UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`EXPEDIA, INC., ET AL.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`AMERANTH, INC.
`Patent Owner
`
`____________
`
`Case CBM2015-00096
`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
`
`CBM2015-00096
`
`Page
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`STATEMENT OF PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED .....................................1
`
`INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................1
`
`III. OVERVIEW......................................................................................................8
`
`A. 35 U.S.C. §103 Overview ............................................................................8
`
`B. Overview Of Turnbull Declaration Errors And Omissions........................13
`
`C. Overview Of Petition Errors And Omissions.............................................19
`
`IV.
`
`THE PETITION SHOULD BE REJECTED FOR IMPROPER
`INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE..........................................................23
`
`V.
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ............................................................................24
`
`A. PO’s Proposals In Juxtaposition To Petitioner’s Flawed Proposals
`And Non-Proposals ....................................................................................27
`
`1. “wireless handheld computing device”.................................................28
`
`2. “central database” .................................................................................28
`
`3. “web page”............................................................................................28
`
`4. “communications control module” .......................................................29
`
`5. “synchronized”......................................................................................30
`
`6. “applications and data are synchronized between the central database,
`at least one wireless handheld computing device, 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” ..........................................................32
`
`8. “hospitality applications”......................................................................35
`
`9. “API,” “outside applications” and “integration”...................................36
`
`10.“single point of entry for all hospitality applications”..........................38
`
`i
`
`

`

`CBM2015-00096
`11.“automatic” ...........................................................................................39
`
`11.“automatic” ......................................................................................... .. 39
`
`CBM2015-00096
`
`12.“digital data transmission”....................................................................39
`12.“digital data transmission” .................................................................. .. 39
`
`B. Claim Construction Analysis Summary.....................................................40
`B. Claim Construction Analysis Summary ................................................... ..40
`
`VI.
`
`VI.
`
`PETITIONER HAS NOT SHOWN THAT ANY OF CLAIMS 12-16
`
`PETITIONER HAS NOT SHOWN THAT ANY OF CLAIMS 12-16
`ARE MORE LIKELY THAN NOT OBVIOUS ...................................41
`
`ARE MORE LIKELY THAN NOT OBVIOUS ................................. ..41
`
`A. Overview....................................................................................................41
`
`A. Overview .................................................................................................. ..41
`
`B. Challenge 1: Inkpen/Digestor/Nokia..........................................................43
`B. Challenge 1: Inkpen/Digestor/Nokia ........................................................ ..43
`
`1. Overview of References........................................................................43
`
`1. Overview of References ...................................................................... ..43
`
`2. Synchronization, “applications and data” .............................................45
`2. Synchronization, “applications and data” ........................................... ..45
`
`3. Integration/API/Outside Applications...................................................46
`3. Integration/API/Outside Applications ................................................. ..46
`
`4. CCM, Protocols.....................................................................................47
`4. CCM, Protocols ................................................................................... ..47
`
`5. Wireless Handheld (Element “b”) vs. “Web Page” (Element “d”).......48
`5. Wireless Handheld (Element “b”) vs. “Web Page” (Element “d”) ..... ..48
`
`6. Claim as a whole...................................................................................50
`
`6. Claim as a whole ................................................................................. .. 50
`
`C. Challenge 2: DeLorme ...............................................................................51
`C. Challenge 2: DeLorme ............................................................................. .. 51
`
`1. Overview of Reference .........................................................................51
`
`1. Overview of Reference ....................................................................... .. 51
`
`2. Synchronization, “Applications and Data” ...........................................52
`2. Synchronization, “Applications and Data” ......................................... .. 52
`
`3. Integration/API/Outside Applications...................................................53
`3. Integration/API/Outside Applications ................................................. ..53
`
`4. CCM/Protocol.......................................................................................54
`
`4. CCM/Protocol ..................................................................................... .. 54
`
`5. Handheld/Web page..............................................................................55
`5. Handheld/Web page ............................................................................ ..55
`
`6. Claim as a whole...................................................................................57
`
`6. Claim as a whole ................................................................................. .. 57
`
`D. Challenge 3: Blinn/Inkpen .........................................................................58
`D. Challenge 3: Blinn/Inkpen ....................................................................... .. 58
`
`1. Overview of References........................................................................58
`
`1. Overview of References ...................................................................... .. 58
`
`2. Synchronization, “applications and data” .............................................60
`2. Synchronization, “applications and data” ........................................... ..60
`
`3. Integration/API/Outside Applications...................................................62
`3. Integration/API/Outside Applications ................................................. ..62
`
`ii
`
`

`

`CBM2015-00096
`4. CCM-Protocols .....................................................................................63
`
`5. “Wireless Handheld,” “Web Page”.......................................................63
`
`6. Summary As To Blinn/Inkpen ..............................................................64
`
`E. Dependent Claims ......................................................................................65
`
`F. Objective Evidence Of Non-Obviousness..................................................69
`
`VII. CONCLUSION ...............................................................................................80
`
`iii
`
`

`

`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`
`CBM2015-00096
`
`Page
`
`Allen Archery, Inc. v. Browning Mfg. Co.
`819 F.2d 1087 (Fed. Cir. 1987).......................................................................75
`
`Apple v. ContentGuard, Inc.
`CBM2015-00046, Paper 12……………………………………………………1
`
`Apple v. Smartflash LLC
`CBM2015-00033, Paper 11 at 15-18 (PTAB May 28, 2015) .........................42
`
`Bloomberg L.P. v. Quest Corp.
`CBM2014-00205, Paper No. 16........................................................................1
`
`CBS v. Sylvania., Inc.
`415 F.2d 719 (1st Cir. 1969), cert. denied, 396 U.S. 1061 (1970)................ 72
`
`CFMT, Inc. v. Yieldup Int’l. Corp.
`349 F.3d 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ..........................................................41
`
`Cisco Systems, Inc., v. C-Cation Techs., LLC
`IPR2014-00454, Paper 12 at 10 (PTAB Aug. 29, 2014).................................24
`
`Continental Can Co. v. Monsanto Co.
`948 F.2d 1264 (Fed. Cir. 1991).......................................................................11
`
`DeSilva v. DiLeonardi
`181 F.3d 865 (7th Cir. 1999)...........................................................................24
`
`Epos Tech. Ltd. v. Pegasus Tech. Ltd.
`766 F.3d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2014).......................................................................26
`
`Ex parte Brud,
`BPAI Appeal 2009-011707 at 3, 4 (Exh. 2013)……………………………..34
`
`iv
`
`

`

`CBM2015-00096
`
`Free Motion Fitness, Inc. v. Cybex Int’l, Inc.
`423 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2005).......................................................................66
`
`Fresenius USA, Inc. v. Baxter Int’l, Inc.
`582 F.3d 1288 (Fed. Cir. 2009).......................................................................43
`
`Heidelberger v. Hantscho Prods.
`21 F.3d 1068 (Fed. Cir. 1994).........................................................................78
`
`Hockerson-Halberstadt, Inc. v. Converse Inc.
`183 F.3d 1369 (Fed. Cir. 1999).................................................................... 25, 26
`
`Hoechst Celanese Corp. v. BP Chem. Ltd.
`78 F.3d 1575 (Fed. Cir. 1996)...................................................................... 22, 49
`
`In re Hoch
`428 F.2d 1341 (CCPA 1970)...........................................................................50
`
`In re Kahn
`441 F.3d at 988................................................................................................64
`
`In re McLaughlin
`443 F.2d 1392 (CCPA 1971)...........................................................................15
`
`In re Papst Licensing Digital Camera Patent Litigation
`778 F.3d 1255 (Fed. Cir. 2015).......................................................................27
`
`In re Roufett
`149 F.1350 (Fed. Cir. 1998)............................................................................77
`
`In re Royka
`490 F.2d 981 (CCPA 1974) ................................................................41
`
`In Re Sponnoble
`405 F.2d 578 (CCPA 1969).............................................................................10
`
`In re Warner
`379 F.2d 1011 (CCPA 1967)...........................................................................42
`
`Interconnect Planning Corp. v. Feil
`774 F.2d 1132 (Fed. Cir. 1985) .......................................................................11
`
`v
`
`

`

`CBM2015-00096
`
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) ..................................................................................... 43, 64
`
`Medichem v. Rolabo
`353 F.3d 928 (Fed. Cir. 2003).........................................................................41
`
`Oatey Co. v. IPS Corp.
`514 F.3d 1271 (Fed. Cir. 2008).......................................................................22
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005).......................................................................27
`
`Plantronics, Inc. v. Aliph, Inc.
`724 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2013).......................................................................11
`
`Power-One, Inc. v. Artesyn Tech., Inc.
`599 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2010).......................................................................78
`
`Rambus Inc. v. Rea
`731 F.3d 1248 (Fed. Cir. 2013).......................................................................73
`
`Sensonics Inc. v. Aerosonic Corp.
`81 F.3d 1566 (Fed. Cir. 1996).........................................................................65
`
`Tempur Sealy Int'l, Inc. v. Select Comfort Corp.
`IPR 2014-01419, Paper 7 (PTAB Feb. 17, 2015) ........................................ 23, 24
`
`Teva Pharm., Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc.
`723 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2013).......................................................................72
`
`Travelocity v. Cronos Tech.
`CBM2014-00082, Paper No. 12, Oct. 16, 2014, p. 5 ......................................42
`
`Unique Concepts, Inc. v. Brown
`939 F.2d 1558 (Fed. Cir. 1991).......................................................................33
`
`Vitronics v. Conceptronic, Inc.
`90 F.3d 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1996)……………………………………………….49
`
`vi
`
`

`

`CBM2015-00096
`
`Other
`
`37 C.F.R. §42.6(a)(3) ..................................................................................................2
`
`37 C.F.R. §42.22(a)(2) ................................................................................................2
`
`37 C.F.R. §42.104(b)(4) ..............................................................................................2
`
`37 C.F.R. §42.104(b)(5) ..............................................................................................2
`
`37 C.F.R. §42.207(a) ...................................................................................................1
`
`37 C.F.R. §42.300(b).................................................................................................24
`
`77 Fed. Reg. 157 at 48697-98 (Aug. 14, 2012) .........................................................24
`
`35 U.S.C. §101 ............................................................................................................1
`
`35 U.S.C. §103 ..................................................................................................... 1, 8, 80
`
`35 U.S.C. §112 ......................................................................................................... 1, 22
`
`35 U.S.C. §312(a)(3) ...................................................................................................2
`
`Microsoft Comp. Dict. (4th ed.1999) ..............................................25, 28, 29, 37, 39, 54
`
`vii
`
`

`

`PATENT OWNER’S LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`CBM2015-00096
`
`Exhibit No.
`
`Description
`
`2001
`
`2002
`
`2003
`
`2004
`
`2005
`
`2006
`
`2007
`
`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
`
`viii
`
`

`

`2008
`
`2009
`
`2010
`
`2011
`
`2012
`
`2013
`
`2014
`
`2015
`
`2016
`
`2017
`
`2018
`
`CBM2015-00096
`“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
`
`“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 BPAI Appeal No. 2011-004999 (PTAB Oct.
`17, 2013 )
`
`Transcript of FS/TEC Awards Presentation (Feb. 2009)
`
`ix
`
`

`

`I.
`
`STATEMENT OF PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED
`In accordance with 37 C.F.R. §42.207(a), Patent Owner, Ameranth, Inc.,
`
`CBM2015-00096
`
`(“PO”) submits this Preliminary Response to Petitioner’s belated, second,
`
`Covered Business Method (“CBM”) review (“Petition” or “Pet.”) against U.S.
`
`Patent No. 6,384,850 ("the '850 patent"). For the reasons below, the Petition for
`
`review of claims 12-16 should be denied because the claims are not invalid under
`35 U.S.C. §103.1
`II.
`INTRODUCTION
`Petitioner’s first attempt to invalidate original claims 12-16 of Ameranth’s `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. §103 fails.
`
`Petitioner’s five asserted references, comprising three different obviousness
`
`challenges, each have fatal shortcomings. They teach away from the claimed
`
`invention, would require substantial changes to their principles of operation, and fail to
`
`teach or suggest critical claimed features (mostly ignored by the Petition while relying
`
`on incorrect constructions and failing to even consider the most important claim
`
`terms). The Petition also violates multiple case law directives, rules and regulations,
`
`1 Petitioner’s standing argument merely references CBM2014-00015, and is thus
`insufficient. PO submits that Petitioner was required to provide, in the Petition, the
`basis for standing. Also note that the PTAB has recently held that claims having
`structural similarities to the ‘850 claims were directed to a technological invention. See
`Bloomberg L.P. v. Quest Corp., CBM2014-00205, Paper 16; Apple v. ContentGuard,
`Inc., CBM2015-00046, Paper 12. Moreover, the cited claim recitation, “applicable to
`a predetermined type of ordering,” does not appear in any ‘850 claim. Petitioner’s
`entire basis for standing is that the “’ordering’ in this phrase relates to the ordering of a
`meal at a restaurant.” (Pet. at 7). Petitioner makes no other claim-specific arguments
`regarding standing. The Petition thus fails ab initio.
`1
`
`

`

`CBM2015-00096
`
`each violation individually compelling denial.2 Additionally, the Petition fails because
`it does not identify sufficiently the differences between the claims-at-issue and the
`
`purported prior art references.
`
`These hospitality based claims represent an extraordinarily visionary and multi-
`
`faceted “system of systems”–with both the applications and the data innovatively and
`
`uniquely synchronized and integrated–between both hospitality and non-hospitality
`
`applications, and including web, wireless, and handheld devices (for both consumer
`
`and staff use)–all leveraging a single central database storing the hospitality
`
`applications and data. The PTAB clearly recognized the multi-faceted specificity of
`
`these five claims 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.
`CBM2014-00015, Paper 20 at 24 (emphasis added).
`[C]laim 12’s limitation “applications and data are synchronized
`between the central database, at least one wireless handheld computing
`device, at least one Web server and at least one Web page” is a further
`limitation that is directed to the system’s ability to synchronize
`applications and data.
`Id. at 15-16 (emphasis added). The claimed inventive features/elements recognized by
`
`the PTAB as meaningfully specific were clearly core to Ameranth’s 1998-99
`
`invention, the claims of the ‘850 patent and to Ameranth’s own 21st Century
`
`2 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).
`2
`
`

`

`CBM2015-00096
`
`Restaurant™ and 21st Century Hotel™ “system of systems.” Such “systems of
`
`systems” have become a ubiquitous reality now in 2015, and are in widespread use
`
`across the entire spectrum of hospitality companies and applications. The recognition
`
`of this claimed subject matter as innovative and non-obvious has been repeatedly
`
`confirmed by petitioners and defendants themselves whom, after copying Ameranth’s
`
`inventions, cannot refrain from boasting about their own uses of those inventions–
`
`often claiming the ‘850 inventions as their own breakthroughs, and in some cases
`
`even seeking awards for themselves for Ameranth’s technology (including defendant
`
`Marriott, who’s late-1990s system is the subject of the very base reference that
`Petitioner’s obviousness challenges now seek to rely on).3
`Significantly, Marriott copied and claimed for itself the very inventions of
`
`claims 12-16 of the ‘850 patent after Ameranth provided information regarding the
`subject matter in 1999/2000 at Marriott’s request.4 In a February 3, 2000 letter from
`Steve Glen, Marriott VP, to Ameranth’s Keith McNally, Glen confirmed that Marriott
`
`was “very interested” in the “innovative features” of Ameranth’s 21st Century
`
`Restaurant™ technology, and that Marriott would be “closely monitoring your
`
`[Ameranth’s] progress with the domestic side of Marriott” and that Marriott hoped that
`
`this would “deliver the breakthrough solutions that we are seeking.” (Exh. 1012 at
`
`3 Marriott, Starwood, Starbucks, Pizza Hut, Hilton, Dominos, Papa John’s, Micros,
`Agilysys and many others all received detailed briefings and/or demonstrations of
`Ameranth’s patented technology during the inventive time frame or thereafter from
`Keith McNally, lead inventor of Ameranth’s ‘850 patent family, or from his staff.
`4 Contemporaneous facts detailing the conception of the invention, secondary factors
`demonstrating non-obviousness and nexus to the claimed invention is further provided
`below in the section titled “Objective Evidence of Non-Obviousness.”
`3
`
`

`

`CBM2015-00096
`
`647, 964) (emphasis added)).
`
`Then, after Ameranth disclosed its “breakthrough” inventions to Marriott,
`
`Marriott brazenly sought an award from Computerworld for upgrading its MARSHA
`
`system based on the very technology it had learned about from Ameranth. Marriott
`
`won that award in 2006, clearly based on Ameranth’s `850 technology as embodied in
`
`the same key inventive elements of `850 claims 12 and 13 as were recognized by the
`
`Board in the prior CBM (i.e., “synchronization” and “integration” with “outside
`
`applications” from a “central database” and “single point of entry” and across “all
`
`elements” for “consistency”), thus proving nexus between the copying and the claims.
`
`The following excerpts from the 2006 Computerworld Award make Marriott’s
`
`copying abundantly clear, with the bold highlighting emphasizing Marriott’s claiming,
`
`as its own, the functions of the same key `850 claim 12 elements shown in brackets:
`In 2003, Marriott successfully completed an aggressive 11-month
`upgrade to its entire Internet technology architecture and operating
`environment … Based on open-systems standards and fully-integrated
`[“integration”] with key inventory, marketing and loyalty programs.
`[“outside applications,” e.g., “affinity program companies” as disclosed
`in the `850 patent (Exh. 1001 at 2:13)]
`The integrated infrastructure [“integration”] is focused on delivering
`value, with impressive results, including: … Consistency of information
`across systems [app/data synchronization and “single point of entry”] …
`delivered consistently at all locations. [app/data synchronization]
`Marriott integrated MARSHA with all of the company’s key business
`applications and made its entire inventory available as a single image
`[“central database”] in real-time across all channels [synchronization].
`Exh. 2016 at 2, 3. Noteworthy is Marriott asserting that the “consistency” of the
`
`information, i.e., “synchronization,” needed to occur across both “systems” and “all
`
`4
`
`

`

`CBM2015-00096
`
`locations” and with a “single image” and “integrated” with “marketing and loyalty
`
`programs” just as the `850 claims recite and Ameranth had disclosed to Marriott.
`
`All three major pizza company defendants also copied the claimed technology
`
`and received a joint technology innovation award in 2009 for deploying it, including
`
`the “interfaces with social networks” (“outside applications”) aspect of claim 12 of
`
`the ‘850 patent (“outside applications” include, e.g., “affinity program groups”–social
`
`networks):
`[T]he 2009 FS/TEC innovation awards are simultaneously being
`presented to Domino’s Pizza Inc., Papa John’s International Inc., and
`Pizza Hut Division of Yum Brands Inc. From development of mobile
`device ordering platforms to interfaces with social networks
`Presentation of Rob Grimes (FS/TEC CEO), FS/TEC 2009 Awards transcript5 at 10:33
`(Exh. 2018) (emphasis added). Further, in receiving its award, Pizza Hut admitted that
`
`it had tried but failed to integrate mobile ordering with affinity program groups:
`[I]n the late 90s, we really made a run at this and it wasn’t successful
`Statement of Delaney Bellingers - Pizza Hut, FS/TEC 2009 Awards transcript at 12:29
`
`(Exh. 2018) (emphasis added) (thus demonstrating "failure of others").
`
`This copying and claiming for themselves by giant company infringers has
`
`continued unabated into 2015, and they now use even more self-laudatory terms to
`
`describe what they copied from Ameranth. For instance, Starbucks claimed the entirety
`of Ameranth’s inventions/claims as its own self-described “holy grail” in 2014, 6 just
`
`5 Video/Audio in possession of PO.
`6 “Starbucks to roll out innovations in mobile platform,” March 13, 2014 (Exh. 2008)
`(“Starbucks is poised to unveil innovations within its mobile platform that will
`include ordering ahead and new payment features that the company has called a
`potential “holy grail” for throughput. … Management referred to mobile ordering as
`5
`
`

`

`CBM2015-00096
`
`before filing Petitions of its own (CBM2015-00091, -00099) asserting the opposite–
`
`i.e., that everything Starbucks now refers to as a “holy grail” for itself was
`
`obvious/known back in 1998. The very subject matter of ‘850 claims 12-16, including
`
`the visionary “single point of entry” for all hospitality applications (claim 13)–
`
`integrated with a mobile application on handhelds was, less than two months ago, on
`
`April 27, 2015, praised by Starbucks as its own “ecosystem” which is providing
`
`Starbucks the very benefits Ameranth envisioned, invented and claimed long ago:
`Kevin Johnson, Starbucks’ president and COO, said the company is
`seeing the benefits of having a mobile commerce platform that integrates
`loyalty, a mobile application, a loyalty card program and in-store
`point of sale system. This is not a bolt-on, this gets to leverage that
`existing ecosystem.
`(Exh. 2009) (emphasis added). And just shortly before that, the CTO of a petitioner
`
`against these same `850 claims (in CBM2014-00015), Hyatt Hotels, also claimed the
`
`core inventive aspects of claims 12-16 as his own and in effect declared “eureka” for
`
`himself and Hyatt, even copying `850 claim 13’s innovative “single point of entry”
`
`claim element almost word for word both in French “mise en place” and in English
`
`(“single API/API Façade”):
`There’s a metaphor that I like to use to describe what this technology
`platform is: I compare it to mise en place, which is a French phase that
`translates to “everything in its place.” In a technology platform, the
`ingredients are our data from different sources, for example reservations
`systems, loyalty systems, the CRM platform, and so on. These are
`typically all housed in different places on the back end. Using what we
`call an API façade, we are presenting what appears to be a single API
`that front-end developers can use to access this data very quickly and
`
`the potential “holy grail” of throughput”) (emphasis added).
`6
`
`

`

`CBM2015-00096
`efficiently. We can enable front-end developers to quickly create and
`iterate on new user interfaces. The goal is to simplify a collection of APIs
`into one uniform API.
`Quotes from Matt O’Keefe, Hyatt CTO, April 8, 2015 (Exh. 2005) (emphasis added).
`
`Thus, as recently as a few months ago, the core ideas long ago conceived,
`
`claimed and first deployed by Ameranth were being praised and claimed as
`
`breakthroughs by co-petitioners and co-defendants of the present Petitioner companies
`
`who nonetheless are arguing obviousness in their Petition. Despite these readily
`
`apparent contradictions and conflicting positions (those above are just exemplary,
`
`many more are detailed below in the objective evidence section of this response),
`
`Petitioner challenges these same `850 claims yet again, but they were simply not
`
`obvious in 1998 as evidenced, inter alia, by what is going on right now.
`
`Ameranth was the first to identify the actual problem to be solved, first to
`
`invent the synchronous and integrated technology to solve it, first to introduce
`
`products based on its inventive solution, first to win multiple best-product awards for
`
`the products/technology embodying the claims of the ‘850 patent, first to receive
`
`public praise for its products and the inventive technology (including from Petitioner
`
`companies), first to patent that technology and first to license the patented technology.
`
`In fact, the ‘850 inventions first publicly disclosed in the Fall of 1998 were
`
`almost immediately recognized as such by the entire hospitality market (and they were
`
`not inventions by, e.g., Marriott, Starbucks or Hyatt), as demonstrated by the
`
`overwhelming objective evidence in the record of the family of the five issued patents,
`
`as discussed below. Just recently, and once again, claims in this family were
`
`determined to be non-obvious, this time unanimously by a panel of three other ALJs,
`
`7
`
`

`

`CBM2015-00096
`
`when Ameranth’s 5th patent of the family (U.S. 9,009,060), issued on April 14, 2015.7
`Only by a fictionalized hindsight-induced telling of the actual story of what happened
`
`in the hospitality field could `850 claims 12-16 be determined to have been obvious in
`
`1998. However, 35 U.S.C. §103 requires actual evidence, not fiction, and in
`
`accordance with precedent and the Rules of the Board. The Petition clearly fails.
`OVERVIEW
`III.
`35 U.S.C. §103 Overview
`A.
`Analyzing obviousness at the time of the invention, as required, is not a simple
`
`or easy task, particularly because the invention was first conceived in 1998, many
`
`years ago and long before many technological advancements which are today taken for
`
`granted. But the burden is on Petitioner to prove obviousness, which it fails in
`
`multiple ways (technically, factually, procedurally, and legally). Petitioner is
`
`simply wrong in its characterizations of the invention/claims, the asserted prior
`
`art and everything in the Petition which bears on either.
`
`The inventive solution, as defined in these “system of system” claims of
`the `850 patent, simply was not obvious to any POSA8 in the Fall of 1998, and
`was not apparent to Mr. McNally (Ameranth’s founder and lead inventor–clearly
`
`a POSA) or his co-inventors until they conceived it. In fact, until then (Fall of
`
`1998), like the entire hospitality marketplace, Mr. McNally and his co-inventors
`
`had not themselves previously recognized the actual underlying multi-
`
`7 Ex Parte McNally, No. 2012-001503 at 4 (PTAB Nov. 4, 2014) (Exh. 2011)
`(“Appellant argues that the references do not disclose application software enabled to
`configure hospitality data for display on the non pc standard display sized screen of
`a wireless handheld device. We agree. . .”) (emphasis added).
`8 PO does not materially dispute Petitioner’s definition of the skill level of a POSA.
`8
`
`

`

`CBM2015-00096
`
`dimensional synchronization, integration and menu generation problem needing
`
`to be solved in the industry (aspects of which are encompassed by claims 12-16).
`
`The hospitality market challenge faced by the ‘850 inventors was unlike
`the challenges in any other field.9 Nowhere else did a customer expect to have a
`customized product produced and delivered to them “on the spot” and made
`
`“their way” and, in the quick-service restaurant or pizza markets, literally
`created/delivered to the customer in a matter of “minutes.” The time criticality of
`the hospitality market challe