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
`____________
`
`MAIL STOP PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`Post Office Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
`
`Submitted Electronically via the Patent Review Processing System
`
`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`

`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`CBM2015-00091
`
`Page
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`STATEMENT OF PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED .....................................1
`
`INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................1
`
`III.
`
`THE PETITION DOES NOT ESTABLISH STANDING..............................12
`
`IV. OVERVIEW....................................................................................................13
`
`A. 35 U.S.C. §103 Overview ..........................................................................13
`
`B. Overview Of Helal Declaration Errors And Omissions.............................18
`
`C. Overview Of Helal 2004 Patent Application .............................................20
`
`V.
`
`THE PETITION SHOULD BE REJECTED FOR IMPROPER
`INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE..........................................................24
`
`VI. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ............................................................................26
`
`A. PO’s Proposals In Juxtaposition To Petitioner’s Flawed
`Invalidity Challenges .................................................................................28
`
`1. “wireless handheld computing device”.................................................29
`
`2. “central database” .................................................................................29
`
`3. “web page”............................................................................................29
`
`4. “communications control module” .......................................................30
`
`5. “synchronized”......................................................................................30
`
`6. “applications and data are synchronized between the central database,
`at least one wireless handheld computer, at least one web server
`and at least one web page”....................................................................30
`
`7. “wireless handheld computing device on which hospitality
`applications and data are stored” ..........................................................31
`
`8. “hospitality applications”......................................................................32
`
`9. “API,” “outside applications” and “integration”...................................33
`
`ii
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00091
`10.“single point of entry for all hospitality applications”..........................34
`
`11.“automatic” ...........................................................................................35
`
`12.“digital data transmission”....................................................................35
`
`VII. PETITIONER HAS NOT SHOWN THAT ANY OF CLAIMS 12-16
`ARE MORE LIKELY THAN NOT INVALID UNDER
`35 U.S.C. §112 ..................................................................................36
`
`A. “Hospitality Applications And Data”.........................................................37
`
`1. Enablement ...........................................................................................37
`
`2. Definiteness...........................................................................................40
`
`3. Written Description...............................................................................41
`
`B. “Communications Control Module” ..........................................................42
`
`1. Enablement ...........................................................................................42
`
`2. Definiteness...........................................................................................43
`
`3. Written Description...............................................................................43
`
`C. “Software Libraries” ..................................................................................44
`
`D. “Claims As A Whole” Are Enabled...........................................................45
`
`VIII. PETITIONER HAS NOT SHOWN THAT ANY OF CLAIMS 12-16
`ARE MORE LIKELY THAN NOT OBVIOUS.............................................46
`
`A. Overview....................................................................................................46
`
`B. Neither Challenge Provides A Teaching Or Suggestion Of “A Central
`Database Containing Hospitality Applications And Data” ........................51
`
`C. Neither Challenge Provides Disclosure of A Teaching Or Suggestion
`Of “Hospitality Applications And Data” Which Are “Stored” On A
`Wireless Handheld Computing Device......................................................53
`
`D. 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 ...............................................................57
`
`iii
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00091
`E. Neither Challenge Provides A Teaching Or Suggestion Of The
`“Communications Control Module” Functionality Of Claim 12 ...............57
`
`F. Neither Challenge Identifies A Teaching Or Suggestion Of “Wherein
`Applications And Data Are Synchronized Between The Central Data
`Base, At Least One Wireless Handheld Computing Device, At Least
`One Web Server And At Least One Web Page”........................................58
`
`G. Neither Challenge Provides Disclosure Or Suggestion Of Hospitality
`Application Functionality As Required By Claims 12-16 .........................61
`
`H. Integration/API/Outside Applications........................................................62
`
`I. Dependent Claims ......................................................................................63
`
`J. Objective Evidence Of Non-Obviousness..................................................65
`
`IX.
`
`PETITIONER HAS NOT SHOWN THAT ANY OF CLAIMS 12-16
`ARE MORE LIKELY THAN NOT INVALID UNDER
`35 U.S.C. §101 ..................................................................................76
`
`X.
`
`CONCLUSION ...............................................................................................80
`
`iv
`
`

`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`
`CBM2015-00091
`
`Page
`
`ActiveVideo Networks, Inc. v. Verizon, Inc.
`694 F.3d 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2012).......................................................................47
`
`Agilysys, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc.
`CBM2014-00015 (Paper 20) (Mar. 26, 2014).................................................37
`
`Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Intl.
`134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014) ......................................................................76, 77, 78, 79
`
`Allen Archery, Inc. v. Browning Mfg. Co.
`819 F.2d 1087 (Fed. Cir. 1987).......................................................................70
`
`Amgen, Inc. v. Hoechst Marion Roussel, Inc.
`314 F.3d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2003).......................................................................39
`
`Apple v. ContentGuard, Inc.
`CBM2015-00046, Paper 12.............................................................................13
`
`Ariad Pharm., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co.
`598 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2010).................................................................... 37, 42
`
`Biosig Instruments, Inc. v. Nautilus, Inc.
`No. 2014-1289, at 6-7 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 27, 2015).............................................36
`
`Bloomberg L.P. v. Quest Corp.
`CBM2014-00205, Paper No. 16......................................................................13
`
`CBS v. Sylvania., Inc.
`415 F.2d 719 (1st Cir. 1969), cert. denied, 396 U.S. 1061 (1970)................ 67
`
`Cisco Systems, Inc., v. C-Cation Techs., LLC
`IPR2014-00454, Paper 12 at 10 (PTAB Aug. 29, 2014).................................25
`
`Continental Can Co. v. Monsanto Co.
`948 F.2d 1264 (Fed. Cir. 1991).......................................................................17
`
`v
`
`

`
`DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, LP
`No. 2013-1505 at 20 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 5, 2014).............................................. 77, 78
`
`CBM2015-00091
`
`DeSilva v. DiLeonardi
`181 F.3d 865 (7th Cir. 1999)...........................................................................25
`
`Falko-Gunter Falkner v. Inglis
`448 F.3d 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2006).......................................................................42
`
`Free Motion Fitness, Inc. v. Cybex Int’l, Inc.
`423 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2005).......................................................................63
`
`Heidelberger v. Hantscho Prods.
`21 F.3d 1068 (Fed. Cir. 1994).........................................................................73
`
`Hockerson-Halberstadt, Inc. v. Converse Inc.
`183 F.3d 1369 (Fed. Cir. 1999).......................................................................27
`
`In re Carroll
`601 F.2d 1184 (CCPA 1979)............................................................................6, 8
`
`In re Gardner
`480 F.2d 879 (CCPA 1973).............................................................................41
`
`In re Koller
`613 F.2d 819 (CCPA 1980).............................................................................41
`
`In re Papst Licensing Digital Camera Patent Litigation
`778 F.3d 1255 (Fed. Cir. 2015).......................................................................28
`
`In re Ratti
`270 F.2d 810 (CCPA 1959).............................................................................49
`
`In re Roufett
`149 F.1350 (Fed. Cir. 1998)............................................................................73
`
`In Re Sponnoble
`405 F.2d 578 (CCPA 1969).............................................................................16
`
`In re Wands
`858 F.2d 731 (Fed. Cir. 1988)...................................................................... 36, 39
`
`vi
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00091
`
`Interconnect Planning Corp. v. Feil
`774 F.2d 1132 (Fed. Cir. 1985) .......................................................................16
`
`Johns Hopkins v. CellPro, Inc.
`152 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 1998).........................................................................5
`
`Oakley, Inc. v. Sunglass Hut Int'l
`316 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2003).................................................................9, 19
`
`Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc.
`134 S. Ct. 2120 (2014) ........................................................................9, 36, 40, 43
`
`Plantronics, Inc. v. Aliph, Inc.
`724 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2013).......................................................................17
`
`Power-One, Inc. v. Artesyn Tech., Inc.
`599 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2010).......................................................................74
`
`Rambus Inc. v. Rea
`731 F.3d 1248 (Fed. Cir. 2013).......................................................................68
`
`Tempur Sealy Int'l, Inc. v. Select Comfort Corp.
`IPR 2014-01419, Paper 7 (PTAB Feb. 17, 2015) ........................................ 25, 26
`
`Teva Pharm., Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc.
`723 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2013).......................................................................68
`
`Travelocity v. Cronos Tech.
`CBM2014-00082, Paper No. 10 at 14.............................................................27
`
`Travelocity v. Cronos Tech.
`CBM2014-00082, Paper No. 12 at 4-5............................................................56
`
`Union Pacific Res. Co. v. Chesapeake Energy Corp.
`236 F.3d 684 (Fed. Cir. 2001).........................................................................44
`
`Unique Concepts, Inc. v. Brown
`939 F.2d 1558 (Fed. Cir. 1991).................................................................... 31, 53
`
`V-Formation, Inc. v. Benetton Group SpA
`401 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2005).........................................................................2
`
`vii
`
`

`
`Other
`
`CBM2015-00091
`
`37 C.F.R. §42.6(a)(3) ..................................................................................................8
`
`37 C.F.R. §42.22(a)(2) ................................................................................................8
`
`37 C.F.R. §42.104(b)(4) ..............................................................................................8
`
`37 C.F.R. §42.104(b)(5) ..............................................................................................8
`
`37 C.F.R. §42.207(a) ...................................................................................................1
`
`35 U.S.C. §101 ..............................................................................................1, 18, 76, 80
`
`35 U.S.C. §102 ............................................................................................................8
`
`35 U.S.C. §103 ....................................................................1, 2, 8, 12, 25, 46, 47, 49, 80
`
`35 U.S.C. §112 ......................................................................1, 3, 4, 5, 36, 37, 46, 79, 80
`
`35 U.S.C. §312(a)(3) ...................................................................................................8
`
`35 U.S.C. §314(d)........................................................................................................1
`
`Microsoft Comp. Dict. (4th ed.1999) ................................................................29, 34, 35
`
`MPEP §2163..............................................................................................................19
`
`viii
`
`

`
`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
`
`ix
`
`

`
`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)
`
`x
`
`

`
`2023
`
`2024
`
`2025
`
`2026
`
`2027
`
`2028
`
`2029
`2030
`
`2031
`
`2032
`
`2033
`
`2034
`
`2035
`
`2036
`
`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)
`
`xi
`
`

`
`I.
`
`STATEMENT OF PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED
`In accordance with 37 C.F.R. §42.207(a), Patent Owner, Ameranth, Inc.,
`
`CBM2015-00091
`
`(“PO”) submits this Preliminary Response to Petitioner Starbucks’ belated,
`
`second, Covered Business Method (“CBM”) review (“Petition” or “Pet.”) against
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,384,850 ("the ‘850 patent"). For the reasons given below, the
`
`Petition for review of claims 12-16 should be denied because the claims are not
`
`invalid under 35 U.S.C. §§101, 103 or 112.
`II.
`INTRODUCTION
`Petitioner Starbucks’ first attempt to invalidate original claims 12-16 of the
`
`‘850 patent based on 35 U.S.C. §§101/112 (filed 16 months earlier) failed entirely,
`
`just as this belated second attempt under 35 U.S.C. §§101/112/103 fails. This second
`
`Petition is in material respects a “do over” challenge to the failed §§101/112 grounds
`
`and is in actuality merely an attempt to circumvent the non-appealability of the
`original non-institution ruling on these grounds (which is prohibited by statute1).
`The only grounds in the Petition which is arguably not redundant of the grounds
`
`put forth in CBM2014-00015 is a baseless §103 challenge which does not even
`
`include a reference disclosing the recited “hospitality applications” and fails on
`numerous other bases as detailed below.2 In fact, PO can only assume that the
`
`1 Under 35 U.S.C. §314(d), “The determination by the Director whether to institute an
`inter partes review (IPR) under this section shall be final and nonappealable.” The
`same “nonappealable” language is found in the AIA sections governing CBM review.
`2 Petitioner relies on a travel/transportation reference, despite the fact that neither
`“travel” nor “transportation” appear even once anywhere in the intrinsic record, and
`the intrinsic-evidence based construction of “hospitality” excludes embodiments such
`as airline, rail, auto or other transportation applications. The patent and prosecution
`history usually provide "the technological and temporal context to enable the court to
`ascertain the meaning of the claim to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
`1
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00091
`
`§103 challenge was put forth merely to include some grounds which were not
`
`argued in the first Petition (CBM2014-00015). Petitioner and its expert, Helal,
`
`do not even acknowledge the first Petition or that the March 26, 2014 non-
`
`institution ruling regarding claims 12-16 ever happened. This is confirmed by
`
`the Petition’s using the same verbiage in making its redundant §101 challenge,
`
`against these very same claims, as was used in the prior Petition, for example:
`The Challenged Claims are “do it on a computer” claims. They are
`directed to fundamental and abstract activities in the hospitality industry
`such as ordering food and making reservations.
`Pet. at 69 (emphasis added). Petitioner made this very same allegation before:
`Claims 12-16 cover nothing more than an abstract idea of placing an
`order or reservation using a general purpose computer and wireless
`handheld device
`CBM2014-00015, Paper 9 at 9 (emphasis added). However, the PTAB rejected it:
`We do not view these claims as reciting merely the abstract idea of
`“placing an order or reservation using a general purpose computer
`and wireless handheld device,” but rather as a particular practical
`application of the idea of application and data synchronization.
`Id. Paper 20 at 24 (emphasis added). Further, the PTAB clearly recognized the multi-
`
`faceted specificity and hence non-abstractness of claims 12-16 in the prior proceeding:
`The combination of these components interact in a specific way to
`synchronize applications and data between the components and outside
`application that is integral to the claimed invention and meaningfully
`limit these claims.
`Id. Paper 20 at 24 (emphasis added). Despite the Board’s clarity in its non-appealable
`
`invention." V-Formation, Inc. v. Benetton Group SpA, 401 F.3d 1307, 1310 (Fed. Cir.
`2005). Petitioner’s assertion that “renting cars” is a “hospitality application” fails
`under a proper construction as discussed below.
`2
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00091
`
`ruling, Petitioner clearly is repeating the same failed arguments in an attempt to
`
`circumvent the prior ruling and its non-appealability. This attempt is the hallmark of
`
`what the Board’s non-redundancy precedent was designed to prevent.
`
`Petitioner tries essentially the same tactic in its “second bite at the apple”
`
`attempt under §112, serially lodging challenges to terms of the claims irrespective
`
`of the loss of prior challenges under §112 and the non-appealability of the
`
`Board’s decision on the prior §112 grounds. PO submits that nothing has
`changed in the claims since Petitioner filed its first §112 challenges,3 and thus
`there is no justification for allowing Petitioner to circumvent the non-
`
`appealability of the Board’s prior non-institution decision on the prior §112
`
`grounds. Petitioner’s full awareness of its later-asserted challenge at the time of the
`
`earlier petition compels dismissal of the second Petition for redundancy:
`[T]he present Petition amounts to a second bite at the apple for Petitioner
`… We are not persuaded that allowing Petitioner to begin a second
`proceeding now to argue a claim deficiency of which it was aware, but did
`not assert in the earlier Petition, is an appropriate circumstance in which
`to grant covered business method patent review … a decision on a petition
`for covered business method review is not simply part of a feedback loop
`by which a petitioner may perfect its challenges through a subsequent
`filing. … [I]f this present petition is rejected on the merits, Petitioners
`would simply file yet another petition for a CBM review that (again)
`attempts to address any reasons for denial articulated by the Board.
`CBM2015-00047, Paper 7 at 12-13 (June 15, 2015). Under Petitioner’s approach,
`
`serial petitions could be filed indefinitely by simply challenging one term at a
`
`3 See CBM2015-00047, Paper 7 at 11-12 (June 15, 2015) (“Petitioner does not argue
`that these additional claims could not have been challenged in the earlier Petition or
`explain why the claims were not challenged in the earlier Petition.”).
`3
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00091
`
`time a year and a half apart. PO submits that this is an abuse of the AIA intent.
`
`In any event, the patent description and claims clearly meet all
`
`requirements of §112, as shown below. Petitioner has come nowhere close to
`
`establishing otherwise. For example, “there is a strong presumption that an
`
`adequate written description of the claimed invention is present in the
`
`Specification as filed” (Exh. 2026 at 3) and it is an indisputable fact that there has
`
`never been a §112-based rejection or determination relative to the challenged
`claims.4 This spans 15 years of prosecution history (involving multiple patent
`examiners and multiple supervisory patent examiners), includes three different
`
`district court proceedings involving three different Federal Judges in claim
`
`construction proceedings, and includes a Panel of the PTAB reviewing the
`
`specification/drawings and rejecting all §112 challenges in the first petition filed
`by the present Petitioner. (CBM2014-00015).5
`The fact that numerous POSA have had no difficulty understanding the
`
`‘850 disclosure clearly serves to nullify Petitioner’s §112 arguments.
`
`Nevertheless, Petitioner and its expert incredibly now allege, in 2015, that
`
`everyone else was wrong in having no problem understanding the ‘850 patent
`
`4 Exh. 2026 at 3 (“The Examiner has the initial burden of presenting evidence or
`reasoning to explain why persons skilled in the art would not recognize in the original
`disclosure a description of the invention defined by the claims.”).
`5 Further, an independent examiner determined that the ‘850 patent
`specification/drawings anticipated a later and similar patent application (Final
`Rejection, App. Ser. No. 09/897,292, p. 5-7 (Exh. 2024). The examiner of this
`application was thus clearly able to read the specification/drawings, understand
`them, and then determine that the ‘850 patent alone taught every aspect of the
`claims of the application being reviewed.
`4
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00091
`
`and its claims and that Petitioner’s unilateral litigation-induced “confusion”
`
`warrants invalidation of these claims on multiple bases under §112.
`
`Further still, Petitioner’s new challenge alleging non-enablement of the
`
`patent ignores Petitioner’s own prior challenge/position, in which Petitioner
`admitted to the “enablement” of the “database on the handheld” embodiment6 in
`the first petition (CBM2014-00015). Black letter precedent requires only one
`
`embodiment to satisfy the enablement requirement–the “enablement requirement is
`met if the description enables any mode of making and using the invention.”7 But
`the PTAB has already rejected Petitioner’s contention that there was inadequate
`
`written description for the “web page” embodiments and in fact all claimed
`
`embodiments are enabled, but that is not even required to defeat the present
`
`enablement challenge. Additionally, Petitioner and its expert apparently did not
`
`even study the ‘850 file history; if they had, they would have seen that
`
`Ameranth’s original filing on September 21, 1999 included actual live screen
`
`shots from its only product at the time, the 21st Century Restaurant™ System, as
`
`evidenced by the logo on original Figures 1 and 6 (Exh. 2029), which clearly
`
`links this “working example” embodiment directly to the specification disclosure
`as a whole,8 contrary to Petitioner’s argument. (Pet. at 29-30).
`
`6 Petitioner stated: “the original specification only arguably supports one
`of these species–synchronizing information with a central database and a
`handheld device’s existing local copy of same.” CBM2014-00015, Paper 9 at 51
`(emphasis added).
`7 Ex parte Marcel, No. 2009-010632 at 6 (BPAI May 26, 2010) (Exh. 2027) (emphasis
`added) (quoting Johns Hopkins v. CellPro, Inc., 152 F.3d 1342, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
`8 The contemporaneous and widespread acclaim that Ameranth received for the
`5
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00091
`
`Evidence compelling rejection of the Petition comes from Petitioner
`
`Starbucks itself, in which Starbucks praised the inventions (discussed below),
`
`and from undisclosed evidence of Starbucks’ technical expert Helal. This
`
`undisclosed evidence not only directly contradicts and nullifies Helal’s
`
`hindsight-based Declaration in support of the Petition, but actually serves as an
`
`expert opinion confirming patentability of the challenged claims as documented
`
`and explained below. The PTAB has recently confirmed that earlier expert
`opinions, untainted by hindsight or bias, are very compelling.9
`After founding Phoneomena, Inc. in 2002 (the first of his two different
`mobile middleware companies in Ameranth’s technical and product space10),
`Petitioner’s expert Helal filed a patent application which included numerous core
`
`features of the ‘850 patent/claims (filed on January 15, 2004 and claiming a
`priority date of January 15, 2003,11 both several years after Ameranth’s
`
`21st Century Restaurant™ system (also ignored by Petitioner as discussed
`below) clearly demonstrates that Ameranth had developed and deployed working
`examples of its sole product as detailed in the application filing inclusion of
`“screen shots” of same.
`9 Ex parte PPG, No. 2013-006445 at 12 (PTAB June 1, 2015) (Exh. 2028) (“Unlike
`the usual expert opinion, prepared either by the applicant himself, or on his behalf
`after the controversy has arisen, Dr. Merkal’s opinion was formulated prior to the
`making of the claimed invention. It was therefore completely untainted by either
`hindsight or bias.”) (emphasis added) (quoting In re Carroll, 601 F.2d 1184, 1186
`(CCPA 1979)).
`10 “[H]e is founder, President and CEO of Phoneomena, Inc., a mobile application and
`middleware company, and President of Pervasa, Inc., a University of Florida start-up
`focused on platform and middleware products for sensor networks.” (Exh. 2030 at 1).
`11 Ser. No. 10/758,180 (“Server Side Wireless Development Tool”) (Exh. 2031).
`6
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00091
`
`inventive priority date but years before he was retained by Petitioner to provide
`
`his 2015 Declaration). In this application, which is discussed fully below in
`
`comparison to the subject matter of ‘850 claims 12-16, Helal claimed many of
`
`Ameranth’s core inventive ideas for himself–even including a “hotel
`
`reservations” embodiment. However, none of this was disclosed in Helal’s CV
`
`filed in this PTAB proceeding. This circumstance is just such a situation
`
`recognized by the Board as providing compelling evidence untainted by
`
`hindsight or bias. Helal’s 2004 application was accompanied by a sworn
`
`statement that “I believe that I am the original and first inventor of the subject
`
`matter.” (Exh. 2032). This statement completely contradicts his new opinions as
`
`detailed below. The earlier application and sworn statement thus negates all of
`
`Helal’s 2015 hindsight-based, litigation-induced, obviousness opinions and in
`
`fact demonstrates non-obviousness. Helal’s allegation that everything in the
`claims was known in 199912 does not withstand even cursory scrutiny.
`Thus, while now, under retention to Petitioner, Helal asserted that he could
`
`not even understand ‘850 claims 12-16 and that all features in them were
`
`obvious and well known in 1999, he did not mention or disclose that he had
`
`sought a patent for himself and asserted novelty of several of the same features
`
`present in ‘850 claims 12-16 four years after the ‘850 patent priority date and
`
`after it was publicly announced and available to him and others. Beyond refuting
`
`12 Helal stated that “[n]one of the features described in Claims 12-16 of the ‘850
`patent was novel as of the earliest priority date, nor does the ‘850 patent teach a
`novel and non-obvious way of combining the known features.” (Exh. 1003 at ¶11)
`(emphasis added).
`
`7
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00091
`
`his 2015 opinions, Helal’s earlier 2003 application and declaration asserting that
`
`he was the “first inventor” of those ideas actually serves as an expert opinion for
`
`Ameranth–confirming the patentability of all challenged claims. See Ex Parte
`
`PPG, Appeal No. 2013-006445 at 12 (Exh. 2028) (“opinion [] formulated prior to
`
`the making of the claimed invention ... was therefore completely untainted by either
`
`hindsight or bias”) (quoting In re Carroll, 601 F.2d at 1186).
`
`The Petition also violates and/or ignores multiple case law directives, precedent,
`rules and regulations, each violation individually compelling denial.13 Petitioner’s
`expert Helal in fact followed Petitioner counsel’s opinions on the law,14 not the actual
`law or AIA implementing Regulations. However, counsel failed to advise him, inter
`
`alia, that his U.S.C. §103 analysis was required to consider the objective evidence of
`
`non-obviousness. Having failed to acknowledge that requirement, and more
`
`importantly not having done it, Helal’s obviousness opinions innately fail as violative
`
`of established Supreme Court precedent. Further still, despite criticizing almost every
`
`term in the claims as either indefinite, lacking written description and/or not enabled,
`
`seemingly miraculously, Helal was still able to opine that his hindsight-based prior art
`
`combinations render the claims obvious–despite, by his own admission, being
`“bewildered”15 by the core synchronization of these claims. In fact, it is only his
`
`13 The Petition violated numerous rules/requirements promulgated under the AIA,
`including: 37 C.F.R. §42.6(a)(3); 37 C.F.R. §42.22(a)(2); 37 C.F.R. §42.104(b)(4); 37
`C.F.R. §42.104(b)(5) and 35 U.S.C. §312(a)(3).
`14 Helal Dec., Exhibit 1003 ¶12(“It is my opinion that each of Claims 12-16 of the ‘850
`patent is invalid for being obvious under the patentability standards of 35 U.S.C. §§
`102 and 103 explained to me by Starbucks counsel as stated below.”).
`15 Helal Dec. at ¶101 (Exh. 1003) (“Synchronizing applications between a database, a
`8
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00091
`
`inconsistent and self-contradicted opinion that is truly “bewildering.” Helal did not
`
`provide a single claim