throbber
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
`____________
`
`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
`
`CBM2015-00099
`
`Page
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`STATEMENT OF PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED .....................................1
`
`INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................1
`
`III.
`
`THE PETITION DOES NOT ESTABLISH STANDING..............................13
`
`IV. OVERVIEW....................................................................................................14
`
`A. 35 U.S.C. §103 Overview ..........................................................................14
`
`B. Overview Of Helal Declaration Errors And Omissions.............................18
`
`C. Overview Of Helal 2004 Patent Application .............................................20
`
`V.
`
`THE PETITION SHOULD BE REJECTED FOR IMPROPER
`INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE..........................................................24
`
`VI. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ............................................................................26
`
`A. PO’s Proposals In Juxtaposition To Petitioner’s Flawed
`Invalidity Challenges .................................................................................28
`
`1. “wireless handheld computing device”.................................................29
`
`2. “central database” .................................................................................29
`
`3. “web page”............................................................................................29
`
`4. “communications control module” .......................................................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” ..........................................................30
`
`8. “hospitality applications”......................................................................32
`
`9. “API,” “outside applications” and “integration”...................................33
`
`ii
`
`

`

`CBM2015-00099
`10.“data is sent to a wireless paging device” .............................................34
`
`VII. PETITIONER HAS NOT SHOWN THAT ANY OF CLAIMS
`11-13 OR 15 ARE MORE LIKELY THAN NOT INVALID
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. §112 ....................................................................35
`
`A. “Hospitality Applications And Data”.........................................................36
`
`1. Enablement ...........................................................................................36
`
`2. Definiteness...........................................................................................40
`
`3. Written Description...............................................................................40
`
`B. “Communications Control Module” ..........................................................41
`
`1. Enablement ...........................................................................................41
`
`2. Definiteness...........................................................................................42
`
`3. Written Description...............................................................................43
`
`C. “Software Libraries” ..................................................................................43
`
`D. “Claims As A Whole” Are Enabled...........................................................44
`
`VIII. PETITIONER HAS NOT SHOWN THAT ANY OF CLAIMS 11-13
`OR 15 ARE MORE LIKELY THAN NOT OBVIOUS .................................45
`
`A. Overview....................................................................................................45
`
`B. No Challenge Provides A Teaching Or Suggestion Of “A Central
`Database Containing Hospitality Applications And Data” ........................52
`
`C. No Challenge Provides Disclosure of A Teaching Or Suggestion
`Of “Hospitality Applications And Data” Which Are “Stored” On A
`Wireless Handheld Computing Device......................................................54
`
`D. No Challenge Identifies A Teaching or Suggestion Of “At Least
`One Web Page On Which Hospitality Applications And Data Are
`Stored” As Recited By Claim 12 ...............................................................57
`
`E. No Challenge Provides A Teaching Or Suggestion Of The
`“Communications Control Module” Functionality Of Claim 12 ...............58
`
`F. No Challenge Identifies A Teaching Or Suggestion Of “Wherein
`iii
`
`

`

`CBM2015-00099
`Applications And Data Are Synchronized Between The Central Data
`Base, At Least One Wireless Handheld Computing Device, At Least
`One Web Server And At Least One Web Page”........................................59
`
`G. No Challenge Provides Disclosure Or Suggestion Of Hospitality
`Application Functionality As Required By Claims 11-13 And 15 ............62
`
`H. Integration/API/Outside Applications........................................................64
`
`I. Dependent Claim 15...................................................................................65
`
`J. Objective Evidence Of Non-Obviousness..................................................65
`
`IX.
`
`PETITIONER HAS NOT SHOWN THAT ANY OF CLAIMS 11-13
`OR 15 ARE MORE LIKELY THAN NOT INVALID UNDER
`35 U.S.C. §101 ..................................................................................75
`
`X.
`
`CONCLUSION ...............................................................................................80
`
`iv
`
`

`

`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`
`CBM2015-00099
`
`Page
`
`ActiveVideo Networks, Inc. v. Verizon, Inc.
`694 F.3d 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2012)..................................................................... 47-48
`
`Agilysys, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc.
`CBM2014-00015 (Paper 20) (Mar. 26, 2014).................................................36
`
`Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Intl.
`134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014) ................................................................75, 76, 77, 78, 79
`
`Allen Archery, Inc. v. Browning Mfg. Co.
`819 F.2d 1087 (Fed. Cir. 1987).......................................................................70
`
`Amgen, Inc. v. Hoechst Marion Roussel, Inc.
`314 F.3d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2003).......................................................................39
`
`Apple v. ContentGuard, Inc.
`CBM2015-00046, Paper 12.............................................................................14
`
`Ariad Pharm., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co.
`598 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2010).................................................................... 36, 41
`
`Biosig Instruments, Inc. v. Nautilus, Inc.
`No. 2014-1289, at 6-7 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 27, 2015).............................................36
`
`Bloomberg L.P. v. Quest Corp.
`CBM2014-00205, Paper No. 16.................................................................... 13-14
`
`CAE Screenplates Inc. v. Heinrich Fiedler GmbH & Co. KG
`224 F.3d 1308 (Fed. Cir. 2000) ...................................................................33
`
`CBS v. Sylvania., Inc.
`415 F.2d 719 (1st Cir. 1969), cert. denied, 396 U.S. 1061 (1970)................ 68
`
`Cisco Systems, Inc., v. C-Cation Techs., LLC
`IPR2014-00454, Paper 12 at 10 (PTAB Aug. 29, 2014).................................25
`
`v
`
`

`

`Continental Can Co. v. Monsanto Co.
`948 F.2d 1264 (Fed. Cir. 1991).......................................................................17
`
`DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, LP
`No. 2013-1505 at 20 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 5, 2014).............................................. 76, 77
`
`CBM2015-00099
`
`DeSilva v. DiLeonardi
`181 F.3d 865 (7th Cir. 1999)...........................................................................25
`
`Falko-Gunter Falkner v. Inglis
`448 F.3d 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2006).......................................................................41
`
`Heidelberger v. Hantscho Prods.
`21 F.3d 1068 (Fed. Cir. 1994).........................................................................73
`
`Hockerson-Halberstadt, Inc. v. Converse Inc.
`183 F.3d 1369 (Fed. Cir. 1999).......................................................................27
`
`In re Carroll
`601 F.2d 1184 (CCPA 1979)............................................................................6, 7
`
`In re Gardner
`480 F.2d 879 (CCPA 1973)........................................................................... 40-41
`
`In re Geisler
`116 F.3d 1465 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ...................................................................49
`
`In re Haruna
`249 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2001) ...................................................................49
`
`In re Koller
`613 F.2d 819 (CCPA 1980).............................................................................41
`
`In re Papst Licensing Digital Camera Patent Litigation
`778 F.3d 1255 (Fed. Cir. 2015).......................................................................28
`
`In re Ratti
`270 F.2d 810 (CCPA 1959).............................................................................50
`
`In re Roufett
`149 F.1350 (Fed. Cir. 1998)............................................................................73
`
`vi
`
`

`

`CBM2015-00099
`
`In Re Sponnoble
`405 F.2d 578 (CCPA 1969).............................................................................16
`
`In re Wands
`858 F.2d 731 (Fed. Cir. 1988)...................................................................... 35, 38
`
`Interconnect Planning Corp. v. Feil
`774 F.2d 1132 (Fed. Cir. 1985) .......................................................................16
`
`Johns Hopkins v. CellPro, Inc.
`152 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 1998).........................................................................5
`
`Oakley, Inc. v. Sunglass Hut Int'l
`316 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2003).................................................................8, 19
`
`Microsoft, Inc. v. Proxyconn, Inc.
`No. 2014-1542 (Fed Cir. June 16, 2015) .....................................................33
`
`Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc.
`134 S. Ct. 2120 (2014) .................................................................. 9, 36, 40, 42-43
`
`Orthopedic Equip. Co. v. United States
`702 F.2d 1005 (Fed. Cir. 1983) ...................................................................53
`
`Plantronics, Inc. v. Aliph, Inc.
`724 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2013).......................................................................17
`
`Power-One, Inc. v. Artesyn Tech., Inc.
`599 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2010).......................................................................74
`
`Rambus Inc. v. Rea
`731 F.3d 1248 (Fed. Cir. 2013).......................................................................69
`
`Tec Air, Inc. v. Denso Inc.
`192 F.3d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 1999) ...................................................................50
`
`Tempur Sealy Int'l, Inc. v. Select Comfort Corp.
`IPR 2014-01419, Paper 7 (PTAB Feb. 17, 2015) ........................................ 25, 26
`
`vii
`
`

`

`CBM2015-00099
`
`Teva Pharm., Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc.
`723 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2013).......................................................................69
`
`Travelocity v. Cronos Tech.
`CBM2014-00082, Paper No. 10 at 14........................................................... 26-27
`
`Travelocity v. Cronos Tech.
`CBM2014-00082, Paper No. 12 at 4-5............................................................56
`
`Union Pacific Res. Co. v. Chesapeake Energy Corp.
`236 F.3d 684 (Fed. Cir. 2001).........................................................................44
`
`Unique Concepts, Inc. v. Brown
`939 F.2d 1558 (Fed. Cir. 1991).................................................................... 31, 54
`
`V-Formation, Inc. v. Benetton Group SpA
`401 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2005).........................................................................2
`
`Other
`37 C.F.R. §42.6(a)(3) ..................................................................................................7
`
`37 C.F.R. §42.22(a)(2) ................................................................................................7
`
`37 C.F.R. §42.104(b)(4) ..............................................................................................7
`
`37 C.F.R. §42.104(b)(5) ..............................................................................................7-8
`
`37 C.F.R. §42.207(a) ...................................................................................................1
`
`35 U.S.C. §101 ..............................................................................1, 2, 11, 18, 63, 75, 80
`
`35 U.S.C. §102 ............................................................................................................8
`
`35 U.S.C. §103 ..................................................1, 2, 8, 12, 14, 17, 25, 36. 45. 47, 49, 80
`
`35 U.S.C. §112 ............................................................................1, 3, 4, 5, 35, 36, 79, 80
`
`35 U.S.C. §312(a)(3) ...................................................................................................8
`
`35 U.S.C. §314(d)........................................................................................................1
`
`Microsoft Comp. Dict. (4th ed.1999) ..................................................................... 29, 34
`
`MPEP §2163..............................................................................................................19
`viii
`
`

`

`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/2014/06/1
`6/dominos-voice-ordering-app-nuancefast-
`food-restaurants/10626419/, June 16, 2014
`
`ix
`
`

`

`2008
`
`2009
`
`2010
`
`2011
`
`2012
`
`2013
`
`2014
`
`2015
`
`2016
`
`2017
`
`2018
`2019
`
`2020
`
`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
`App. Ser. No. 11/112,990, Declaration under 1.132 (Aug.
`2009)
`
`x
`
`

`

`2021
`
`2022
`
`2023
`
`2024
`
`2025
`
`2026
`
`2027
`
`2028
`
`2029
`2030
`
`2031
`
`2032
`
`2033
`
`2034
`
`2035
`
`2036
`
`CBM2015-00099
`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)
`Edwards, et al., “Designing and Implementing
`Asynchronous Collaborative Applications with Bayou”
`(1997)
`App. Ser. No. 11/112,990, Interview Summary (Oct. 2011)
`
`Starbucks Investor Presentation (2014)
`
`xi
`
`

`

`2037
`
`2038
`
`2039
`
`CBM2015-00099
`“The Holy Grail Of Room Inventory Distribution – Cloud
`PMS” (June 15, 2015)
`
`“Hotel Brands must travel cross-channel route to
`bookings” (June 15, 2015)
`
`App. Ser. No. 10/015,729, Preliminary Amendment (Nov.
`1, 2001)
`
`xii
`
`

`

`I.
`
`STATEMENT OF PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED
`In accordance with 37 C.F.R. §42.207(a), Patent Owner, Ameranth, Inc.,
`
`CBM2015-00099
`
`(“PO”) submits this Preliminary Response to Petitioner Starbucks’ belated,
`
`second, Covered Business Method (“CBM”) review (“Petition” or “Pet.”) against
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,871,325 ("the ‘325 patent"). For the reasons given below, the
`
`Petition for review of claims 11-13 and 15 should be denied because the claims
`
`are not invalid under 35 U.S.C. §§101, 103 or 112.
`II.
`INTRODUCTION
`Petitioner Starbucks’ first attempt to invalidate claims 11-13 and 15 of the ‘325
`
`patent based on 35 U.S.C. §§101/112 (filed 16 months earlier) failed entirely, just as
`
`this belated second attempt under 35 U.S.C. §§101/112/103 fails. This second
`
`Petition is in material respects a “do over” challenge to the failed §§101/112 grounds
`and is merely an attempt to circumvent the non-appealability1 of the original non-
`institution ruling on these grounds. The only grounds in the Petition which is
`
`arguably not redundant of the grounds put forth in CBM2014-00016 is a baseless
`
`§103 challenge. First, this challenge asserts obviousness despite the fact that
`
`Petitioner and others have repeatedly referred to the inventive concepts of these
`
`claims as the “holy grail.” Second, Petitioner does not even identify references
`
`which disclose the recited “hospitality applications,” and compounds that error
`
`by absurdly attempting to equate a reservations embodiment with the food
`ordering and waitlist embodiments of claims 11 and 12.2 In fact, it appears that
`
`1 Under 35 U.S.C. §314(d), “The determination by the Director whether to institute an
`inter partes review (IPR) under this section shall be final and nonappealable.” The
`same “nonappealable” language is found in the AIA sections governing CBM review.
`2 Petitioner relies on a travel/transportation reference, despite the fact that neither
`1
`
`

`

`CBM2015-00099
`
`the §103 challenges were put forth merely to include some grounds which were
`
`not argued in the first Petition (CBM2014-00016). Petitioner and its expert,
`
`Helal, do not even acknowledge the first Petition or that the non-institution
`
`ruling regarding claims 11-15 ever happened. This is confirmed by the
`
`Petition’s using the same verbiage in making its redundant §101 challenge,
`
`against these very same claims, as was used in the prior Petition, for example:
`The Challenged Claims are “do it on a computer” claims. They are
`directed to fundamental and abstract activities in the hospitality industry
`such as ordering, reservations, and waitlists.
`Pet. at 71 (emphasis added). But Petitioner made this very same allegation before:
`Claims 11-15 cover nothing more than an abstract idea of placing an
`order or reservation using a general purpose computer and wireless
`handheld device
`CBM2014-00016, Paper 8 at 10 (emphasis added). However, the PTAB rejected it:
`We do not view these claims as reciting merely the abstract idea of
`“placing an order or reservation using a general purpose computer
`and wireless handheld device,” but rather as a particular practical
`application of the idea of application and data synchronization.
`Id. Paper 19 at 25 (emphasis added). Further, the PTAB clearly recognized the multi-
`
`faceted specificity and hence non-abstractness of claims 11-15 in the prior proceeding:
`
`“travel” nor “transportation” appear even once anywhere in the intrinsic record, and
`the intrinsic-evidence based construction of “hospitality” excludes embodiments such
`as airline, rail, auto or other transportation applications. The patent and prosecution
`history usually provide "the technological and temporal context to enable the court to
`ascertain the meaning of the claim to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
`invention." V-Formation, Inc. v. Benetton Group SpA, 401 F.3d 1307, 1310 (Fed. Cir.
`2005). Petitioner’s assertion that “renting cars” is a “hospitality application” fails,
`just as does its attempt to assert that “reservation” equates to “food ordering” or
`“waitlisting” applications under a proper construction as discussed below.
`2
`
`

`

`CBM2015-00099
`The combination of these components interact in a specific way to
`synchronize applications and data between the components and outside
`application that is integral to the claimed invention and meaningfully
`limit these claims.
`Id. Paper 19 at 25 (emphasis added). Despite the Board’s clarity in its non-appealable
`
`ruling, Petitioner clearly is repeating the same failed arguments. This attempt is the
`
`hallmark of what the Board’s non-redundancy precedent was designed to prevent.
`
`Petitioner tries essentially the same tactic in its “second bite at the apple”
`
`attempt under §112, serially lodging challenges to terms of the claims irrespective
`
`of the loss of prior challenges under §112 and the non-appealability thereof. PO
`
`submits that nothing has changed in the claims since Petitioner filed its first §112
`challenges,3 and thus there is no justification for allowing Petitioner to
`circumvent the non-appealability of the Board’s decision on the prior §112
`
`grounds. Petitioner’s full awareness of its later-asserted challenge at the time of the
`
`earlier petition compels dismissal of the second Petition for redundancy:
`[T]he present Petition amounts to a second bite at the apple for Petitioner
`… We are not persuaded that allowing Petitioner to begin a second
`proceeding now to argue a claim deficiency of which it was aware, but did
`not assert in the earlier Petition, is an appropriate circumstance in which
`to grant covered business method patent review … a decision on a petition
`for covered business method review is not simply part of a feedback loop
`by which a petitioner may perfect its challenges through a subsequent
`filing. … [I]f this present petition is rejected on the merits, Petitioners
`would simply file yet another petition for a CBM review that (again)
`attempts to address any reasons for denial articulated by the Board.
`
`3 See IPR2015-00555 Paper 20 at 8 (June 19, 2015) (“In this proceeding, however, we
`are not apprised of a reason that merits a second chance. Petitioner simply presents
`arguments now that it could have made in IPR ’892, had it merely chosen to do so.”).”).
`3
`
`

`

`CBM2015-00099
`
`CBM2015-00047, Paper 7 at 12-13 (June 15, 2015). Under Petitioner’s approach,
`
`serial petitions could be filed indefinitely by simply challenging one term at a
`
`time a year and a half apart. PO submits that this is an abuse of the AIA intent.
`
`In any event, the patent description and claims clearly meet all
`
`requirements of §112, as shown below. Petitioner has come nowhere close to
`
`establishing otherwise. For example, “there is a strong presumption that an
`
`adequate written description of the claimed invention is present in the
`
`Specification as filed” (Exh. 2026 at 3) and it is an indisputable fact that there has
`
`never been a §112-based rejection or determination relative to the challenged
`
`claims. This spans 15 years of prosecution history (involving multiple patent
`
`examiners and multiple supervisory patent examiners), includes three different
`
`district court proceedings involving three different Federal Judges in claim
`
`construction proceedings, and includes a Panel of the PTAB reviewing the
`
`specification/drawings and rejecting all §112 challenges in the first petition filed
`
`by the present Petitioner. (CBM2014-00016).
`
`The fact that numerous POSA have had no difficulty understanding the
`
`‘325 disclosure clearly serves to nullify Petitioner’s §112 arguments.
`
`Nevertheless, Petitioner and its expert incredibly now allege, in 2015, that
`
`everyone else was wrong in having no problem understanding the ‘325 patent
`
`and its claims and that Petitioner’s unilateral litigation-induced “confusion”
`
`warrants invalidation of these claims on multiple bases under §112.
`
`Further still, Petitioner’s new challenge alleging non-enablement of the
`
`patent ignores Petitioner’s own prior challenge/position, in which Petitioner
`
`4
`
`

`

`CBM2015-00099
`
`admitted to the “enablement” of the “database on the handheld” embodiment4 in
`the first petition (CBM2014-00016). Black letter precedent requires only one
`
`embodiment to satisfy the enablement requirement–the “enablement requirement is
`met if the description enables any mode of making and using the invention.”5 But
`the PTAB has already rejected Petitioner’s contention that there was inadequate
`
`written description for the “web page” embodiments and in fact all claimed
`
`embodiments are enabled, but that is not even required to defeat the present
`
`enablement challenge. Additionally, Petitioner and its expert apparently did not
`
`even study the ‘325 file history; if they had, they would have seen that
`
`Ameranth’s original filing on September 21, 1999 included actual live screen
`
`shots from its only product at the time, the 21st Century Restaurant™ System, as
`
`evidenced by the logo on original Figures 1 and 6 (Exh. 2029), which clearly
`
`links this “working example” embodiment directly to the specification disclosure
`as a whole,6 contrary to Petitioner’s argument. (Pet. at 27-28).
`Evidence compelling rejection of the Petition comes from Petitioner
`
`Starbucks itself, in which Starbucks praised the inventions (discussed below),
`
`4 CBM2014-00016, Paper 8 at 47 (“the original specification only arguably supports
`one of these species–synchronizing information with a central database and a
`handheld device’s existing local copy of same”) (emphasis added).
`5 Ex parte Marcel, No. 2009-010632 at 6 (BPAI May 26, 2010) (Exh. 2027) (emphasis
`added) (quoting Johns Hopkins v. CellPro, Inc., 152 F.3d 1342, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
`6 The contemporaneous and widespread acclaim that Ameranth received for the
`21st Century Restaurant™ system (also ignored by Petitioner as discussed
`below) clearly demonstrates that Ameranth had developed and deployed working
`examples of its sole product as detailed in the application filing inclusion of
`“screen shots” of same.
`
`5
`
`

`

`CBM2015-00099
`
`and from undisclosed evidence of Starbucks’ technical expert Helal. This
`
`undisclosed evidence not only directly contradicts and nullifies Helal’s
`
`hindsight-based Declaration in support of the Petition, but actually serves as an
`
`expert opinion confirming patentability of the challenged claims as documented
`
`and explained below. The PTAB has recently confirmed that earlier expert
`opinions, untainted by hindsight or bias, are very compelling.7
`After founding Phoneomena, Inc. in 2002 (the first of his two different
`mobile middleware companies in Ameranth’s technical and product space8),
`Petitioner’s expert Helal filed a patent application which included numerous core
`
`features of the ‘325 patent/claims (filed on January 15, 2004, claiming a priority
`date of January 15, 2003,9 both several years after Ameranth’s inventive priority
`date but years before he was retained by Petitioner in this case). In this
`
`application, which is discussed fully below in comparison to the subject matter
`
`of ‘325 claims 11-13, Helal claimed many of Ameranth’s core inventive ideas for
`
`himself–even including a “hotel reservations” embodiment. However, none of
`
`this was disclosed in Helal’s CV filed in this PTAB proceeding. This
`
`circumstance is just such a situation recognized by the Board as providing
`
`7 Ex parte PPG, No. 2013-006445 at 12 (PTAB June 1, 2015) (Exh. 2028) (“Unlike
`the usual expert opinion, prepared either by the applicant himself, or on his behalf
`after the controversy has arisen, [the] opinion was formulated prior to the making of
`the claimed invention. It was therefore completely untainted by either hindsight or
`bias.”) (emphasis added) (quoting In re Carroll, 601 F.2d 1184, 1186 (CCPA 1979)).
`8 “[H]e is founder, President and CEO of Phoneomena, Inc., a mobile application and
`middleware company, and President of Pervasa, Inc., a University of Florida start-up
`focused on platform and middleware products for sensor networks.” (Exh. 2030 at 1).
`9 Ser. No. 10/758,180 (“Server Side Wireless Development Tool”) (Exh. 2031).
`6
`
`

`

`CBM2015-00099
`
`compelling evidence untainted by hindsight or bias. Helal’s 2004 application was
`
`accompanied by a sworn statement that “I believe that I am the original and
`
`first inventor of the subject matter.” (Exh. 2032) (emphasis added). This
`
`statement completely contradicts his new opinions as detailed below. The earlier
`
`application and sworn statement thus negates Helal’s hindsight-based, litigation-
`
`induced, obviousness opinions and in fact demonstrates non-obviousness.
`Helal’s current allegations10 do not withstand even cursory scrutiny.
`Thus, while now under retention to Petitioner, Helal asserted that he could
`
`not understand ‘325 claims 11-13 and 15, but nonetheless opined that all
`
`features in them were obvious and well known in 1999–but he did not mention
`
`that he had sought a patent for himself and asserted novelty of several of the
`
`same features present in ‘325 claims 11-13 four years after the ‘325 patent
`
`priority date. Beyond refuting his 2015 opinions, Helal’s earlier 2004
`
`application and declaration asserting that he was the “first inventor” of those
`ideas actually serves as an expert opinion confirming patentability.11
`The Petition also violates and/or ignores multiple case law directives, precedent,
`rules and regulations, each violation individually compelling denial.12 Petitioner’s
`
`10 Helal stated that “[n]one of the features described in Claims 11-13 and 15 of the
`‘325 patent was novel as of the earliest priority date, nor does the ‘325 patent teach a
`novel and non-obvious way of combining the known features.” (Exh. 1003 at ¶11)
`(emphasis added).
`11 See Ex Parte PPG, Appeal No. 2013-006445 at 12 (Exh. 2028) (“opinion []
`formulated prior to the making of the claimed invention ... was therefore completely
`untainted by either hindsight or bias”) (quoting In re Carroll, 601 F.2d at 1186).
`12 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
`7
`
`

`

`CBM2015-00099
`
`expert Helal in fact followed Petitioner counsel’s opinions on the law,13 not the actual
`law or AIA implementing Regulations. However, counsel failed to advise him, inter
`
`alia, that his 35 U.S.C. §103 analysis was required to consider the objective evidence
`
`of non-obviousness. Having failed to acknowledge that requirement, and more
`
`importantly not having done it, Helal’s obviousness opinions innately fail as violative
`
`of established Supreme Court precedent. Further still, despite criticizing almost every
`
`term in the claims as either indefinite, lacking written description and/or not enabled,
`
`seemingly miraculously, Helal was still able to opine that his hindsight-based prior art
`
`combinations render the claims obvious–despite, by his own admission, being
`“bewildered”14 by the core synchronization of these claims. In fact, it is only his
`inconsistent and self-contradicted opinion that is truly “bewildering.” Helal did not
`
`provide a single claim construction (merely proclaiming that he was relying on BRI
`
`constructions, yet never defining what they were) and did not explain how he
`
`determined that alleged prior art teachings rendered allegedly “indefinite” claims
`
`obvious. It is black letter law that claims must be construed before they can be
`compared to the prior art,15 and an indefinite claim does not “in

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