§E2 ‘
`
`lE
`i2
`l2
`
`l
`
`
`
`Serial No. 11/112,990
`
`Docket No. l004293.005US
`
`VII. A NUMBER OF DEPENDENT CLAIMS ARE SEPARATELY AND
`
`INDEPENDENTLY PATENTABLE OVER THE CITED REFERENCES
`
`The dependent claims are believed to be allowable on the same bases as independent
`
`claims 103, 118 and 122 as discussed above. The Applicants also assert that various of the
`
`dependent claims are independently patentable as follows.
`
`The Examiner cited the Micros ’92 reference as purportedly describing the automatic
`
`generation and transmission of the “second menu” from the master menu as previously claimed
`
`in dependent claim 104. First, “second menu” has been replaced in the claims with
`
`“programmed handheld menu configuration.” Further, the citation from page 8 of the Micros
`
`’92 reference relied on by the Examiner in no teaches or suggests the generation of a menu
`
`configuration from a master menu. As explained previously, a database is not synonymous with
`
`nor suggestive of a programmed menu configuration. Thus, the downloading of a database
`
`update is not the generation and transmission of a programmed handheld menu configuration,
`
`automatic or otherwise. Moreover, claim 104 has been amended to add the following recitation:
`
`wherein the menu configuration software is further enabled to automatically
`generate the programmed handheld menu configuration for display using more
`screens than the number of screens configured to display the master menu and
`wherein the menu configuration software is also enabled to generate the
`programmed handheld menu configuration to facilitate user operations with and
`display of the programmed handheld menu configuration on the display screen of
`the handheld graphical user interface of the wireless handheld computing device
`such that the programmed handheld menu configuration as displayed on the
`handheld graphical user interface appears to a user to be substantially similar to
`the master menu as displayed on the first graphical user interface
`
`The Applicants respectfully assert that these further amendments to claim 104 further distinguish
`
`over the references cited by the Examiner and that claim 104 is independently patentable.
`
`Applicants thus request that this rejection be withdrawn.
`
`_ 51 -
`
`Petitioners‘ Exhibit 1012, Page 531
`
` 531
`
`Petitioners' Exhibit 1012, Page
`
`

`
`Serial No. 11/112,990
`
`Docket No. lO04293.005US
`
`The Examiner cited the Micros ’97 reference as describing the additional subject matter
`
`recited by dependent claim 105, i.e., that the system is configured to automatically generate and
`
`transmit the “second menu” from the master menu in response to at least one of a predetermined
`
`time, or the occurrence of an event or a change in the master menu. First, “second menu” has
`
`been replaced in the claims with “programmed handheld menu configuration.” Moreover, as
`
`discussed above, the Micros references do not teach or suggest generating a programmed
`
`handheld menu configuration from a master menu file structure for transmission to a wireless
`
`handheld computing device, and thus the Micros references do not teach or suggest the automatic
`
`generation and transmission of such a menu configuration in response to the recited criteria.
`
`Applicants therefore respectfully assert that claim 105 is independently patentable and that this
`
`rejection should therefore be withdrawn.
`
`Claims 106 and 120 have been amended to further clarify that “information comprising at
`
`least a part of the programmed handheld menu configuration is synchronized in real time
`
`between multiple hospitality software applications.” Claim 123 has been amended to further
`
`clarify that “the hospitality application information simultaneously synchronizes to and from at
`
`least two” types of hospitality application information systems. The Applicants respectfully
`
`assert that nothing in any of the cited references teaches or suggest this claimed aspect. The
`
`cited passage from Micros ’97 relied on by the Examiner as teaching the recitations of claims
`
`106, 120 and 123 is not applicable to the claimed subject matter. These dependent claims, as
`
`amended, further recite that the hospitality applications include at least two of point of sale
`
`systems, reservations, waitlists, frequent customer or ticketing programs. The passage from
`
`Micros ’97 relates merely to database creation and editing, it does not relate to synchronization
`
`§ i
`
`-52-
`
`Petitioners‘ Exhibit 1012, Page 532
`
` 532
`
`Petitioners' Exhibit 1012, Page
`
`

`
`Serial No. 11/112,990
`
`Docket No. 1004293.005US
`
`of mgmpk hospitality applications in real time, or simultaneously, as presently claimed.
`
`Applicants therefore respectfully assert that claims 106, 120 and 123 are independently
`
`patentable and that this rejection should therefore be withdrawn.
`
`Claim 107 has been amended to recite that the system is enabled to transmit user
`
`selections from the programmed handheld menu configuration via the internet. The wireless link
`
`recitation has been removed. Nothing in any of the cited references teaches or suggests the
`
`transmission of user selections from a handheld device via the internet. Applicants therefore
`
`respectfully assert that claim 107 is independently patentable and that this rejection should
`
`therefore be withdrawn.
`
`Claims 108 and 121 have been amended to recite that the system is enabled to
`
`automatically reflect user selections from the programmed handheld menu configuration in “real
`
`time on two or more other different—type display elements of the system.” Applicants
`
`respectfully submit that nothing in any of the cited references taught or suggested this claimed
`
`aspect. The citation from Micros ’97 relied on by the Examiner to reject these claims previous to
`
`the present amendments relates to ordering of limited availability items and in no way relates to
`
`the claims as amended. Applicants thus request that these claims be allowed.
`
`Claim 109 has been amended to recite that the programmed handheld menu configuration
`
`is formatted for display as cascaded sets of linked graphical user interface screens appropriate for
`
`the display parameters of “at least two different wireless handheld computing device display
`
`sizes in the same connected system.” Applicants respectfully submit that nothing in any of the
`
`cited references taught or suggested this claimed aspect. As discussed above, there is no
`
`teaching or suggestion in any of the cited references of generating such a programmed handheld
`
`-53-
`
`Petitioners‘ Exhibit 1012, Page 533
`
`
`
`mas:mmwmmmnmmm$.».smm¢a..mw.w;w..aNaWm“.mw..w..um~.aw..m...M....i.i....W...A.,...............11.f\\‘V|\l\\VL\|‘W
`
`
`
`
`
` 533
`
`Petitioners' Exhibit 1012, Page
`
`

`
`
`
`Serial No. 11/112,990
`
`Docket No. l004293.005US
`
`menu configuration for even one size handheld display, let alone two different ones. Applicants
`
`therefore request that this rejection be withdrawn.
`
`The cited passage from Micros relied on by the Examiner as teaching the recitation of
`
`claim 110 is not applicable to the claimed subject matter. This dependent claim further recites
`
`that the modifiers and sub—modifiers in either the master or programmed handheld menu
`
`configurations may be further configured to be either ”required” or “not required.” It is true that
`
`the Micros references relate to a POS system which, like most “fixed” POS systems, allowed for
`
`“required” or “not required” modifiers and sub-modifiers. However, these functions are special
`
`parameters which directly impact the logic flow and user interface linkages of a menu system,
`
`fixed or otherwise. Incorporation of such functionality in a handheld menu requires the creation
`
`of cascading links of a significantly greater number of smaller screen menus unique to the
`
`display characteristics of handhelds and thus the logic flow linkages and their associated rules
`
`have to be adapted in the “handheld menu” generation to reflect and maintain these new screen
`
`linkages and flows. Having this basic menu feature on a fixed POS system does not translate
`
`straightforwardly to handheld/smart phones since the particular menu pages and button links for
`
`the handheld menu are substantially different vis-a—vis the master menu. This rejection should
`
`therefore also be withdrawn.
`
`The Examiner applied the Micros ’97 reference against the recitations of claims 115 and
`
`127 that the wireless computing device is a smart phone or other consumer wireless
`
`communications device. As discussed with the Examiner in the July 21, 2009 Interview, claims
`
`115 and 127 have been amended to delete “or other consumer wireless communications device.”
`
`This rejection should thus be withdrawn. Moreover, as discussed above, the Micros references
`
`- 54 _
`
`Petitioners‘ Exhibit 1012, Page 534
`
` 534
`
`Petitioners' Exhibit 1012, Page
`
`

`
`irE
`
`E Ei
`
`s‘
`E)3
`..
`
`
`
`Serial No. 11/112,990
`
`Docket No. 1004293.005US
`
`teach away from the claimed synchronous, real time system involving, e.g., programmed
`
`handheld menu configurations generated for handheld devices or the internet, by describing
`
`configuration and “programming” of displays on the device, not prior to transmission to the
`
`target device as presently claimed. Further, “smart phones” inherently require no
`
`“installer/pro grammer” and thus further negate any possible use of the Micros HHT limitations
`
`toward this dependent claim and, as previously stated, the aspects of the Micros ’97 reference
`
`necessary to in combination support the rejection of this claim cannot be found in that reference.
`
`The Micros HHT was not a consumer wireless communication device but that rejection has
`
`nonetheless been obviated because claims 115 and 127 are now limited to a smart phone, which
`
`the HHT clearly was not. The rejections of claims 115 and 127 should thus be withdrawn.
`
`Claim 117 has been amended to recite specifics as to the configuration of the
`
`programmed handheld menu configuration, i.e., that “wherein one or more of layout, views or
`
`fonts of the programmed handheld menu configuration are created in conformity with the display
`
`screen parameters of the wireless handheld computing device and wherein the system is enabled
`
`to generate the programmed handheld menu configuration for user review prior to transmission
`
`of the programmed handheld menu configuration” to the wireless handheld computing device.
`
`Applicants respectfully submit that nothing in any of the cited references taught or suggested
`
`these claimed aspects. Applicants thus request that this claim be allowed.
`
`Claim 119 has been amended to recite that the system is further configured such that
`
`“multiple menu screens are capable of being displayed on the handheld graphical user interface
`,7
`simultaneously. Nothing in any of the cited references teaches or suggests this claimed aspect.
`
`-55-
`
`Petitioners‘ Exhibit 1012, Page 535
`
` 535
`
`Petitioners' Exhibit 1012, Page
`
`

`
`Serial No. 11/112,990
`
`Docket No. 1004293.005US
`
`Applicants therefore respectfully assert that claim 119 is independently patentable and that this
`
`rejection should therefore be withdrawn.
`
`The Applicants respectfully disagree with the Examiner’s citation of the transmission of
`
`order information to the base station from the HHT device as teaching the limitations of
`
`dependent claims 124 and 125. As discussed above, the HHT/Micros 8700 systems did not
`
`comprise, teach nor suggest a real time synchronous system involving selections made from
`
`handheld or Web page menu configurations.
`
`For the stated reasons, Applicants respectfully request that the above-discussed
`
`dependent claims be allowed for these additional reasons.
`
`VIII. THE PRESENTLY SUBMITTED 1.132 DECLARATION PROVIDES
`
`SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE OF SECONDARY INDICIA OF
`
`NONOBVIOUSNESS OF THE PRESENTLY—CLAIMED INVENTION
`
`Under long-standing Supreme Court precedent, the analysis of “secondary
`
`considerations” is a required part of any obviousness/nonobviousness determination:
`
`Under § 103, the scope and content of the prior art are to be determined;
`differences between the prior art and the claims at issue are to be ascertained; and
`the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art resolved. Against this background,
`the obviousness or nonobviousness of the subject matter is determined. Such
`secondary considerations as commercial success, long felt but unsolved needs,
`failure of others, etc., might be utilized to give light to the circumstances
`surrounding the origin of the subject matter sought to be patented.
`
`KSR Int '1 Co. v. Teleflex Inc. et al., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007) (quoting Graham v. John Deere
`
`Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17-18 (1966)).
`
`The Supreme Court stated further in KSR:
`
`While the sequence of these questions might be reordered in any
`particular case, the factors continue to define the inguigy that
`controls.
`
`-56-
`
`Petitioners‘ Exhibit 1012, Page 535
`
` wmmmwmw mmm«mmmm»m«»me«mvm.ae.n.xwa»..»¢,rums.m««Wwm
`
` 536
`
`Petitioners' Exhibit 1012, Page
`
`

`
`Serial No. 11/112,990
`
`Docket No. lO04293.005US
`
`KSR, 550 U.S. at 407 (emphasis added).
`
`[O]f particular importance beyond the prima facie analysis, this court also detects
`evidence of objective criteria showing nonobviousness. Specifically, the record
`shows powerful unexpected results .
`.
`. The record also shows skepticism of
`experts and copying -- other respected sources of objective evidence of
`nonobviousness —— as well as commercial success. As this court has repeatedly
`explained, this evidence is not just a cumulative or confirmatory part of the
`obviousness calculus but constitutes independent evidence of nonobviousness.
`
`Ortho-McNeil Pharm, Inc., v. Mylan Labs., Inc., 520 F.3d 1358, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2008)
`
`(following KSR v. Teleflex) (emphasis added).
`
`Applicants believe the 37 C.F.R. 1.132 Declaration of Keith R. McNally submitted
`
`herewith provides particularly compelling evidence of secondary considerations which confirm
`
`the uniqueness and nonobviousness of this breakthrough invention. While “looking back” (a
`
`decade or more) at paper documents can provide one perspective on novelty and obviousness,
`
`such post-hoc analysis cannot be divorced from what really happened at the time of the invention
`
`and thereafter. The contemporaneous actions, decisions and technology/market adoptions (when
`
`subj ect to confirmation, as is the case with this invention) offers a compelling and, Applicants
`
`assert, dispositive conclusion of the uniqueness and breakthrough aspects of Ameranth’s
`
`invention as presently claimed. See Ortho McNeil v. Mylan, 520 F.3d at 1365 (following KSR v.
`
`Teleflex) (“this evidence is not just a cumulative or confirmatory part of the obviousness calculus
`
`but constitutes independent evidence of nonobviousness”).
`
`It was extraordinary for the leading software and wireless computing companies in the
`
`entire world (Microsoft/Symbol) to not only have partnered with Ameranth (the assignee of the
`
`present application) but to have made strategic, multi-million dollar investments into Ameranth
`
`-57-
`
`Petitioners‘ Exhibit 1012, Page 537
`
`
`
`
`
`» :x«mmammvgxaxmmwmamwammmmmsmwwmm“ma»;WmWm.WWm.,...,¢.aW.r,..M,r,1
`
` 537
`
`Petitioners' Exhibit 1012, Page
`
`

`
`
`
`Serial No. l l/112,990
`
`Docket No. l004293.005US
`
`(during 1999/2000). Likewise, it was a conclusive market confirmation of the value and
`
`uniqueness of Ameranth’s solution that Food.Com (Cupps patent owner), the then leading
`
`intemet food ordering company (having raised $100M), as well as most of the leading point of
`
`sale companies (including Micros), and other related technology companies all partnered with,
`
`licensed or sought to license Ameranth’s inventive technology in 1999 and 2000. Then, on top
`
`of these industry technology adoptions, Ameranth won three major, best product/technology
`
`awards for its 21 St Century Restaurant System (the marketing name surrounding the core
`
`inventive concepts of the present application and claims), one of which was personally
`
`nominated by Bill Gates, Chairman of Microsoft. Further, Ameranth was universally recognized
`
`as the leading hospitality wireless systems integrator by the most prestigious and respected press
`
`and written publications - including both national publications (USA Today, Wall Street Journal,
`
`Time Magazine, The New York Times, The Chicago Sun Times and more) and the leading
`
`Hospitality Market Publications (Nations Restaurant News, Hospitality Technology, Franchise
`
`Times, Hotel Business and many more).
`
`As detailed in the 37 C.F.R. l.l32 Declaration of Keith R. McNally submitted herewith,
`
`the unprecedented recognition and adoptions of Ameranth’s inventions by the industry leaders,
`
`strategic partnering from and investing by the worlds most powerful technology companies, the
`
`widespread recognition of numerous major technology companies, the universal acclaim in best
`
`product technology awards and contemporaneously being recognized in almost all the leading
`
`press and publications leads to the undeniable conclusion that Ameranth’s synchronous “menu
`
`generation” invention was entirely new, unique, nonobvious and a true breakthrough.
`
`*
`
`>l<
`
`*
`
`-58-
`
`Petitioners‘ Exhibit 1012, Page 538
`
` 538
`
`Petitioners' Exhibit 1012, Page
`
`

`
` 23
`
`?2‘
`1%¢
`
`3 E%2 :3
`
`.
`
`‘Z
`lE
`
`i2§
`
` mmmwmw mmwmimmmmminwawmmsmmmmmyi.w;mmsm»wmmw\mmm»~;xaam
`
`Serial No. 11/112,990
`
`Docket No. 1004293.005US
`
`Neither of the cited references, either alone or in combination, describe or suggest the
`
`presently-claimed aspects of the Applicants’ claimed information management and real time
`
`synchronous communications system, nor would a person of ordinary skill in the art have known
`
`to supply either of the aspects missing from the descriptions of the cited references. Moreover,
`
`for at least the reasons stated above, there is no basis for imputing knowledge of any of the
`
`presently—claimed aspects missing from the cited references to a person of ordinary skill in the
`
`art or for combining any such imputed knowledge with either of the cited references. Further,
`
`the art made of record but not relied on by the Examiner in making the claims rejections does not
`
`supply the claimed aspects which are missing fiom the descriptions of the applied references, nor
`
`would the knowledge of a person skilled in the art combined with the art made of record supply
`
`the aspects missing from the cited references for the reasons stated above. The Applicants
`
`therefore believe the claims as presently presented are patentably distinguishable over the
`
`references of record, either alone or in combination.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`Based on the foregoing remarks and amendments, the Applicants respectfully request
`
`entry of the Amendment herein, reconsideration and withdrawal of the pending rejections and
`
`allowance of this application. The Applicants respectfully submit that claims 103-110 and 115-
`
`127 as amended are patentable and in condition for allowance. An early action passing this case
`
`to issue is therefore respectfully requested. Favorable and prompt consideration is requested.
`
`-59-
`
`Petitioners‘ Exhibit 1012, Page 539
`
` 539
`
`Petitioners' Exhibit 1012, Page
`
`

`
`Serial No. 11/112,990
`
`Docket No. 1004293.005US
`
`AUTHORIZATION
`
`Applicants believe that no additional fee is required as a result of the present
`
`Amendment. However, to the extent that any extension of time is necessary or any additional
`
`fees are required, Applicants hereby authorize the Commissioner to charge any additional fees,
`
`‘- or credit any overpayment, to Deposit Account No. 504827 (Order No. 1004293.005US).
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`LOCKE LORD BISSELL & LIDDELL LLP
`
`Dated: August 21, 2009
`
`CORRESPONDENCE ADDRESS:
`
`LOCKE LORD BISSELL & LIDDELL LLP
`
`3 World Financial Center
`
`New York, New York 10281
`(212) 415-8700 (Telephone)
`(212) 415-8701 (Facsimile)
`
`By‘
`J W. Osborne
`
`£0 . flwérvfl
`
`é
`
`Registration No. 36,231
`
`-50-
`
`Petitioners‘ Exhibit 1012, Page 540
`
` 540
`
`Petitioners' Exhibit 1012, Page
`
`

`
`Docket No. l004293.005US
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`Serial No.:
`
`11/112,990
`
`Confirmation No.:
`
`7098
`
`App1icant(s): McNally, et al.
`
`Group Art Unit:
`
`2191
`
`Filed:
`
`April 22, 2005
`
`Examiner:
`
`Brophy, Matthew
`
`Customer No.:
`
`27123
`
`For:
`
`INFORMATION MANAGEMENT AND SYNCHRONOUS COMMUNICATIONS
`
`SYSTEM WITH MENU GENERATION, AND HANDWRITING AND VOICE
`MODIFICATION OF ORDERS
`
`DECLARATION UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 1.132
`
`Commissioner for Patents
`
`P.O. Box 1450
`
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`Sir:
`
`I, the undersigned, Keith R. McNally, declare and state that:
`
`1.
`
`I am an inventor of the subject matter claimed in the above—identified patent
`
`application.
`
`I have first—hand knowledge as to all of the facts, all of the referenced Exhibits
`
`and all of the information contained herein.
`
`2.
`
`I make this declaration providing evidence of secondary factors to further
`
`support and confirm the establishment of the uniqueness and breakthrough aspects of
`
`Ameranth’s (the assignee of the present application) “menu wizard” and synchronous 21“
`
`Century Communications technology innovations (first introduced at the 1998 Food Service
`
`Technology show held in Atlanta, Georgia from November 14- 16, 1998 and then steadily
`
`advanced and introduced into the hospitality marketplace thereafter) which are encompassed
`
`Petitioners‘ Exhibit 1012, Page 541
`
` 541
`
`Petitioners' Exhibit 1012, Page
`
`

`
`by the presently—amended claims of the above—identified application. These technology
`
`introductions and innovations marked Ameranth’s transformation from its previous product
`
`focus on hardware/devices to software and systems integration, (which it has subsequently
`
`maintained). All of the attached and referenced enclosures; including business relationships,
`
`technology licenses, product announcements, press releases, strategic alliances and news
`
`reports all revolve around Ameranth’s breakthrough technology innovations originally
`
`introduced at the November 1998 FSTEC show and then steadily commercialized by
`
`Ameranth on an on—going basis. The referenced Exhibits discussed herein and attached
`
`hereto supporting this Declaration primarily focus on the years immediately following the
`
`introduction of Ameranth’s “menu wizar ” and synchronous communications technology
`
`(since I believe that this is the pertinent time period in which the contemporaneous market
`
`reaction confirmed the novelty and nonobviousness of this innovation). This timeframe
`
`focus is certainly not
`
`intended to reflect that Ameranth did not continue to excel
`
`in
`
`subsequent years with additional technology awards and adoptions by the world’s largest
`
`companies (e.g. Darden,
`
`the world’s largest casual dining chain) and (Intercontinental
`
`Hotels Group, the worlds largest hotel company) and with two additional major technology
`
`awards achieved by Ameranth. Both of these subsequent awards were “best product”
`
`awards, for the entire hospitality/wireless world/marketplace, one for the most innovative
`
`wireless product and the other for the best customer service solution.
`
`3.
`
`The collective actions and decisions made by the world’s leading technology
`
`companies, hospitality focused companies, national press, regional press, hospitality press,
`
`major hospitality customers and the public alike clearly and indisputably confirmed that
`
`Ameranth had invented an entirely new and truly unique solution to a previously unsolved
`
`Petitioners‘ Exhibit 1012, Page 542
`
` 542
`
`Petitioners' Exhibit 1012, Page
`
`

`
` and for which there was a very significant market need. Both Microsoft and
`
`Symbol Technologies,
`
`(the respective and recognized world leaders in software and
`
`rugged/mobile computing/LAN Wireless technology) not only partnered with Ameranth,
`
`but they both made strategic multi million dollar investments into Ameranth in 1999 and
`
`2000 (their only ones in this market segment). Obviously, Microsoft and Symbol could
`
`have chosen fly systems integrator in the world — yet they chose Ameranth, thus further
`
`confirming what the leading contemporaneous experts also confirmed, i.e., that Ameranth’s
`
`innovations were unique and breakthrough ones unavailable, at the time, from any other
`
`source.
`
`The totality of the evidence submitted herewith shows compelling industry
`
`recognition and adoption of Ameranth’s breakthrough technologies as encompassed by the
`
`claims of the present application.
`
`4.
`
`Ameranth’s significant impact in this marketplace was succinctly captured
`
`and summarized by Bill Gates’ (Microsoft’s founder and Chairman at the time) testimonial
`
`in personally nominating Ameranth for the 2001 Computerworld Honors Program award,
`
`which it subsequently won:
`
`[Ameranth] is one of the leading pioneers of the information technology
`revolution for the betterment of mankind.
`
`5.
`
`Further, many of
`
`the leading Hospitality “point of sale” companies
`
`(including Micros Systems) as well as Food.com (the leading intemet food ordering
`
`company) and many others also recognized the breakthrough innovations of Ameranth’s
`
`technology and either partnered with or sought to partner with Ameranth to obtain that
`
`technology. Ameranth was also recognized as the hospitality market wireless leader by
`
`numerous National (e.g., The New York Times, Wall Street Journal, USA Today, Time
`
`Magazine, Information Week and more) and Hospitality Market publications (Nations
`
`Petitioners‘ Exhibit 1012, Page 543
`
` 543
`
`Petitioners' Exhibit 1012, Page
`
`

`
`Restaurant News, Hotel Business, Franchise Times, Hospitality Technology and more) for
`
`its many revolutionary breakthroughs and innovations encompassed by the claims of the
`
`present application.
`
`6.
`
`Ameranth has also been repeatedly recognized with and awarded numerous
`
`“best product” technology awards as well as numerous technology grants/awards from the
`
`National Science Foundation.
`
`7.
`
`Supporting materials confirming the above points are attached as Exhibits
`
`hereto and summarized in the following paragraphs.
`
`8.
`
`Exhibit 1 is a November 14-16, 1998 photograph of Ameranth introducing
`
`its revolutionary “menu wizar ” and data synchronization technologies as part of its 21“
`
`Century RestaurantTM product vision at the 1998 FSTEC (Food Service Technology
`
`Show held in Atlanta, Georgia).
`
`I am seated, second from the left at the front table, with
`
`representatives of several of Ameranth’s strategic customers/partners.
`
`9.
`
`Exhibit 2 is a November 14-16, 1998 system diagram that was shown in
`
`the booth at the November 1998 FSTEC show in Ameranth’s booth as shown in Exhibit
`
`1. This system diagram reflected Ameranth’s inventive breakthroughs and was shown in
`
`the center of the booth as well as being distributed to key strategic partners, such as
`
`Symbol Technologies. A working demonstration of Ameranth’s invention accompanied
`
`this diagram and was shown concurrently in the booth.
`
`10.
`
`As detailed in my original and supplemental inventorship declarations
`
`under 37 C.F.R. l.l3l, Ameranth’s display and demonstration at the November 1998
`
`FSTEC show was of the subject matter encompassed by the claims of the present
`
`application. Moreover, the products displayed and demonstrated by Ameranth at the
`
`Petitioners‘ Exhibit 1012, Page 544
`
` 544
`
`Petitioners' Exhibit 1012, Page
`
`

`
`November 1998 FSTEC show and thereafter were the same technology referred to in all
`
`of the Exhibits referenced herein. My 1.131 Declarations together with the present
`
`Declaration thus establish a nexus between the evidence submitted herein and the claimed
`
`invention, i.e., the objective evidence of nonobviousness presented herein is attributable
`
`to the claimed invention.
`
`11.
`
`Exhibit 3 is another system diagram from December 1998/January 1999
`
`further reflecting Ameranth’s synchronous communications inventive aspects as part of
`
`Ameranth’s trademark for its 21“ Century CommunicationsTM. This was shown to and
`
`discussed with Symbol and John Major, the then CEO of Wireless Knowledge (the joint
`
`venture between Qualcomm and Microsoft).
`
`12.
`
`Exhibit 4 is a February 3, 1999 signed Memorandum of Agreement
`
`between Ameranth and Symbol (who had seen Ameranth’s inventions at the November
`
`1998 FSTEC show and subsequently and who made this partnering decision and
`
`subsequently a major investment decision based largely on the value of Ameranth’s
`
`inventive “menu wizard” and synchronous communications technology). At this time,
`
`Symbol was the world leader in mobile/rugged handheld devices and in 802.11 wireless
`
`technology. The fact that such a company would sign a strategic agreement with
`
`Ameranth less than 60 days after first seeing it at the FSTEC show is indisputable
`
`confirmation of industry recognition of the breakthrough aspects of Ameranth’s
`
`inventions
`
`13.
`
`Exhibit 5 is an April 19, 1999 press release formally announcing the
`
`formation of the Strategic Alliance between Symbol and Ameranth.
`
`14.
`
`Exhibit 6 is a May 17, 1999 press release formally announcing the
`
`Petitioners‘ Exhibit 1012, Page 545
`
` 545
`
`Petitioners' Exhibit 1012, Page
`
`

`
`formation of the Strategic Alliance between Ameranth and Comtec Information Systems.
`
`At this time, Comtec was the world leader in mobile printing devices.
`
`15.
`
`Exhibit 7 is a May 22, 1999 press release formally announcing the
`
`formation of the Strategic Alliance between Ameranth and Hospitality Systems Inc (HSI)
`
`with HSI being designated as Ameranth’s charter POS partner. At this time HSI was one
`
`of the top ten largest restaurant POS companies.
`
`16.
`
`Exhibit 8 is a May 22, 1999 press release formally announcing the
`
`introduction of Symbol’s new wireless devices as part of Ameranth’s 21“ Century
`
`RestaurantTM system at the Chicago, Illinois National Restaurant Association (NRA)
`
`show.
`
`17.
`
`Exhibit 9 is a May 22, 1999 copy of the updated 21“ Century RestaurantTM
`
`system brochure reflecting the addition of Symbol’s new Windows CE handhelds and
`
`Comtec’s mobile printers. This was demonstrated with the HSI POS software.
`
`18.
`
`Exhibit 10 is a photograph of Ameranth’s booth at the May 22, 1999 NRA
`
`show in Chicago taken on or about May 22, 1999.
`
`19.
`
`Exhibit ll is a set of photographs (Nos. 205, 206) from the 1999 NRA
`
`Show taken on or about May 22, 1999. In photos 205 and 206 I am shown with Manny
`
`Negreiro, President of Aloha POS and Bill Schwartz, President of Foodtrak, along with
`
`Larry Hausman, the then Publisher of Hospitality Technology magazine. Both Aloha and
`
`Foodtrak subsequently partnered with Ameranth to obtain the technology encompassed
`
`by the claims of the present application, further confirming industry recognition of the
`
`breakthrough aspects of Ameranth’s claimed inventions.
`
`20.
`
`Exhibit 12 is a second set of photographs (Nos. 201, 202, 226) from the
`
`Petitioners‘ Exhibit 1012, Page 545
`
` 546
`
`Petitioners' Exhibit 1012, Page
`
`

`
`1999 NRA Show taken on or about May 22, 1999. In photos 201/202, Dan Drummond,
`
`an Ameranth executive, is shown on the left, with John Harker, Director of Hospitality
`
`for Symbol on the right and a Comtec executive in the center. In photo 226, Kathie
`
`Sanders, Ameranth’s Director of Marketing, is shown on the left, I am shown in the
`
`center and various executives from other Ameranth partners/customers are standing with
`
`us.
`
`21.
`
`Exhibit 13 is a May 24, 1999 daily publication from the May 1999 NRA
`
`show in which one of the restaurant owners clearly confirms that Ameranth’s wireless
`
`point—of—sale system was “really cool.” While not precisely the same wording used in
`
`other confirmations from leading technology companies, the fact that a “non
`
`technologist” would also recognize the breakthrough aspects of Ameranth’s inventions is
`
`additionally compelling.
`
`22.
`
`Exhibit 14 is a June 17, 1999 signed Strategic Alliance Agreement
`
`between Ameranth and Food.com. Food.com was the then leading intemet food ordering
`
`company and had raised $100M in venture funding. It too had seen Ameranth’ s
`
`inventive technology at the May 1999 NRA show and also concluded that it needed
`
`Ameranth’s inventive technology. The fact that such a company would sign a strategic
`
`alliance agreement with Ameranth less than 30 days after first seeing it at the NRA show
`
`is yet another indisputable confirmation of the breakthrough aspects of Ameranth’s
`
`inventions and shows conclusively the high degree of industry recognition and adoption
`
`of Ameranth’ s technology encompassed by the present patent claims.
`
`23.
`
`Exhibit 15 is a June 22, 1999 formal press release of the introduction of
`
`Ameranth’s 21“ Century HotelTM system at the June 1999 HITEC show in Atlanta,
`
`Petitioners‘ Exhibit 1012, Page 547
`
` 547
`
`Petitioners' Exhibit 1012, Page
`
`

`
`Georgia. Ameranth again partnered with Symbol on this introduction.
`
`24.
`
`Exhibit 16 is the June 22, 1999 system brochure for Ameranth’s 21“
`
`Century HotelTM System introduced at the June 1999 HITEC show. The 21“ Century
`
`RestaurantTM and Ameranth’s core inventive concepts were integral to al