throbber
Trials@uspto.gov
`571.272.7822
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 47
`Filed: August 26, 2016
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`APPLE, INC., EVENTBRITE INC., STARWOOD HOTELS & RESORTS
`WORLDWIDE, INC., EXPEDIA, INC., FANDANGO, LLC,
`HOTELS.COM, L.P., HOTEL TONIGHT, INC., HOTWIRE, INC.,
`KAYAK SOFTWARE CORP., OPENTABLE, INC., ORBITZ, LLC, PAPA
`JOHN’S USA, INC., STUBHUB, INC., TICKETMASTER, LLC, LIVE
`NATION ENTERTAINMENT, INC., TRAVELOCITY.COM LP,
`WANDERSPOT LLC, AGILYSYS, INC., DOMINO’S PIZZA, INC.,
`DOMINO’S PIZZA, LLC, HILTON RESORTS CORPORATION,
`HILTON WORLDWIDE, INC., HILTON INTERNATIONAL CO., MOBO
`SYSTEMS, INC., PIZZA HUT OF AMERICA, INC., PIZZA HUT, INC.,
`and USABLENET, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`AMERANTH, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case CBM2015-000821
`Patent No. 6,871,325 B1
`____________
`
`Before MEREDITH C. PETRAVICK, RICHARD E. RICE, and
`STACEY G. WHITE, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`PETRAVICK, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
`Covered Business Method Patent Review
`35 U.S.C. § 328(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73
`
`1 CBM2015-00097 has been consolidated with this proceeding.
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00082
`Patent 6,871,325 B1
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`A number of entities including Apple, Inc. (“collectively, Petitioner”)
`filed a Petition (Paper 1, “Pet.”) requesting review under the transitional
`program for covered business method patents of claims 11–15 (“the
`challenged claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 6,871,325 B1 (Ex. 1003, “the ’325
`patent”). On September 1, 2015, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 324, we instituted
`this trial as to claims 11, 13, and 151 on one ground of unpatentability —
`claims 11, 13, and 15 being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over
`DeLorme2. Paper 13, 30 (“Dec. to Inst.”). We did not institute as to any of
`the other grounds proposed in the Petition. Id.
`Ameranth, Inc. (“Patent Owner”) filed a Corrected Patent Owner’s
`Response (Paper 22, “PO Resp.”) and Petitioner filed a Reply (Paper 26,
`“Pet. Reply”). Patent Owner filed a Sur-Reply. Paper 32, (“PO Sur-
`Reply”).
`
`An oral hearing in this proceeding was held on May 10, 2016. A
`transcript of the hearing is included in the record. Paper 43 (“Tr.”).
`
`We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(c). This Final Written
`Decision is issued pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 328(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73.
`
`For the reasons that follow, we determine that Petitioner has shown by
`a preponderance of the evidence that claims 11, 13, and 15 of the ’325 patent
`are unpatentable.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 The Institution Decision mistakenly included claim 12 in the instituted
`ground. See Paper 25, 3. Claim 12 was not challenged in the ground based
`upon DeLorme.
`2 U.S. Patent No. 5,948,040 (issued Sept. 7, 1999) (Ex. 1024).
`2
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00082
`Patent 6,871,325 B1
`
`
`A. The ’325 Patent
`The ’325 patent is titled “Information Management and Synchronous
`Communications System with Menu Generation” and issued on March 22,
`2005, based on Application No. 10/015,729, filed, on November 1, 2001.
`Ex. 1003, (54), (45), (21), (22). Application No. 10/015,729 claims priority
`to Application No. 09/400,413, which matured into U.S. Patent No.
`6,384,850. There are two aspects to the system: menu generation and
`synchronous communication. See, e.g., id. at col. 3, ll. 20–28. The first
`aspect includes a “desktop software application that enables the rapid
`creation and building of a menu.” Id. at col. 3, ll. 20–22. Claims 1–10,
`which are not challenged in this proceeding, are directed to this first aspect.
`
`Claims 11–15, some of which are challenged in this proceeding, are
`directed to the second aspect of the system, synchronous communication.
`See id. at col. 2, ll. 61–67, col. 3, ll. 1–5, col. 11, ll. 3–8. The ’325 patent
`discloses a synchronous communication system, which includes a computer
`workstation, a central database, multiple wireless handheld devices, a web
`server, and a web page. Id. at col. 3, l. 64–col. 4, l. 1, col. 6, l. 24. A
`communications control module provides a single point of entry for all
`hospitality applications, on the central database, wireless handheld devices,
`web server and web pages, to communicate with one another. Id. at col. 9,
`ll. 35–41, col. 11, ll. 37–43.
`This communications module is a layer that sits on top of
`any communication protocol and acts as an interface between
`hospitality applications and the communication protocol. . . . The
`single point of entry works to keep all wireless handheld devices
`and linked [w]eb sites in synch with the backoffice server
`(central database) so that the different components are in
`equilibrium at any given time and an overall consistency is
`achieved.
`
`3
`
`
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00082
`Patent 6,871,325 B1
`
`Id. at col. 11, ll. 40–49.
`For example, a reservation made online would be
`automatically communicated to the backoffice server and then
`synchronized with all the wireless handheld devices wirelessly.
`Similarly, changes made on any of the wireless handheld devices
`would be reflected instantaneously on the backoffice server,
`[w]eb pages and the other handheld devices.
`Id. at col. 2, ll. 31–37.
`Third parties, such as point-of-sale companies, affinity program
`companies, and internet content providers, can integrate fully with the
`system through an application program interface. Id. at col. 2, ll. 16–20; col.
`11, ll. 28–32.
`
`
`B. Illustrative Claim
`Claims 11 and 13 are independent. Claim 15 depends from claims 11,
`12, and 13. Claim 11 of the ’325 patent is illustrative of the claims at issue.
`Claim 11 reads as follows:
`11.
`synchronous
`and
` An
`information management
`communications system for use with wireless handheld
`computing devices and the internet comprising:
`a. a central database containing hospitality applications
`and data,
`
`b. at least one wireless handheld computing device on
`which hospitality applications and data are stored,
`c. at least one [w]eb server on which hospitality
`applications and data are stored,
`d. at least one [w]eb page on which hospitality application
`and data are stored,
`e. an application program interface, and
`f. a communications control module,
`
`4
`
`
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00082
`Patent 6,871,325 B1
`
`
`wherein application and data are synchronized between the
`central [database], at least one wireless handheld computing
`device, at least one [w]eb server and at least one [w]eb page,
`wherein the application program interface enables integration of
`outside applications with the hospitality applications and
`wherein the communications control module is an interface
`between
`the hospitality
`applications
`and
`any other
`communications protocol, wherein the synchronized data relates
`to orders.
`Independent claim 13 is substantially the same as claim 11, except
`that the last limitation “wherein the synchronized data relates to
`reservations.”
`
`
`6,871,325 B1
`
`CBM2014-00016
`
`C. Related Proceedings
`Both Petitioner and Patent Owner identify numerous related ongoing
`district court proceedings. Pet. 2–4; Paper 7, 5–6. The ’325 patent is related
`to U.S. Patent No. 6,384,850 B1 (“the ’850 patent”), U.S. Patent No.
`6,982,733 B1, and U.S. Patent No. 8,146,077 B2. These patents were or are
`the subject of the following covered business method patent reviews:
`U.S. Patent No.
`Previous CBM Reviews
`Pending CBM Reviews
`6,384,850 B1
`CBM2014-00015
`CBM2015-00080
`CBM2015-00091
`CBM2015-00096
`CBM2015-00097
`CBM2015-00099
`
`
`
`6,982,733 B1
`8,146,077 B2
`
`CBM2014-00013
`CBM2014-00014
`CBM2015-00081
`CBM2015-00095
`In case CBM2014-00016, a Final Written Decision, determining
`claims 1–10 to be unpatentable, was issued on March 20, 2015 and is on
`appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
`5
`
`
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00082
`Patent 6,871,325 B1
`
`
`
`D. Patent Owner’s Incorporated by Reference of Standing Arguments
`Patent Owner attempts to incorporate certain arguments made in its
`Preliminary Response (Paper 9) into the Patent Owner’s Response. PO
`Resp. 1 n.4 (“Patent Owner incorporates herein its Preliminary Response
`arguments regarding standing and preserves its right to appeal the Board’s
`determination thereof”). Our Rules prohibit incorporating arguments by
`reference. 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3) states: “[a]rguments must not be
`incorporated by reference from one document into another document.”
`Incorporation by reference circumvents our Rule limiting the pages in the
`Patent Owner response to 80 pages. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.24(b)(2).3
`Further, the Patent Owner’s Response does not provide citations or
`otherwise clearly indicate what argument in the Preliminary Response Patent
`Owner is attempting to incorporate by reference. See PO Resp. 1 n.4. The
`Preliminary Response includes no arguments under a heading concerning
`“standing” or labeled otherwise. The only mention of standing is in footnote
`1 of the Preliminary Response, which states: “Petitioner’s standing argument
`merely references CBM2014-00016, and is thus insufficient. PO submits
`that Petitioner was required to provide, in the Petition, the basis for
`standing.” As explained in our Institution Decision, we determined that the
`Petition sufficiently established that the ’325 patent was eligible for covered
`business method patent review and that Patent Owner’s arguments in
`
`
`3 Rule 42.24(b)(2) was amended, effective May 2, 2016. The Corrected
`Patent Owner’s Response, however, was filed February 1, 2016, prior to that
`date and, thus, we refer to the prior version of 37 C.F.R. § 42.24(b)(2).
`6
`
`
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00082
`Patent 6,871,325 B1
`
`footnote 1 of the Preliminary Response were unpersuasive. See Paper 13,
`11–16.
`
`Inasmuch as Patent Owner may be attempting to incorporate material
`from other portions of the Preliminary Response, such as the Introduction
`section, Patent Owner should not expect the Board to search the record and
`piece together the arguments and evidence necessary to support a standing
`argument not made in the Patent Owner’s Response. Cf. DeSilva v.
`DiLeonardi, 181 F.3d 865, 866–67 (7th Cir. 1999) (“A brief must make all
`arguments accessible to the judges, rather than ask them to play archeologist
`with the record”); Ernst Haas Studio, Inc. v. Palm Press, Inc., 164 F.3d 110,
`111–12 (2d Cir. 1999) (“Appellant's Brief is at best an invitation to the court
`to scour the record, research any legal theory that comes to mind, and serve
`generally as an advocate for appellant. We decline the invitation”).
`
`Arguments that are not developed and presented in the Patent Owner
`Response, itself, are not entitled to consideration. See Paper 14, 3.
`(cautioning Patent Owner “that any arguments for patentability not raised in
`the response will be deemed waived”).
`
`
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`A. Claim Construction
`The Board interprets claims of unexpired patents using the broadest
`reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which
`they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.300(b); Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136
`S. Ct. 2131, 2144–46 (2016) (upholding the use of the broadest reasonable
`interpretation approach).
`
`7
`
`
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00082
`Patent 6,871,325 B1
`
`
`Under the broadest reasonable construction standard, claim terms are
`given their ordinary and customary meaning, as would be understood by one
`of ordinary skill in the art in the context of the entire disclosure. In re
`Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Any special
`definition for a claim term must be set forth with reasonable clarity,
`deliberateness, and precision. In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir.
`1994). In the absence of such a definition, limitations are not to be read
`from the specification into the claims. In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181,
`1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
`
`
`i. “wireless handheld computing device”
`
`The challenged claims require “at least one wireless handheld
`computing device.” Ex. 1003, claims 11, 13. Patent Owner proposes that
`the term be construed as “a wireless computing device that is sized to be
`held in one’s hand.” PO Resp. 4 (citing Ex. 1032, 24 (district court order
`construing the term); Ex. 2019 ¶ 27 (Declaration of Dr. Alfred Weaver)).
`Patent Owner also argues “sized to be held in one’s hand” requires that the
`wireless handheld computing device is sized to be held in a single hand and
`precludes “wireless computing devices that are held in two hands. See PO
`Resp. 30–31 (“the [wireless communication unit] in DeLorme is a ‘two
`hand’ portable device and is not sized as a wireless handheld device as
`properly construed”), id. at 31 n.17 (arguing that a device that needed a GPS
`at the time could not be held in a single hand).
`
`Petitioner does not provide an explicit construction of the term
`“wireless handheld computing device,” but argues that the term does not
`
`8
`
`
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00082
`Patent 6,871,325 B1
`
`require the device to be held in a single hand or preclude the device from
`being held in both hands. Pet. Reply 6.
`
`To resolve the issues of patentability of the claims over DeLorme, it is
`not necessary for us to determine whether the broadest reasonable
`construction of “wireless handheld computing device” requires that the
`device be held in a single hand or allows for the device to be held in two
`hands. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci.& Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803
`(Fed. Cir. 1999) (stating that “only those terms need be construed that are in
`controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy”).
`Regardless, DeLorme explicitly discloses that its wireless communication
`unit (“WCU”) 907 is handheld. Ex. 1024, col. 72, l. 1 (“WCU 907, typically
`hand-held 906”), col. 72, l. 31 (“handheld devices equipped with GPS 908”);
`see also id. at col. 7, l. 34, col. 16, ll. 40–49 (further describing a wireless
`“handheld” device). Further, DeLorme discloses that WCU 907 could be a
`personal digital assistant (“PDA”) and describes PDAs as “handheld”
`wireless devices. Id. at col. 71, l. 61–col. 72, l. 2, col. 75, ll. 33–45; see Ex.
`1076, 53:12–25 (testimony of Dr. Weaver indicating that a PDA or
`smartphone is a wireless hand-held computing device). The ’325 patent
`describes PDAs as an example of a wireless handheld device. Ex. 1003, col.
`13, l. 63. Given this, we determine that it is not necessary for us to
`determine whether the broadest reasonable construction of “wireless
`handheld computing device” requires that the device be held in a single hand
`or allows for the device to be held in two hands.
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00082
`Patent 6,871,325 B1
`
`
`ii. “hospitality applications”
`
`The challenged claims require “hospitality applications,” which are
`contained in the central database, and are stored on the wireless handheld
`computing device, web server, and webpage. Ex. 1003, claims 11, 13. In
`the Institution Decision, we construed this term to mean “applications used
`to perform services or tasks in the hospitality industry.” Dec. to Inst. 9.
`Patent Owner agrees with this construction. PO Resp. 7. Patent Owner also
`states “[t]o properly establish the boundaries of the hospitality market,
`however, as would be understood by a POSA, the ‘travel, tourism and
`transportation’ industries are broader than and outside the ‘hospitality
`industry’ itself.” Id. at 7 (internal citation omitted).
`
`Petitioner does not contest this construction in its Reply.
`
`Petitioner proposes that “applications” be construed to mean
`“sequences of instructions that can be executed on a computer that are
`designed to help people perform a specific task.” Pet. 22. To support its
`proposed construction, Petitioner cites to the Microsoft Computer Dictionary
`(4th ed.), which defines “application” as “[a] program designed to assist in
`the performance of a specific task” and “program” as “[a] sequence of
`instructions that can be executed by a computer.” Ex. 1034, 4, 10.
`
`Patent Owner does not propose an explicit construction of
`“applications” but does state that “[i]t is clear from the specification,
`consistent with the ordinary meaning as would be understood by a POSA,
`that an application is a software program, not data.” PO Resp. 35 n.18. This
`is consistent with Petitioner’s proposed construction, which is based in-part
`on the definition of application, as a program.
`
`10
`
`
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00082
`Patent 6,871,325 B1
`
`Given the above, we determine that the broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation, in light of the specification of the ’325 patent, of “hospitality
`applications” is a sequence of instructions that can be executed on a
`computer (i.e., a program) and that is designed to assist in the performance
`of a specific task in the hospitality industry.
`
`We are not persuaded by Patent Owner that the hospitality industry
`excludes travel, tourism, and transportation. However, to resolve the issues
`of patentability of the claims over DeLorme, it is not necessary for us to
`construe hospitality industry. See Vivid Techs, 200 F.3d at 803 (stating that
`“only those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the
`extent necessary to resolve the controversy”). Regardless, DeLorme
`discloses that TRIPS can be used for buying event tickets and making
`restaurant or hotel reservations. E.g., see Ex. 1024, col. 21, ll. 8–17, col. 31,
`ll. 42–51, col. 77, ll. 60–67, Fig. 1B-3. The ’325 patent describes frequent
`customer ticketing and restaurant reservations as tasks in the hospitality
`application. Ex. 1003, col. 5, ll. 17–20, claim 5. Patent Owner’s also argues
`reservations, with regards to claim 13, include hotel reservations. See PO
`Resp. 14 (“within the hospitality industry e.g. restaurants/hotels and event
`ticketing”).
`
`Given this, we determine that it is not necessary for us to determine
`whether the broadest reasonable construction of “hospitality applications”
`excludes tasks performed in the travel, tourism, and transportation
`industries.
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00082
`Patent 6,871,325 B1
`
`
`iii. “synchronized”
`The challenged claims require that “application and data are
`
`synchronized between the central [database], at least one wireless handheld
`computing device, at least one [w]eb server and at least one [w]eb page.”
`Ex. 1003, claims 11, 13. In the Institution Decision, we construed
`synchronized to mean “made, or configured to make, consistent.” Dec. to
`Inst. 8–9. Patent Owner agrees with this construction. PO Resp. 6–7.
`Petitioner does not contest this construction in its Reply.
`
`Absent from this construction is any temporal limitation that requires
`the devices to be consistent at all times. The absence of a temporal
`limitation is consistent with the specification of the ’325 patent which
`describes the use of “batch processing that can be done periodically
`throughout the day to keep multiple sites in synch with the central database.”
`Ex. 1003, col. 2, ll. 22–23; see also Tr. 53:17–23.
`
`
`iv. “application program interface” that “enables integration of outside
`applications with the hospitality applications”
`
`The challenged claims require an “application program interface” that
`“enables integration of outside applications with the hospitality
`applications.” Petitioner proposes that application program interface
`(“API”) should be construed to be “a set of routines used by an application
`program to direct the performance of procedures by the computer’s
`operating system or to communicate with another application program.”
`Pet. 22 (citing Ex. 1034, 5 (Microsoft Computer Dictionary (4th ed.),
`definition of application program interface)).
`
`Patent Owner proposes that the API is not a generic interface but an
`API that enable integration of outside applications with the hospitality
`12
`
`
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00082
`Patent 6,871,325 B1
`
`applications. PO Resp. 8. Patent Owner proposes that “integration” should
`be construed to mean “combining of different activities, programs, or
`hardware components into a functional unit.” Id. at 7–8 (citing Dec. to Inst.
`11). Patent Owner also argues that integrating requires “integrating the
`different applications from within the applications themselves.” PO Resp.
`43–44.
`
`Given the above, we determine that the broadest reasonable
`interpretation, in light of the specification of the ’325 patent, of an API that
`enables integration of outside applications with the hospitality applications is
`a set of routines used by an application program that enables the combining
`of the outside applications with the hospitality applications into a functional
`unit by allowing them to communicate with each other. We are not
`persuaded that integrating requires integrating the different applications
`from within the applications themselves. Such a limitation is not consistent
`with the ’325 patent, which does not disclose integrating different
`applications from within the applications themselves.
`
`
`v. “communications control module” that “is an interface between the
`hospitality applications and any other communications protocol”
`The challenged claims require “a communications control module . . .
`
`wherein the communications control module is an interface between the
`hospitality applications and any other communications protocol.” Ex. 1003,
`claims 11, 13.
`
`Petitioner proposes that “communications control module” be
`construed as “a device used as an intermediary in transferring
`communications to and from the host computer to which it is connected.”
`
`13
`
`
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00082
`Patent 6,871,325 B1
`
`Pet. 23 (citing Ex. 1034, 7 (Microsoft Computer Dictionary (4th ed.),
`definition of communications controller), Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 76–78).
`
`Patent Owner proposes that “communications control module” should
`be construed as “a layer that sits on top of any communication protocol and
`acts as an interface between hospitality applications and the communication
`protocol.” PO Resp. 6 (quoting Ex. 1001, col. 4, ll. 9–13). Patent Owner
`argues that this is the correct construction because it is how the
`communications control module is described in the related ’850 patent and
`how a district court construed the limitation in a related proceeding. PO
`Resp. 5–6 (citing Ex. 1033, 13).
`
`Patent Owner also argues that “communication control module”
`should be construed in conjunction with the wherein clause “wherein the
`communications control module is an interface between the hospitality
`applications and any other communications protocol” to require “a server-
`side software layer that provides an interface between the hospitality
`applications and communication protocols and which monitors and routes
`communications between different devices while concurrently using
`different protocols.” PO Resp. 10. Patent Owner again argues that this is
`the correct construction because it is how the communications control
`module is described in the ’325 patent. PO Resp. 8–11.
`
`Petitioner responds that Patent Owner’s construction is not required
`by the language of the claims and improperly imports elements from the
`specification of the ’325 patent into the claims. Pet. Reply 18.
`
`As an initial matter, we are not persuaded by Patent Owner that we
`should wholesale adopt the construction of “communications control
`module” from a previous district court infringement action. The standard for
`
`14
`
`
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00082
`Patent 6,871,325 B1
`
`claim construction in a district court infringement action is different than the
`standard applied by the Board. See In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1053–54
`(Fed. Cir. 1997). In covered business method patent review proceedings, the
`Board applies the broadest reasonable construction consistent with the
`specification. 37 C.F.R. § 42.300(b).
`
`We determine that the broadest reasonable construction, in light of the
`specification of the ’325 patent, of “a communications control module . . .
`wherein the communications control module is an interface between the
`hospitality applications and any other communications protocol” is a device
`used as an intermediary in transferring communications to and from the host
`computer to which it is connected, wherein the device is an interface
`between the hospitality applications and any other communications protocol.
`This construction is consistent with the plain language of claims 11 and 13,
`which requires the communication control module to be an interface
`between the hospitality applications and any other communications protocol.
`This construction is also consistent with the description of the
`communication control module in the specification of the ’325 patent as “a
`communications control program [that] monitors and routes all
`communications to the appropriate devices” and as “a single point of entry
`for all hospitality applications to communicate with one another wirelessly
`or over the [w]eb.” Ex. 1003, col. 9, ll. 35–36, col. 11, ll. 38–40.
`
`This construction, unlike Patent Owner’s proposed construction, does
`not import extraneous features from the specification of the ’325 patent into
`the claims. The specification of the ’325 patent describes additional
`features of the communication control module, such as it is “a layer that sits
`on top of any communication protocol.” Ex. 1003, col. 11, ll. 40–43. The
`
`15
`
`
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00082
`Patent 6,871,325 B1
`
`plain language of claims 11 and 13, however, do not require the claimed
`communication control module to have such features. If a feature is not
`necessary to give meaning to what the inventor means by a claim term, it
`would be “extraneous,” and should not be read into the claim. Renishaw
`PLC v. Marposs Societa' per Azioni, 158 F.3d 1243, 1249 (Fed. Cir. 1998);
`E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 849 F.2d 1430,
`1433 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
`
`
`We, thus, determine that the broadest reasonable construction, in light
`of the specification of the ’325 patent, of “a communications control module
`. . . wherein the communications control module is an interface between the
`hospitality applications and any other communications protocol” is a device
`used as an intermediary in transferring communications to and from the host
`computer to which it is connected, wherein the device is an interface
`between the hospitality applications and any other communications protocol.
`
`vi. “relates to orders”
`Claim 11 recites “wherein the synchronized data relates to orders.”
`
`Patent Owner argues that this claim element must be construed to mean
`relating to ordering a restaurant meal, as we allegedly construed this term in
`the Institution Decision. PO Resp. 12–13 (citing Dec. to Inst. 13, 24).
`
`Petitioner disagrees and argues that “relates to orders” is broader than
`restaurant meal orders. Pet. Reply. 19. According to Petitioner, the ’325
`patent describes ordering in a wider variety of contexts, including the
`ordering of merchandise. Id. (citing Ex. 1003, col. 12, l. 57–col. 13, l. 9,
`col. 12, ll. 30–35).
`
`16
`
`
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00082
`Patent 6,871,325 B1
`
` We determine that the broadest reasonable construction, in light of
`
`the specification of the ’325 patent, of “relates to orders” is not limited to
`ordering a restaurant meal or precludes other types of orders. Nothing in the
`plain language of claim 11 limits the claimed ordering to restaurant meal
`ordering. Further, the ’325 patent describes ordering in a wider variety of
`contexts, including the ordering of merchandise or tickets. Ex. 1003, col.
`12, l. 57–col. 13, l. 9, col. 12, ll. 30–35.
`
`Contrary to Patent Owner’s argument, ordering was not construed in
`the Institution Decision. See Dec. to Inst. 6–11. The statements Patent
`Owner relies upon points out, in different context, that the ’325 patent
`describes restaurant meal ordering but do not construe the claimed ordering
`to be only restaurant meal ordering. See id. at 13, 24.
`
`vii. other terms
`
`Petitioner and Patent Owner propose constructions for various other
`claim terms. See Pet. 21–24, PO Resp. 4–8. These claim terms, however,
`need no explicit construction. See Vivid Techs., Inc., 200 F.3d at 803.
`
`
`B. Unpatentability Over DeLorme
`Under 35 U.S.C. § 103, a claim is unpatentable if:
`the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented
`and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would
`have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person
`having ordinary skill in the art. . . .
`The ultimate determination of obviousness under § 103 is a question
`
`of law based on underlying factual findings. In re Baxter Int’l, Inc., 678
`F.3d 1357, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (citing Graham v. John Deere Co., 383
`
`17
`
`
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00082
`Patent 6,871,325 B1
`
`U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966)). These underlying factual considerations consist of:
`(1) the “level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art,” (2) the “scope and
`content of the prior art,” (3) the “differences between the prior art and the
`claims at issue,” and (4) “secondary considerations” of non-obviousness
`such as “commercial success, long-felt but unsolved needs, failure of others,
`etc.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007) (quoting
`Graham, 338 U.S. at 17–18).
`
`Petitioner contends that claims 11, 13, and 15 are unpatentable under
`35 U.S.C. § 103 over DeLorme. Pet. 51–63. To support its contention,
`Petitioner provides explanations as to how the prior art meets each claim
`element. Id. Petitioner also cites the Declaration of Dr. Don Turnbull for
`support. See Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 419–473. Taking into account Patent Owner’s
`argument and evidence (PO Resp. 1–3, 14–80, PO Sur-Reply 1–5), for the
`reasons discussed below, we determine that Petitioner has shown by a
`preponderance of the evidence that claims 11, 13, and 15 are unpatentable
`under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over DeLorme.
`
`
`i. Overview of DeLorme
`DeLorme is titled “Travel Reservation Information and Planning
`
`System,” and issued on September 7, 1999, from an application filed on
`February 6, 1997. Ex. 1024, [54], [45], [22].
`DeLorme discloses a computerized travel reservation information and
`planning system (“TRIPS”) which generates travel plan information in the
`form of a “map ticket,” in response to inquiries from consumers. Id. at
`Abstract. Figure 2 of DeLorme is reproduced below.
`
`18
`
`
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00082
`Patent 6,871,325 B1
`
`
`
`Figure 2, reproduced above, is a block diagram of TRIPS. Id. at col.
`12, ll. 62–65. The Interface and Interaction Bus at block 209 processes
`consumer inquiries for planning travel. Id. at col. 3, ll. 15–41. The system
`receives inquiries from consumers, as illustrated by block 205, for travel
`related data (id. at col. 30, l. 66–col. 31, l. 14) and outputs, as illustrated by
`block 227, digital displays, such as the preferred “map ticket,” or electronic
`communications containing such data, such as reservations and/or tickets for
`accommodations or events (id. at col. 31, ll. 42–58, Fig. 1B). TRIPS
`includes subsystems (e.g., topical subsystem 213) that have geographical,
`topical, temporal, and accounting data, organized in a relational database,
`which is managed by software. Id. at col. 17, ll. 7–13, col. 32, ll. 1–7, col.
`30, ll. 58–65. TRIPS also includes provider input/output 231 for third-party
`providers of travel information and services. Id. at col. 31, ll. 42–51.
`19
`
`
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00082
`Patent 6,871,325 B1
`
`
`DeLorme discloses multiple embodiments of TRIPS. In one
`embodiment, a user makes travel plans using TRIPS software on a desktop
`PC, which is connected to the Internet to provide access to updated TRIPS
`information and functions and communication with third-party providers.
`Id. at col. 13, ll. 48–52. Once installed, the TRIPS software interacts with
`online TRIPS services, and TRIPS map data, functions, and topical travel
`information can be updated and online reservations and ticket buys can be
`made. Id. at col. 14, ll. 9–42; see also col. 10, ll. 10–18, col. 10, ll. 22–32.
`Alternatively, all TRIPS functions, data and services can
`be provided entirely online (i.e.[,] without significant standalone
`software components)—for example, from a central TRIPS
`service bureau, (or by means of a TRIPS Internet World Wide
`[w]eb Site). Such purely online TRIPS embodiments can be
`implemented utilizing
`recent
`ad

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket