UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`STARBUCKS CORP.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`AMERANTH, INC.
`Patent Owner
`
`____________
`
`Case CBM2015-00099
`Patent No. 6,871,325
`____________
`
`Submitted Electronically via the Patent Review Processing System
`
`CORRECTED PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`

`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`CBM2015-00099
`
`Page
`
`I. STATEMENT OF PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED ...................................... 1
`II. INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................. 1
`III. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ............................................................................... 3
`1. “wireless handheld computing device”........................................................ 4
`2. “central database” ...................................................................................... 4
`3. “web page”.................................................................................................. 4
`4. “web server”................................................................................................ 4
`5. “communications control module”.............................................................. 5
`6. “synchronized”............................................................................................ 6
`7. “hospitality applications” ........................................................................... 6
`8. “application program interface”............................................................... 11
`9. “outside applications”............................................................................... 11
`10. “integration” ............................................................................................. 11
`11. “Wherein the communications control module is an interface between the
`hospitality applications and any other communications protocol” ................. 11
`12. “wherein the synchronized data relates to ‘orders,’ ‘waitlists’ and
`‘reservations’” respectively as to claims 11, 12 and 13 .................................. 14
`IV. THERE HAS BEEN NO SHOWING OF OBVIOUSNESS ........................... 18
`A. Neither §103 Challenge 9 Or 11 Provides Disclosure Or
`Suggestion Of Hospitality Application Functionality............................. 27
`B. There is No Teaching Or Suggestion Of “A Central Database
`Containing Hospitality Applications And Data” .................................... 28
`C. There Is No Disclosure Of Claims 11-13 First Wherein Clause ........ 30
`D. There Is No Disclosure Of Claims 11-13 Element “b” ...................... 37
`E. There Is No Disclosure Of Claims 11-13Element “d”........................ 44
`F. Neither Reference Discloses The Claimed “Application Program
`
`-i-
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00099
`
`Interface” That “Enables Integration of Outside Applications with
`the Hospitality Applications”................................................................ 45
`G. Brandt Fails To Disclose A“Communications Control Module”
`Nor “Wherein The Communications Control Module Is An Interface
`Between The Hospitality Applications And Any Other
`Communications Protocol” ................................................................... 46
`H. Neither Combination 9 Or 11 Teaches The “Orders,” “Waitlists’
`And “Reservations’ Hospitality Aspects Of Claims 11-13 As
`Properly Construed .............................................................................. 51
`I. Objective Evidence Of Non-Obviousness .......................................... 52
`1. There is a very strong nexus between the evidence of
`"secondary considerations" and the challenged claims........................... 55
`2. The Ameranth patents in this family, including the challenged
`claims, have been successfully and extensively licensed ....................... 64
`3. Ameranth's products enjoyed substantial, widespread
`commercial success .............................................................................. 66
`4. Ameranth's 21st Century Restaurant received numerous
`technology awards and industry acclaim after its introduction ............... 68
`5. Ameranth received overwhelming industry praise for the 21st
`Century Restaurant technology ............................................................. 70
`6. Starbucks and numerous other companies copied the Ameranth
`technology reflected in the challenged claims ....................................... 72
`7. Other companies tried and failed to develop the integrated,
`synchronized Ameranth technology ...................................................... 78
`8. Objective Evidence Conclusion ..................................................... 80
`V. CONCLUSION................................................................................ 80
`
`-ii-
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00099
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`
`Allen Archery, Inc. v. Browning Mfg. Co.,
`819 F.2d 1087 (Fed. Cir. 1987).................................................................... 70
`
`Ameranth v. Pizza Hut et al.,
`Case No. 3-11-cv-01810 (S.D. Cal. 2013) .................................................... 57
`
`Apple Inc. v. International Trade Commission,
`725 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2013).................................................................... 52
`
`Berk-Tek LLC. v. Belden Techs., Inc.,
`IPR2013-00059, FWD 34 (PTAB April 28, 2014) ...................................... 36
`
`Crocs, Inc. v. ITC,
`598 F.3d 1294 (Fed. Cir. 2010).................................................................... 72
`
`Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. National Graphics, Inc.,
`800 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2015).................................................................... 36
`
`Eli Lilly & Co. v. Zenith Goldline Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,
`471 F.3d 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2006).................................................................... 68
`
`Gambro Lunda AB v. Baxter Healthcare Corp.,
`110 F.3d 1573 (Fed. Cir. 1997).............................................................. 55, 70
`
`Heidelberger v. Hantscho Prods.,
`21 F.3d 1068, 1072 (Fed. Cir. 1994)........................................................... 73
`
`HIMPP v. Hear-Wear Techs., LLC,
`751 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2014).................................................................... 37
`
`In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573 (Fed. Cir. 1995)......................................... 55, 65-66
`
`-iii-
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00099
`
`In re Ratti, 270 F.2d 810(CCPA 1959) .................................................................. 23
`
`In re Roufett, 149 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 1998)........................................................ 65
`
`In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181(Fed. Cir. 1993)…………………………………..9
`
`KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) ……………………………………………………… 36
`
`Kurtz v. Belle Hat Lining Co., Inc.,
`280 F. 277 (2nd Cir. 1922) ............................................................................ 73
`
`Microsoft Corp.v. Proxyconn, Inc.,
`789 F.3d 1292 (Fed. Cir. 2015).................................................................. 3, 9
`
`PAR Pharma., Inc. v. TWI Pharm., Inc.,
`773 F.3d 1186 (Fed. Cir. 2014).................................................................... 21
`
`Power Integrations, Inc. v. Fairchild Semiconductor Int’l, Inc.,
`711 F.3d 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2013).................................................................... 57
`
`Power-One v. Artesyn Techs, Inc.,
`599 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2010).............................................................. 70, 77
`
`Rambus Inc. v. Rea,
`731 F.3d 1248 (Fed. Cir. 2013).................................................................... 70
`
`Teva Pharm., Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc.,
`723 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2013).................................................................... 55
`
`Vandenberg v. Dairy Equip. Co., a Div. of DEC Int’l, Inc.,
`740 F.2d 1560 (Fed. Cir. 1984).................................................................... 77
`
`-iv-
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00099
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103.................................................................................................. 1,80
`
`Rules
`
`37 C.F.R. §42.207(a).............................................................................................. 1
`
`-v-
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00099
`
`PATENT OWNER’S LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`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/2014/0
`6/16/dominos-voice-ordering-app-nuancefast-
`food-restaurants/10626419/, June 16, 2014
`
`-vi-
`
`

`
`2008
`
`2009
`
`2010
`
`2011
`
`2012
`
`2013
`
`2014
`
`2015
`
`2016
`
`2017
`
`2018
`
`2019
`
`CBM2015-00099
`
`“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 Appeal No. 2011-004999 (PTAB Oct. 17,
`2013)
`Transcript of FS/TEC Awards Presentation (Feb. 2009)
`
`App. Ser. No. 11/112,990, Declaration under 1.131 (Jan.
`2009
`
`-vii-
`
`

`
`2020
`
`2021
`
`2022
`
`2023
`
`2024
`
`2025
`
`2026
`
`2027
`
`2028
`
`2029
`2030
`
`2031
`
`2032
`
`2033
`
`CBM2015-00099
`
`App. Ser. No. 11/112,990, Declaration under 1.132
`(Aug. 2009)
`App. Ser. No. 11/112,990, Supplemental Declaration
`under 1.132 (May 2010)
`App. Ser. No. 11/112,990, Supplemental Response,
`Amendment, Nexus Declaration, Declaration under
`1.132 (Dec. 2010)
`App. Ser. No. 11/112,990, Correction to Supplemental
`Response (Feb. 2011)
`
`Final Rejection in App. Ser. No. 09/897,292
`
`Appeal Decision, No. 2013-007728 (PTAB June 4,
`2015)
`Appeal Decision, No. 2009-010272 (BPAI April 18,
`2011)
`Appeal Decision, No. 2009-010632 (BPAI May 24,
`2010)
`Appeal Decision, No. 2013-006445 (PTAB June 1,
`2015)
`U.S. Pat. No. 6,384,850 Original Figures 1-7
`Helal Background Summary
`
`Helal U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2005/0076327 (April 7, 2005)
`
`Helal Executed Inventor Declaration, U.S. App. Ser.
`No. 10/758,180 (April 2, 2004)
`
`Judge Everingham Claim Construction Order, CA No.
`2:07-cv-271 (April 21, 2010)
`
`-viii-
`
`

`
`2034
`
`2035
`
`2036
`
`2037
`
`2038
`
`2039
`
`2040
`
`2041
`
`2042
`
`2043
`
`2044
`
`2045
`
`CBM2015-00099
`
`Edwards, et al., “Designing and Implementing
`Asynchronous Collaborative Applications with Bayou”
`(1997)
`App. Ser. No. 11/112,990, Interview Summary (Oct.
`2011)
`Starbucks Investor Presentation (2014)
`
`The Holy Grail of Room Inventory Distribution – Cloud
`PMS, June 15, 2015
`
`Hotel brands must travel cross-channel route to
`bookings, June 15, 2015
`
`Nov. 1, 2001 Amendment, ‘325 Prosecution History,
`Serial No. 10/015,729
`
`Dittmer, “Dimensions of the Hospitality Industry”
`(complete publication)
`
`Declaration of Dr. Alfred Weaver
`
`Excerpts from Microsoft Computer Dictionary (4th ed.
`1999)
`Judge Payne Claim Construction Order, CA No. 2:10-
`cv-294 (Aug. 10, 2012)
`May 1999 announcement from National Restaurant
`Association (NRA) show in Chicago, IL.
`
`Excerpts from transcript of Deposition of John Harker,
`May 3, 2010
`
`-ix-
`
`

`
`2046
`
`2047
`
`2048
`
`2049
`
`2050
`
`2051
`
`2052
`
`2053
`
`2054
`
`2055
`
`2056
`
`2057
`
`CBM2015-00099
`
`May 14, 2012 press release re Skywire
`
`Ameranth 21st Century System Product Brochure (two-
`sided), distributed May 1999 (both original and
`annotated)
`
`Press releases and announcements of various Ameranth
`patent licenses and alliances
`
`Hospitality Technology, "POS Scoreboard", 2004 and
`2006
`
`Microsoft RAD Award, 2003.
`
`Excerpts from book, "Market Busters"
`
`"Best New Products", QSR magazine, September 1999
`
`Email messages between Microsoft and Starbucks
`personnel, 2006-2007
`
`Scott Maw remarks, Nov. 18, 2015 Starbucks investor
`conference
`
`May 2006 Ameranth presentation to Pizza Hut
`
`Transcript of Micros remarks, 2008 FSTEC meeting
`
`Micros announcement of Simphony product
`
`-x-
`
`

`
`2058
`
`2059
`
`2060
`
`2061
`
`2062
`
`2063
`
`2064
`
`2065
`
`2066
`
`2067
`
`2068
`
`2069
`
`CBM2015-00099
`
`Transcript of Paul Armstrong remarks, 2008 FSTEC
`meeting
`
`PowerPoint slides and screen shots from Ameranth
`presentation to Starbucks, December 1, 2006
`
`"Starbucks Claims 90 Percent Mobile Payments Market
`Share", PYMTS, Oct. 31, 2014.
`
`Excerpts from prosecution file of U.S. Patent No.
`6,384,850 (McNally et al.)
`
`August 2009 Declaration under 37 CFR § 1.132, from
`prosecution file of U.S. Patent No. 8,146,077 (McNally
`et al.)
`
`Micros HSI press releases
`
`Micros JTECH press release
`
`Micros mycentral/Simphony press release
`
`Mark Nance PowerPoint presentation, 2009 FS/TEC
`meeting
`
`NCR/Radiant press release, July 2011
`
`PAR Technology acquires PixelPoint, article, August
`2005
`
`Dominos AnyWare announcement, August 2015
`
`-xi-
`
`

`
`2070
`
`2071
`
`2072
`
`2073
`
`2074
`
`2075
`
`2076
`
`2077
`
`2078
`
`2079
`
`2080
`
`2081
`
`CBM2015-00099
`
`Agilysys/InfoGenesis Mobile brochure
`
`"Wireless finds a welcome in hospitality," Bloomberg,
`Feb. 2004
`
`Mobile Commerce Daily article re Agilysys
`InfoGenesis, May 2015
`
`Agilysys/InfoGenesis press release, June 2012
`
`Agilysys Announces Availability of InfoGenesis™
`Mobile v2.0, Sept. 2013
`
`Xpient acquires Progressive, press release, August 2004
`
`Radiant Systems acquires Aloha Technologies, press
`release, Dec. 2003
`
`Case Study, Ameranth/Improv Comedy Clubs, Spring
`2000 (annotated)
`
`Computerworld Award summary, 2001 (annotated)
`
`Photograph from 1999 National Restaurant Association
`meeting in Chicago, IL, including (among others) Keith
`McNally and Graham Granger
`
`Dunkin’ Donuts Selects CARDFREE as its Mobile
`Platform, Business Wire, Dec. 2015.
`
`Transcript of remarks from 2009 FSTEC meeting,
`Technology Executives Panel
`
`-xii-
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00099
`
`I.
`
`STATEMENT OF PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED
`
`In accordance with 37 C.F.R. §42.207(a), Patent Owner, Ameranth,
`
`Inc., (“PO”) submits this Response to the CBM review Petition (“Pet.”)
`
`against U.S. Patent No. 6,871,325 ("the '325 patent"). For the reasons below,
`
`the Petition should be denied.1
`
`II.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Petitioner’s four 35 U.S.C. §103 challenges are all based on Brandt, which
`
`teaches away from the core inventive features of these claims and Brandt is not
`
`even a “hospitality” application. Additionally, Petitioner alleged that the ‘325
`
`claims would have been obvious to a POSA at the time of the invention in 1999
`
`even though Petitioner’s own CEO, Howard Schultz, claimed2 just months before
`
`1Petitioner’s standing argument merely references CBM2014-00016. If the Federal
`
`Circuit rules that the `325 patent in CBM 2014-00016 is not a CBM patent and that
`
`institution was improper, having relied on that institution for this CBM dooms the
`
`current Petition as well.
`
`Patent Owner incorporates herein its Preliminary
`
`Response arguments regarding standing and preserves its right to appeal the
`
`Board’s determination thereof.
`
`2 “Starbucks mobile order and pay is a totally unique technology,” Schultz said.
`
`“It seamlessly integrates mobile ordering and our proprietary mobile program
`
`with point of sale and store operations that enables us to enhance our customer
`
`-1-
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00099
`
`filing the Petition that the claimed seamless integration with, e.g., a point of sale
`
`(POS) system and “order ahead” technology (copied by Starbucks as discussed
`
`below in regard to objective evidence of nonobviousness) was “totally unique”
`
`even in 2014 and which “no company offers any technology remotely like.”
`
`Further still, for Petitioner to have even alleged that the ‘325 claims would have
`
`been “obvious” to a POSA at the time of the invention when Petitioner’s own
`
`expert admitted this same POSA would have been “bewildered” by the claimed
`
`synchronization of both “applications and data” at the core of these claims was
`
`disingenuous. Helal Decl. ¶101 (Exh. 1003) (“Synchronizing applications
`
`between a database, a handheld device, a web server, and a web page is
`
`bewildering.”) (emphasis added). And Petitioner’s allegation that the recited
`
`“central database” and storing “applications” was “not typical” (Dr. Helal testified
`
`that “it is not typical to store applications themselves in a database.” Exh. 1003 ¶
`
`94 (emphasis added)) further demonstrates the lack of credibility of the Petition
`
`assertions. These admissions alone confirm that there would have been no
`
`motivation for a POSA to combine the asserted references to seek to replicate
`
`experience, exceed our customers expectations and extend customer loyalty. As
`
`you will see in a few weeks, no company offers any technology remotely like
`
`Starbucks mobile order and pay.” (Oct. 31, 2014 Announcement (Exh. 2060)
`
`(emphasis added).
`
`-2-
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00099
`
`functionality which was “bewildering” and “atypical” and thus the opposite of
`
`“obvious.”
`
`Further, in addition to the technical and legal infirmities of Brandt vis-à-vis
`
`the actually claimed subject matter, a large quantity of objective evidence confirms
`
`nonobviousness.
`
`III. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`A BRI construction cannot read elements out of the claims and cannot be
`
`inconsistent with the intrinsic evidence. Microsoft Corp.v. Proxyconn, Inc., 789
`
`F.3d 1292, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
`
`Patent Owner presents the following proposals, all of which are supported
`
`by the intrinsic evidence. The Declaration of Dr. Alfred Weaver (Exh. 2041) in
`
`support of Ameranth’s positions on nonobviousness is critical in the claim
`
`construction analysis because it provides the perspective of a POSA in viewing the
`
`claims in light of his own knowledge and the specification disclosure. Per Dr.
`
`Weaver, a POSA would have had a Bachelor’s degree in either electrical
`
`engineering or computer science and at least three years of experience in the
`
`hospitality market in the fields of developing software for wireless networks and
`
`devices, developing Internet-based systems or applications, with knowledge of or
`
`equivalent experience in software development in the hospitality market for at least
`
`three years. (Weaver Decl., Exh. 2041 ¶21).
`
`-3-
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00099
`
`1.
`
`“wireless handheld computing device”
`
`Patent Owner proposes “a wireless computing device that is sized to be held
`
`in one’s hand.” See Everingham Order (Exh. 2033 at 24); Exh. 2041 ¶27.
`
`2.
`
`“central database”
`
`PO proposes “a database file structure connected to the system in association
`
`with a central server, comprised of records, each containing fields, together with a
`
`set of operations for searching, sorting, recombining and other functions.”
`
`Microsoft Comp. Dict. (4th ed.1999) (Exh. 2015, p. 123); Exh. 1001 at 2:24, 11-
`
`34-35 (“backoffice server (central database)”); id. at 2:8-10, 11:13-15
`
`(“synchronization between a central database and multiple handheld devices”).
`
`(Exh. 2041 ¶28).
`
`3.
`
`“web page”
`
`The PTAB construed consistent with its prior rulings to mean “a document,
`
`with associated files for graphics, scripts, and other resources, accessible over the
`
`internet and viewable in a web browser.” CBM2015-00091, Inst. Dec. 11; see also
`
`CBM2014-00015 (Exh. 1017 thereto at 8)); Exh. 2041 ¶29.
`
`4.
`
`“web server”
`
`The Microsoft Computer Dictionary states: “Web Server:” “See HTTP
`
`Server.” (Exh. 2042 (Page 479)). The Dictionary then states in regard to “HTTP
`
`Server:” “Server software that uses HTTP to serve up HTML documents and any
`
`-4-
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00099
`
`associated files and scripts when requested by a client such as a web browser.”
`
`(Exh. 2042 (Page 224)). Patent Owner proposes that this definition be adopted.
`
`Web Server is a recited element, its critical functionality in the claims has not been
`
`appreciated by the Petitioner or the Board, and the cited references suffer critical
`
`infirmities in meeting this limitation as properly construed and relative to the CCM
`
`and the third wherein clause of claim 12, as discussed below. (Exh. 2041 ¶30).
`
`5.
`
`“communications control module”
`
`This is a software layer, as Judge Payne concluded in prior district court
`
`litigation stating that “the specification itself provides the best construction for the
`
`term at issue.” (Exh. 2043 at 13). Based on the District Court constructions and
`
`intrinsic evidence, Patent Owner proposes the following construction for the CCM:
`
`a layer that sits on top of any communication protocol and acts as an
`interface between hospitality applications and the communication
`protocol.
`See Exh. 1001 4:9-13. Further, it is clear that the software-based CCM provides
`
`the claimed “automatic” communications “routing” functionality as shown by the
`
`specification, e.g., “[a]communication control program monitors and routes all
`
`communications to the appropriate devices” which “must be running for proper
`
`communications to exist between all devices on the network.” (Exh. 1001 9: 21-
`
`22, 38-39 (emphasis added)). As a functionally independent layer, it is also the
`
`CCM that deals concurrently with both HTTP and non-HTTP communications
`
`-5-
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00099
`
`messaging protocols of the system as claimed, and which also supports the
`
`integration of the separately recited API (which then also deals with software
`
`application-to-application direct integration and with third party systems/devices
`
`such as point-of-sale (POS) systems, as discussed further below). (Exh. 2041 ¶31).
`
`6.
`
`“synchronized”
`
`In another proceeding, the Board correctly construed to mean “made, or
`
`configured to make, consistent.” CBM2015-00080, Inst. Dec. 9. (Exh. 2041 ¶32).
`
`7.
`
`“hospitality applications”
`
`The Board correctly construed this term to mean “applications used to
`
`perform services or tasks in the hospitality industry.” However, this was
`
`incomplete because it failed to establish the actual boundaries of the “hospitality
`
`industry.” The specification states “hospitality applications, e.g., reservations,
`
`frequent customer ticketing, wait lists, etc.” Exh. 1001 4:6–7; Inst. Dec. 12.
`
`Further, in distinguishing prior art in the `325 application, Patent Owner stated:
`
`[H]ospitality software application is [] a piece of software used to
`provide operational solutions in hospitality industries such as
`restaurants and hotels, concerning, for example, food ordering,
`menus, wait-lists, and reservations
`Exh. 2039 at 7 (emphasis added); Exh. 2041 ¶33.
`Nonetheless, the Board relied on Petitioner’s misleadingly parsed excerpts
`
`from the Dittmer book to conclude that “hospitality” referred to the broader “travel
`
`-6-
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00099
`
`and transportation” industry (of which “hospitality” is only a subset). The Board
`
`stated: “[o]ur construction of hospitality includes businesses, such as car rental
`
`agencies, that provide services to travelers.” CBM2015-00091, Inst. Dec. 12 (“ On
`
`this record, we are persuaded that the ordinary and customary meaning of
`
`hospitality is broad enough to encompass car rental activities.”) (emphasis added).
`
`The Board mistakenly viewed Patent Owner’s proposed construction as a
`
`“narrowing” of Petitioner’s proposal for the broader and unclaimed “travel and
`
`transportation” industry and in so doing relied on a reference outside the correct
`
`construction. Further, the correct definition of the skills/knowledge of a POSA
`
`includes actual experience in the hospitality market, and such an experienced
`
`POSA would have fully understood the difference between the actual “hospitality”
`
`market and the broader “travel and tourism” market (Weaver Dec. ¶34-36 (Exh.
`
`2041)). Ameranth’s patents indisputably excluded any mention of the terms
`
`“travel” and “tourism.” Thus a POSA would have clearly understood the scope of
`
`the claims to exclude “car rentals,” a subset of the broader “travel and tourism”
`
`market and not within the “hospitality” subset. Still further, as confirmed by John
`
`Harker (an independent expert), “hundreds” of hospitality customers visited and
`
`“tens of thousands” walked by Ameranth’s booth at the launch of Ameranth’s 21CR
`
`product in May 1999. (Harker Testimony at175, 14-15 (Exh. 2045)). Thus a POSA
`
`at the time of the invention would have known that Ameranth’s inventions were
`
`-7-
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00099
`
`directed to automating “the traditional restaurant processes.” (Exh. 2044 at 1).
`
`Thus, the Board’s own decision, in viewing hospitality as including the
`
`“traditional” restaurant processes (as confirmed by Dittmer) 11 was correct in part.
`
`However, the Board viewed the definition too broadly due to the fact that it did not
`
`have access to the complete Dittmer reference at the time. The full Dittmer
`
`reference (Exh. 2040), and in particular its Glossary, compels a “hospitality”
`
`construction which excludes both “car rentals” and the broader and unclaimed
`
`“travel/tourism” industry. (Exh. 2041 ¶34).
`
`Confirming that the hospitality market was defined by Dittmer as
`
`"food/beverages and lodging" for guests and that hospitality is a subset of the
`
`larger superset "Travel and Tourism" (a different unclaimed term), Dittmer stated:
`
`[W]e will turn our attention from the specifics of food, beverage and
`lodging operations to the larger industry, of which hospitality
`operations are a part; travel and tourism.
`Exh. 2040, Dittmer at p. 396 (emphasis added). (Exh. 2041 ¶35). Thus the
`
`"hospitality industry" is not only different from the "travel and tourism" industry, it
`
`is a subset of the larger "travel and tourism" industry superset. This is directly
`
`11 “Here, the authors of the text discuss a ‘traditional view’ of hospitality that
`
`‘refers to the act of providing food, beverages, or lodging to travelers.’”
`
`(CBM2015-00091, Inst. Dec. at 11) (emphasis added).
`
`-8-
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00099
`
`contrary to Petitioner’s argument that "[t]he car rental applications described in
`
`Brandt are hospitality applications. Car rental companies fall within the "Travel
`
`and Tourism" sector of the hospitality indus-try. Ex. 1035 at 11-14 and 403-
`
`404." (Pet. 48-49 (emphasis added)). Petitioner’s characterization was backwards–
`
`in fact Dittmer confirms that “hospitality” is a sector of the broader “Travel and
`
`Tourism” industry. (Exh. 2041 ¶36).
`
`The single-line "car rental" reference on page 404 of Dittmer, on which
`
`Petitioner relied to support its incorrect argument that car rentals are a part of the
`
`hospitality industry–and which was also mistakenly relied on by the Board
`
`(CBM2015-00091, Inst. Dec. 12)–was actually a listing of businesses of the
`
`broader "travel industry.” (as discussed above, "car rentals" are part of the superset
`
`of "travel and tourism," not part of the "hospitality" subset.).
`
`The broadening of the "hospitality" claim term into "travel/tourism" was
`
`error because it was in contravention of the specification and the plain language of
`
`the claims and thus "will not pass muster" under Proxyconn. It is well established
`
`that limitations are not to be read from the specification into the claims. In re Van
`
`Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Far worse is to read unclaimed
`
`limitations from an extrinsic reference into the claims, which is what importing
`
`“travel and tourism” into these claims would do.
`
`The Glossary (pp. 530-560 of Exhibit 2040), i.e., the authors' "dictionary of
`
`-9-
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00099
`
`terms," includes the definitions below, which confirm that the Board
`
`misapprehended the selectively-produced portions of Petitioner’s Dittmer exhibit:
`
`Hospitality[:] Hospitality is a term derived from the Latin word
`"hospitare", meaning “to receive as a guest.” “To receive as a guest”
`is a phrase that implies a host prepared to meet a guest's basic require-
`ments while that guest is away from home–food, beverages and
`lodging. [Id. 543]
`Hospitality Industry[:] “The hospitality industry consists of busi-
`nesses that provide food, beverages, or lodging to travelers. [Id. 543]
`Travel and Tourism[:] The terms travel and tourism are commonly
`linked together to create this special term used to refer to those busi-
`nesses providing primary service to travelers. These include the
`traditional hospitality businesses and a number of others closely
`linked to them in such fields as entertainment, recreation, and
`transportation, plus travel agencies and tour operators.” [Id. 561]
`As confirmed by these definitions, a "car rental" is not a "hospitality application.
`
`Dittmer in fact disproves the argument that Brandt teaches "hospitality appli-
`
`cations." Dittmer itself shows that it is erroneous to read Brandt, a car-rental
`
`reference, to meet the "hospitality applications" limitation or apply Brandt to the
`
`critical “central database" limitation of the '325 claims. (Exh. 2041 ¶37).
`
`The Board correctly recognized examples of hospitality applications as,
`
`“e.g., reservations, frequent customer ticketing, waitlists, etc." (CBM2015-00091,
`
`Inst. Dec. 12). The Board’s established construction for "hospitality applications”
`
`-10-
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00099
`
`is “applications used to perform services or tasks in the hospitality industry”
`
`(Id., Inst. Dec. 13; emphasis added.) Thus, indisputably, Dittmer confirms that
`
`“auto rentals” are not in the “hospitality industry,”–they are in fact outside of it–in
`
`the unclaimed/broader “travel and tourism industry.” (Exh. 2041 ¶38).
`
`8.
`
`“application program interface”
`
`The recited API is not a generic API divorced from the definition of its
`
`function within ‘850 claim 12. (Exh. 2041 ¶39). See also “integration” below.
`
`9.
`
`“outside applications”
`
`In CBM2015-00080, the Board construed “outside applications” to mean
`
`“third party applications, such as point of sale companies, affinity program
`
`companies, and internet content providers.” Inst. Dec. 10; Exh. 2041 ¶40.
`
`10.
`
`“integration”
`
`In another case on a related patent, the Board construed “integration” to
`
`mean “combining of different activities, programs, or hardware components into a
`
`functional unit.” CBM2015-00080, Inst. Dec. 11. Patent Owner proposes adoption
`
`of this construction. (Exh. 2041 ¶41).This term and construction also must be
`
`considered in relation to the ”CCM” and “outside applications” terms as well.
`
`11. “Wherein the communications control module is an interface
`between the hospitality applications and any other
`communications protocol”
`
`In addition to correctly construing CCM standing alone as discussed above,
`
`-11-
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00099
`
`this wherein clause must be separately considered and construed as part of this
`
`broader claim element itself as well as in the context of “integration” and “outside
`
`applications,” and the claim as a whole. (Exh. 2041 ¶44).
`
`The Board’s initial determination that neither the claims nor the
`
`specification “require more than [] web based communications protocols” (Inst.
`
`Dec. 35) and that “the only specific protocol discussed in the specification is
`
`HTTP” (Id. at 32) was erroneous and ignores that the system as claimed
`
`“integrates” with, e.g., POS system devices and accommodates and adapts to new
`
`protocols without the necessity to change the underlying/core hospitality
`
`applications, a concept not taught by any of the asserted references as discussed
`
`below. For example, the claims and specification refer to “integration” with
`
`“outside applications.” i.e., third party systems such as POS system devices (which
`
`clearly operate with different protocols). (Exh. 2041 ¶45). The specification states:
`
`A simple point to point wireless capability is contemplated which
`permits simple digital messages to be sent from the wireless
`handheld devices ... to a receiver in a beeper and/or valet parking
`base-station. …A simple protocol is used to acknowledge receipt of
`the message and thus simultaneous communication is not necessary,
`which reduces the cost of the wireless link
`Exh. 1001 11:49-57 (emphasis added). It is readily apparent that this passage
`
`refers to an exemplary non-HTTP “wireless” protocol for, e.g., interfacing with
`
`pagers, just as a communication with a third party POS system might involve a
`
`-12-
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00099
`
`different protocol. The claimed CCM as described by the specification accommo-
`
`dates and routes messages to such systems/devi