`____________
`
`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