
`
`
`Excerpt from Microsoft Computing Dictionary (4th ed. 1999)
`(definition of “synchronous communications”)
`
`Tristan Richardson et al., Virtual Network Computing (Jan. / Feb.
`1998)
`
`Ex. 1052 Declaration of Matthew C. Bernstein in Support of Starbucks
`Corporation’s Motion for Pro Hac Vice
`
`Ex.1053 – 1062 (N/A: not used in this proceeding)
`
`Ex. 1063 Rebuttal Declaration of Abdelsalam Helal, Ph.D., March 23, 2016
`
`Ex. 1064 Rebuttal Declaration of Dr. Mahmood A. Khan , Ph.D., March 23,
`2016
`
`Ex. 1065
`
`Selected Portions in Text Book of Introduction to Hospitality, John R.
`Walker (2d ed.1999)
`
`Ex. 1066 Ameranth Press Release (Jul. 14, 1999) – Food.com and Ameranth
`Technology Announce Partnership to Develop Link from Food.com
`site with Ameranth's 21st Century Restaurant™ System
`
`Ex. 1067
`
`Excerpts of Gamble, Paul R. Reservation Systems, VNR’S
`Encyclopedia of Hospitality and Tourism (Ed. by Khan, Mahmood;
`Olsen, Michael; and Var, Turgut, 1993)
`
`Ex. 1068 Go, Frank M., The role of computerized reservation systems in the
`hospitality industry, Tourism Management (Mar. 1992)
`
`Ex. 1069 Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia, Travelocity, at
`http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Travelocity (last visited Mar.19, 2016)
`
`Ex. 1070 Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia, Expedia (website), at
`http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expedia_(website) (last visited Mar.19,
`2016)
`
`Ex. 1071
`
`Excerpts of Alastair M. Morrison, Hospitality and Travel Marketing
`(2d ed. 1996)
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`
`
`Ex. 1072
`
`CBM2015-00091, Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response, Paper No. 19
`
`
`Excerpts of Robert C. Lewis, Richard E. Chambers, & Harsha E.
`Chacko, Marketing Leadership in Hospitality: Foundations and
`Practices 682 (2d ed. 1995)
`
`Ex. 1073
`
`Excerpts of Harold E Lane & Denise Dupre, Hospitality World: An
`Introduction (1996)
`
`Ex. 1074 History of the Online Travel Industry Pioneer, Expedia, Inc. at
`http://www.expediainc.com/about/history/ (last visited Mar. 23, 2016)
`
`Ex. 1075
`
`JavaScript Guide, Covers JavaScript 1.2 for Netscape Communicator
`(1997)
`
`Ex. 1076 Ameranth First Amended Complaint against Ticketmaster LLC, Case
`No. 3:12-cv-01648-DMS-WVG, Dkt. 39 (S.D. Cal. Sep. 30, 2013)
`
`Ex. 1077 Ameranth Second Amended Complaint against Fandango, Case No.
`3:12-cv-01651-DMS-WVG, Dkt. 39 (S.D. Cal. Sep. 20, 2013)
`
`Ex. 1078 Ameranth First Amended Complaint against Apple, Inc., Case No.
`3:12-cv-02350-H-BGS, Dkt. 7 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 23, 2013)
`
`Ex. 1079 Ameranth First Amended Complaint against Expedia, Inc., Case No.
`3:12-cv-01654-DMS-WVG, Dkt. 28 (S.D. Cal. Jul. 25, 2013)
`
`Ex. 1080 Ameranth First Amended Complaint against Kayak Software
`Corporation, Case No. 3:12-cv-01640-DMS-WVG, Dkt. 28 (Jul. 26,
`2013)
`
`Ex. 1081
`
`Excerpts of Microsoft Inside SQL Server 6.5, The Developer’s Guide
`to Design, Architecture, and Implementation from a Leading
`Microsoft Expert, Ron Soukup (1997)
`
`Ex. 1082 W. Keith Edwards et al., Designing and Implementing Asynchronous
`Collaborative Applications with Bayou, UIST, Alberta, Canada
`(1997)
`
`Ex. 1083 Douglas B. Terry et al., The Case for Non-transparent Replication:
`Examples from Bayou, Bulletin of the Technical Committee on Data
`Engineering, IEEE Computer Society, Vol. 21, No.4, (Dec. 1998)
`
`
`
`v
`
`
`
`Ex. 1084
`
`CBM2015-00091, Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response, Paper No. 19
`
`
`Excerpt from Microsoft Computing Dictionary (4th ed. 1999)
`(definitions of “communication protocol” and “middleware”)
`
`Ex. 1085 RFC1866, Hypertext Markup Language - 2.0 (Nov. 1995)
`
`Ex. 1086 Ameranth Press Release (Mar. 6, 2011) – Ameranth Technology
`Systems Changes Name to Ameranth Wireless
`Ex. 1087 Ameranth 21st Century Restaurant Overview Brochure (2011)
`Ameranth, Inc. v. MenuSoft Systems Corp., et al., No. 2:07-cv-271-
`RSP, Joint Stipulated Motion for Vacatur of Invalidity Verdicts and
`Judgment, Dkt. 348 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 20, 2012)
`
`Ex. 1088
`
`Ex. 1089
`
`Ex. 1090
`
`Ex. 1091
`
`Ex. 1092
`
`Ex. 1093
`
`Ex. 1094
`
`Ameranth, Inc. v. Par Technology Corp., et al., No. 2:10-cv-294-JRG-
`RSP, Joint Motion for Dismissal With Prejudice, Dkt. 212 (E.D. Tex.
`Feb. 21, 2013)
`
`Ameranth, Inc. v. ChowNow, LLC, No. 3:12-cv-1201-JLS-NLS,
`Notice of Voluntary Dismissal With Prejudice of Entire Action, Dkt. 8
`(S.D. Cal. Jun. 26, 2012)
`
`Ameranth, Inc. v. EMN8, Inc., No. 3:12-cv-1659-DMS-WVG, Joint
`Motion for Voluntary Dismissal of Complaint and Counterclaims
`With Prejudice, Dkt. 18 (S.D. Cal. Jul. 12, 2013)
`
`Ameranth, Inc. v. Monkeymedia Software, Inc., No. 3:13-cv-836-
`DMS-WVG, Notice of Voluntary Dismissal With Prejudice of Entire
`Action, Dkt. 7 (S.D. Cal. Jun. 6, 2013)
`
`Ameranth, Inc. v. Subtledata, Inc., No. 3:12-cv-1647-JLS-NLS,
`Notice of Voluntary Dismissal With Prejudice of Entire Action, Dkt. 7
`(S.D. Cal. Aug. 7, 2012)
`
`Ameranth, Inc. v. TicketMob, LLC, No. 3:12-cv-738-JLS-NLS, Notice
`of Voluntary Dismissal With Prejudice of Entire Action, Dkt. 10 (S.D.
`Cal. May 23, 2013)
`
`Ex. 1095 Mobile Insights Press Release (Sep. 13, 2000) – Mobile Insights
`Announces Winners of the Second Annual Moby Awards at the Go
`Mobile Conference
`
`
`
`vi
`
`
`
`CBM2015-00091, Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response, Paper No. 19
`
`
`Ex. 1096 River Run Press Release (Sep. 13, 2000) – Solutions Developed by
`River Run Software Group Win a Unprecedented Three Moby
`Awards at Go Mobile 2000
`The Computerworld Honors Program – 21st Century Achievement
`Award Recipients
`
`Ex. 1097
`
`Ex. 1098 Computerworld Honors Program Recognizes Outstanding Heroic
`Achievements in Information Technology, Computerworld (Apr. 10,
`2001)
`
`Ex. 1099
`
`The Computerworld Honors Program Nominee Guide (Jun. 5, 2006)
`
`Ex. 1100 Ameranth HostAlert Brochure (2003)
`
`Ex. 1101 UK Patent Application No. 2 196 766 A to Pitayanukul et al.
`(“Pitayanukul”)
`
`Ex. 1102 US Patent No. 5,991,739 to Cupps et al. (“Cupps”)
`
`Ex. 1103
`
`Ex. 1104
`
`Ex. 1105
`
`Screenshot of Starbucks Mobile Order & Pay Hompage (last visited
`Mar. 13, 2016)
`
`Screenshot of Starbucks Mobile Order & Pay Customer Service page,
`What is Mobile Order & Pay?, (last visited Mar. 13, 2016)
`
`Screenshot of Starbucks Mobile Order & Pay Customer Service page,
`How do I access Mobile Order & Pay?, (last visited Mar. 13, 2016)
`
`Ex. 1106 HTML Specification 4.0 (Dec. 1997)
`
`
`
`vii
`
`
`
`CBM2015-00091, Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response, Paper No. 19
`
`
`This timely Reply responds to and rebuts Patent Owner’s Corrected
`
`Response (Pap. 17) and Weaver Declaration (Ex. 2043).
`
`I.
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`“Hospitality Applications”: The Board construed this term as “applications
`
`5
`
`used to perform services or tasks in the hospitality industry” and stated that “the
`
`ordinary and customary meaning of hospitality is broad enough to encompass car
`
`rental activities.” Pap. 9 at 11-12. The Board’s construction is consistent with the
`
`BRI standard and is supported by the patent specification and the record evidence
`
`(e.g., Ex. 1035 at 11-14 and 403-404 and Ex. 1003, ¶¶75-77, 155).
`
`10
`
`Patent Owner argues the Board’s interpretation of “hospitality” was
`
`“erroneously overbroad” and should have been limited to businesses that provide
`
`food, beverages, or lodging to travelers (Pap. 17 at 5-11). Patent Owner’s attempt
`
`to narrow the claims to avoid the cited prior art should also be rejected. As the
`
`Board recognized, the “traditional view” of hospitality evolved, and, by 1999 when
`
`15
`
`the ’850 patent was filed, the hospitality industry was seen more broadly to include
`
`all businesses catering to travelers. Pap. 9 at 11-12 (citing Ex. 1035; ’850 patent
`
`specification; Ex. 1003, ¶¶75-77). Indeed, Dittmer’s book is titled “Dimensions of
`
`the Hospitality Industry” and devotes three of its fourteen chapters to the Travel
`
`and Tourism part of the hospitality industry. Ex. 2040 at vi (table of contents).
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`CBM2015-00091, Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response, Paper No. 19
`
`
`In response to Patent Owner’s arguments (e.g., Pap. 17 at 5-11, 24-25; Ex.
`
`2041. ¶¶33-38, 67-68), Petitioner presents rebuttal evidence that supports the
`
`Board’s construction. For example, a 1999 textbook by John R. Walker,
`
`Introduction to Hospitality, defines “hospitality” in its glossary as:
`
`5
`
`1. The cordial and generous reception of guests. 2. Wide
`range of businesses, each of which is dedicated to the
`service of people away from home.
`
`Ex. 1065 at 483. See also id. at xv (“Introduction to Hospitality is a comprehensive
`
`tour through the fascinating and challenging related fields in the hospitality
`
`10
`
`industry: travel and tourism, lodging, food service, meetings, conventions and
`
`expositions, leisure and recreation.”).
`
`Dr. Khan, a professor in the Hospitality & Tourism Management program at
`
`Virginia Tech with over 40 years of experience in the hospitality industry, explains
`
`that the “hospitality industry” in 1999 included a wide variety of businesses that
`
`15
`
`cater to travelers or people away from home. Ex. 1064, ¶¶ 3-4 & 16-17; Ex. 1071
`
`at 555. Transportation services (e.g., air travel, rental cars), like lodging and food,
`
`are essential services that enable people to travel and be away from home. Ex.
`
`1064, ¶ 16; Ex. 1035 at 13. Rental car companies were part of the hospitality
`
`industry in 1999. Ex. 1064, ¶¶ 18-22; see also Ex. 1065 at xv; Ex. 1035 at 403-04,
`
`20
`
`6 & 13.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`CBM2015-00091, Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response, Paper No. 19
`
`Patent Owner’s attempt to narrow “hospitality” based on Dittmer’s glossary
`
`definition is improper. See Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1322 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2005) (en banc) (“A claim should not rise or fall based upon the preferences of a
`
`particular dictionary editor, or the court’s independent decision, uninformed by the
`
`5
`
`specification, to rely on one dictionary rather than another.”). As the Board noted,
`
`nothing in the ’850 patent limits “hospitality” to food, beverages, and lodging. Pap.
`
`9 at 12. The ’850 patent never mentions “lodging” or “hotels,” and instead
`
`identifies example “hospitality applications (i.e., “ticketing” and “frequent
`
`customer”) that are not related to food, beverages, or lodging. Ex. 1001 at 4:5-8.
`
`10
`
`Patent Owner’s exclusion of car rentals and transportation services from the
`
`“hospitality industry” is arbitrary. Patent Owner argues that travel and tourism
`
`services should be excluded because they are not mentioned in the specification,
`
`but Patent Owner includes lodging which is not mentioned in the specification. Ex.
`
`1065, ¶¶ 28-29. The Board should reject Patent Owner’s arbitrary exclusion of car
`
`15
`
`rentals and other transportation services.
`
`Patent Owner’s overly narrow interpretation of “hospitality” also contradicts
`
`positions it has taken in litigation. In its complaint against Starbucks, Patent Owner
`
`identified “cruise ships” and “entertainment and sports venues” as within the
`
`hospitality industry. Ex. 1045, ¶ 8. Patent Owner has asserted the ’850 patent
`
`20
`
`against event and movie ticketing companies (e.g., TicketMaster, Fandango) that
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`CBM2015-00091, Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response, Paper No. 19
`
`
`do not provide food, beverages, or lodging. Exs. 1076, 1077. In its complaint
`
`against Apple, Patent Owner emphasized that the accused software could be used
`
`to manage airline boarding passes. Ex. 1078, ¶¶17, 24, 32. Patent Owner has also
`
`sued “travel aggregators” such as Expedia and Kayak and alleged that their
`
`5
`
`reservations systems—systems that provide car rentals—have no non-infringing
`
`uses. I.e., their rental car systems are accused of infringement. See Ex. 1079, ¶27;
`
`Ex. 1080, ¶27.
`
`The Board need not construe the 11 additional terms Patent Owner proposes.
`
`Pap. 17 at 2-15. In light of the ’850 patent specification, none of these terms should
`
`10
`
`deviate from their ordinary meaning and construction is not necessary to resolve
`
`this case. See Ex. 1063, ¶¶ 31-44.
`
`II. RESPONSES TO PATENT OWNER’S ARGUMENTS
`Patent Owner’s arguments fail to distinguish the Challenged Claims from
`
`the instituted prior art grounds. It is bedrock patent law that limitations from the
`
`15
`
`specification are not to be read into the claims. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1323. Patent
`
`Owner goes further awry and tries to read in limitations that are not even in the
`
`specification, but are simply made up to distinguish the prior art. Many of the
`
`arguments try to exploit the lack of clarity and detail in the specification. In some
`
`instances, Patent Owner declares that some limitation is missing in the prior art,
`
`20
`
`but fails to explain its interpretation of the limitation or why it is missing. In many
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`CBM2015-00091, Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response, Paper No. 19
`
`
`instances, Patent Owner’s arguments contradict its own proposed constructions.
`
`A. Hospitality Applications
`Patent Owner argues that the prior art fails to disclose “hospitality
`
`applications” under Patent Owner’s proposed construction (e.g., Pap. 17 at 24-25;
`
`5
`
`Ex. 2041, ¶¶67-68). Brandt discloses “hospitality applications.” Pap. 1 at 49; Ex.
`
`1003, ¶ 155. The ’850 patent lists “reservations” as a hospitality application. Ex.
`
`1001 at 4:6. Brandt discloses a reservations application for rental cars. Ex. 1005, ¶¶
`
`89-122. Brandt’s car rental application meets the Board’s BRI construction,
`
`because it is an application which provides services to travelers. Ex. 1063, ¶ 46.
`
`10
`
`Even under Patent Owner’s improperly narrow definition, Brandt would still
`
`render “hospitality applications” obvious. Id., ¶¶ 47-56. Patent Owner concedes
`
`that car rentals are at least closely related to the hospitality industry. Pap. 17 at 8
`
`(“‘[H]ospitality is a sector of the broader ‘Travel and Tourism’ industry.”).
`
`Moreover, Brandt is clear that the car rental application is provided merely as an
`
`15
`
`example to illustrate how the system components work and interoperate. Ex. 1005,
`
`¶¶ 75-76. A POSITA would understand that a similar application could be
`
`provided for reserving hotel rooms, for example. Ex. 1063, ¶ 54. Indeed, by 1998,
`
`web sites like Expedia and Travelocity enabled users to reserve both hotels and
`
`rental cars. Ex. 1034 at 196-211; see also Ex. 1036 at 103-107.
`
`20
`
`
`
`A POSITA would also recognize that Brandt’s teachings could be applied to
`5
`
`
`
`CBM2015-00091, Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response, Paper No. 19
`
`
`a variety of applications, including other hospitality applications. Ex. 1063, ¶¶ 55-
`
`56. Brandt discloses building blocks of applications: collecting information from
`
`users; processing and storing information; and providing information back to users.
`
`Id. Nothing in Brandt limits its teachings to car rental reservations applications. Id.
`
`5
`
`B. Central Database Containing Hospitality Application and Data
`Patent Owner argues that the cited prior art fails to disclose the claimed
`
`central database. Pap. 17 at 25-27; Ex. 2041, ¶¶69-71. As previously explained,
`
`Brandt’s FlowMark database 438 is a central database containing hospitality
`
`applications and data. Pap. 1 at 48-49, 66; Ex. 1003, ¶¶151-156. In the car rental
`
`10
`
`example, the FlowMark database contains car rental application data (“which cars
`
`are available, etc.”). Id. The FlowMark database also facilitates the execution of
`
`the application. Id. Brandt thus discloses the central database. Ex. 1063, ¶¶ 58-65.
`
`The Brandt-Demers-Alonso combination also discloses a central database
`
`containing hospitality applications and data. Pap. 1 at 65-66; Ex. 1003, ¶¶244-247.
`
`15
`
`Like Brandt, Alonso discloses a central FlowMark database. Ex. 1012 at 32
`
`(ObjectStore database server); Fig. 2. Demers discloses a “primary” database
`
`responsible for committing writes propagated by mobile computers. Ex. 1009 at 4-
`
`5. A POSITA would understand that Brandt’s / Alonso’s central FlowMark
`
`database could act as the “primary” database and synchronize with “secondary”
`
`20
`
`databases stored on portable computers as discussed in both Demers and Alonso.
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`CBM2015-00091, Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response, Paper No. 19
`
`
`Id. at 3-5; Ex. 1012 at 34-38. See also Ex. 1063, ¶¶ 66-71.
`
`Patent Owner improperly cites a different Bayou-related paper (“Edwards,”
`
`Ex. 2034) to undercut the disclosure in Demers. See Pap. 9 at 39. Edwards does not
`
`even support Patent Owner’s argument because it discloses a “synchronous mode”
`
`5
`
`that includes a central database. Ex. 1082 at 122, 127; Ex. 1063, ¶¶ 72-78.
`
`Patent Owner also conceded in this proceeding that storing applications in a
`
`database was “well known in the art.” Pap. 7 at 40.
`
`C. Web Pages Storing Hospitality Applications and Data
`Patent Owner argues that Brandt fails to disclose a web page that stores
`
`10
`
`hospitality applications and data. Pap. 17 at 42; Ex. 2041, ¶¶ 98. Brandt discloses
`
`hospitality applications and data stored on web pages. Pap. 1 at 51-53; Ex. 1003, ¶¶
`
`174-183. Brandt discloses application web pages which include web forms,
`
`JavaScript, and/or Java applets. Ex. 1005, ¶¶ 16, 90, 107. The web pages also
`
`include application data. For example, Brandt describes dynamic generation of
`
`15
`
`web pages using HTML templates. Id., ¶¶ 59, 62, 96. In the car rental example,
`
`information about particular reservation requests and available cars is included in
`
`dynamically generated web pages. Id., ¶¶ 116, 119, 120. As the Board explained, a
`
`POSITA would have recognized that Brandt’s dynamically generated web pages
`
`store applications and data. Pap. 9 at 31. See also Pap. 7 at 40.
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`CBM2015-00091, Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response, Paper No. 19
`
`
`D. Handheld Devices Storing Hospitality Applications and Data
`Patent Owner argues that the prior art fails to disclose handheld devices with
`
`locally stored applications and data. Pap. 17 at 34-41; Ex. 2041, ¶¶ 87-97. The
`
`Brandt-NetHopper combination discloses this limitation. Pap. 1 at 49-50; Ex. 1003,
`
`5
`
`¶¶ 157-163. Brandt discloses application web pages which include application
`
`data, web forms, JavaScript, and/or Java applets. Ex. 1005, ¶¶ 16, 90, 107.
`
`NetHopper discloses that web pages can be cached by a PDA and used while the
`
`PDA is offline. Ex. 1006 at 14-18. NetHopper discloses that web forms can even
`
`be filled out by the user while offline. Id.
`
`10
`
`In the Brandt-NetHopper combination, the PDA locally stores both
`
`hospitality applications and data, including while the PDA may be disconnected
`
`from the network. Ex. 1063, ¶¶ 83-90. The cached web pages include dynamic
`
`application data obtained from the central database and NetHopper also stores the
`
`form data entered by the PDA user pending submission of the forms. Id. The PDA
`
`15
`
`also stores applications by virtue of caching the dynamically generated application
`
`web pages which include web forms, JavaScript, and/or Java applets. Id.
`
`The Brandt-Demers-Alonso combination also discloses storage of
`
`applications and data on a handheld device. Pap. 1 at 65-67; Ex. 1003, ¶¶ 244-248,
`
`252. Alonso discloses that users with mobile computers “work locally on …
`
`20
`
`applications and data” which are synchronized with the server prior to
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`CBM2015-00091, Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response, Paper No. 19
`
`
`disconnection from the network. Ex.1012 at 28, 34-37. Demers describes PDAs
`
`that run applications using a local copy of a database. Ex. 1009 at 5-6. A POSITA
`
`would recognize that applications and data (e.g., the car rental application and its
`
`data) could be synchronized to, and stored on, a handheld computer to enable
`
`5
`
`usage while the device may be disconnected from the network. Ex. 1003, ¶ 252.
`
`Synchronization of the Hospitality Applications and Data
`
`E.
`Patent Owner argues that the prior art fails to disclose that the hospitality
`
`applications and data are “synchronized” as claimed. Pap. 17 at 27-34. The Brandt-
`
`NetHopper combination discloses the required synchronization. Pap. 1 at 55-58;
`
`10
`
`Ex. 1003, ¶¶ 195-216. Patent Owner argues that the prior art discloses only
`
`synchronization of data, not synchronization of applications. Pap. 17 at 29-30. This
`
`argument contradicts Patent Owner’s position that “synchronized” simply means
`
`“made, or configured to make, consistent.” Pap. 17 at 5; Ex. 2041 at ¶ 32. Using
`
`that proposed construction, the “synchronized” limitation requires only that the
`
`15
`
`applications and data in the different locations are made consistent.
`
`As the Board noted (Pap. 9 at 16), the ’850 patent uses an example of the
`
`communication of an online reservation to the central database and to other devices
`
`as an example of the claimed synchronization and storage. Pap. 9 at 16 (citing Ex.
`
`1001 at 11:32-42; 2:28-32). Further, dependent claim 16 of the ’850 patent
`
`20
`
`confirms that the applications and data can be “synchronized by digital data
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`CBM2015-00091, Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response, Paper No. 19
`
`
`transmission.” Ex. 1001, claim 16 (“wherein the applications and data are
`
`synchronized by digital data transmission”). This is how the applications and data
`
`are synchronized in the cited prior art. Ex. 1063, ¶¶ 96-97; See Callaway Golf Co.,
`
`v. Acushnet Co., 576 F.3d 1331, 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (“A broader independent
`
`5
`
`claim cannot be nonobvious where a dependent claim stemming form that
`
`independent claim is invalid for obviousness.”).
`
`Brandt and NetHopper disclose how applications and data are synchronized
`
`between the FlowMark database, the web server and web pages, and the handhelds.
`
`Pap. 1 at 55-58; Ex. 1003, ¶¶ 195-216. In the car rental example, data about a
`
`10
`
`particular reservation is pulled from the database, included in a dynamically
`
`generated web page, and sent to the handheld. Id. A rental agent can use the web
`
`page to modify the reservation in the database. Id. NetHopper discloses that web
`
`pages may be cached on the PDA and used while the device is disconnected from
`
`the network. Ex. 1006 at 14-17. A POSITA would recognize that these disclosures
`
`15
`
`in the prior art make the applications and data consistent. Ex. 1063, ¶¶ 94-98.
`
`The Brandt-Demers-Alonso ground also discloses the claimed
`
`synchronization. Pap. 1 at 65-68; Ex. 1003, ¶¶ 243-248, 252. The synchronization
`
`between the database, web server, and web page is disclosed by Brandt as
`
`discussed above. The synchronization to handheld computers is disclosed by
`
`20
`
`Demers and Alonso. Ex. 1009 at 3-5; Ex. 1012 at 28, 34-38. The handhelds would
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`CBM2015-00091, Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response, Paper No. 19
`
`
`synchronize with the same FlowMark database used by the web-based clients. Ex.
`
`1063, ¶¶ 99-103. Changes made on the handhelds would propagate via the
`
`database to the web pages and vice versa. Id.. As a result, the applications and data
`
`would be made consistent. Id. The ’850 patent similarly describes synchronization
`
`5
`
`via the central database. Ex. 1001 at 11:32-36.
`
`Alonso’s “locking” a work item is not “the opposite of the claimed
`
`invention” (see Pap. 17 at 29). The Challenged Claims do not prohibit locking and
`
`the ’850 patent offers no different, let alone better approach. Ex. 1063, ¶¶ 104-106.
`
`F. API that Enables Integration
`Patent Owner argues that the prior art fails to disclose the claimed API. Pap.
`
`10
`
`17 at 42-43; Ex. 2041, ¶¶ 99-100. Brandt discloses APIs that enable integration of
`
`outside applications. Pap. 1 at 52-53, 58-60; Ex. 1003, ¶¶ 184-186; 217-220.
`
`Brandt discloses “APIs that allow third parties to access” and interface with the
`
`applications. Ex. 1005, ¶ 22. The use of APIs for integration was extremely
`
`15
`
`common by 1998. Ex. 1003, ¶ 273. Patent Owner ignores FlowMark APIs 436
`
`which are “standard APIs provided with FlowMark.” Ex. 1005, ¶¶ 78, 82, 85; Ex.
`
`1003, ¶¶ 218-219. Patent Owner also ignores Brandt’s substitution variables that
`
`can be used to integrate outside applications. Ex. 1005, ¶¶ 57, 95; Ex. 1003, ¶ 220.
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`CBM2015-00091, Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response, Paper No. 19
`
`
`G. Communications Control Module (“CCM”)
`Patent Owner argues that the prior art fails to disclose the claimed CCM.
`
`Pap. 17 at 43-48; Ex. 2041, ¶¶ 101-107. Brandt’s application gateway is a CCM.
`
`Pap. 1 at 53-55; Ex. 1003, ¶¶ 187-194. The gateway facilitates bi-directional
`
`5
`
`communication over a network to simultaneously connect several clients to several
`
`software applications. Id. The gateway uses “conversation identifiers” to ensure
`
`that communications are routed to the correct clients and applications. Id. The
`
`gateway also enables synchronization. Pap. 1 at 55-58; Ex. 1003, ¶¶ 195-216.
`
`Brandt’s gateway is also “an interface between the hospitality applications
`
`10
`
`and any other communications protocol.” Pap. 1 at 60-62; Ex. 1003, ¶¶ 221-232.
`
`Brandt’s gateway provides clients with an interface to applications, including
`
`hospitality applications like the car rental application. Ex. 1005, ¶¶ 68, 88; Ex.
`
`1003, ¶¶ 190-192. On the client-side of the gateway, HTTP and lower level
`
`network communication protocols are used. Ex. 1005, ¶¶ 81, 91, 94; Ex. 1003, ¶¶
`
`15
`
`223-224. Brandt also discloses embodiments where network communication
`
`protocols are required only on the client-side because the applications are present
`
`on the same machine as the gateway. Ex. 1005, ¶ 86; Ex. 1003, ¶¶ 231-232.
`
`Regarding the CCM’s role as “interface,” the ’850 patent explains that the
`
`CCM “can be easily updated to work with a new communication protocol without
`
`20
`
`modifying the core hospitality applications.” Ex. 1001 at 11:27-32. Brandt’s
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`CBM2015-00091, Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response, Paper No. 19
`
`gateway provides the same benefit. While HTTP is used on the client side, the
`
`gateway uses a “native command interface” to communicate with the applications.
`
`Ex. 1005, ¶ 97. As a result, the applications can “remain unchanged even if the
`
`web inte
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
