Trials@uspto.gov
`571.272.7822
`
`Paper No. 9
`Filed: September 14, 2015
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`STARBUCKS CORPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`AMERANTH, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case CBM2015-00091
`Patent 6,384,850 B1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Before MEREDITH C. PETRAVICK, RICHARD E. RICE, and
`STACEY G. WHITE, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`WHITE, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Covered Business Method Patent Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.208
`
`
`
`
`Apple Inc. Exhibit 1052
`
`
`571.272.7822
`
`Paper No. 9
`Filed: September 14, 2015
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`STARBUCKS CORPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`AMERANTH, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case CBM2015-00091
`Patent 6,384,850 B1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Before MEREDITH C. PETRAVICK, RICHARD E. RICE, and
`STACEY G. WHITE, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`WHITE, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Covered Business Method Patent Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.208
`
`
`
`
`Apple Inc. Exhibit 1052
`
`
`
`CBM2015-00091
`Patent 6,384,850 B1
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`
`A. Background
`Starbucks Corporation (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition (Paper 1, “Pet.”)
`requesting covered business method patent review of claims 12–16
`(“challenged claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 6,384,850 B1 (Ex. 1001, “the ’850
`patent”) pursuant to § 18 of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”).
`Ameranth, Inc. (“Patent Owner”) filed a Preliminary Response. Paper 7
`(“Prelim. Resp.”). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 324, which
`provides that a covered business method patent review may not be instituted
`“unless . . . it is more likely than not that at least 1 of the claims challenged
`in the petition is unpatentable.”
`Petitioner contends, with the support of its Declarant, Dr. Abdelsalam
`Helal (Ex. 1003), that the challenged claims are unpatentable under
`35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 112, and 103 on the following grounds (Pet. 28–79):
`Reference(s)
`Basis Claims Challenged
`N/A
`§ 101
`12–16
` § 1121
`N/A
`12–16
`Brandt2 and NetHopper3
`§ 103
`12–16
`Brandt, Demers,4 and Alonso5
`§ 103
`12–16
`
`1 Petitioner asserts eight grounds based upon § 112. Grounds 1–3 focus on
`issues of enablement, indefiniteness, and lack of written description
`concerning the claim term “hospitality applications and data.” Grounds 4–6
`focus on issues of enablement, indefiniteness, and lack of written description
`concerning the claim term “communications control module.” Ground 7
`asserts lack of enablement of “software libraries.” Ground 8 focuses
`enablement of the claims as a whole. Pet. 28–44.
`2 Japanese Unexamined App. No. H10-247183 (published Sept. 14, 1998)
`(Ex. 1004) (certified translation, Ex. 1005,“Brandt”).
`3 NetHopper Version 3.2 User’s Manual, 1–24 (1997) (Ex. 1006,
`“NetHopper”).
`
`2
`
`Apple Inc. Exhibit 1052
`
`
`
`CBM2015-00091
`Patent 6,384,850 B1
`
`Our factual findings and conclusions at this stage of the proceeding
`are based on the evidentiary record developed thus far (prior to Patent
`Owner’s Response). This is not a final decision as to the patentability of any
`of the claims for which a covered business method patent review is
`instituted. Our final decision will be based on the record as fully developed
`during trial. Upon consideration of the Petition and Preliminary Response,
`we determine that Petitioner has demonstrated that it is more likely than not
`that the challenged claims are unpatentable on the grounds discussed below.
`Accordingly, we institute a covered business method patent review of claims
`12–16 of the ’850 patent.
`
`B. Related Matters
`The parties indicate that the ’850 patent is the subject of the following
`district court case: Ameranth, Inc. v. Starbucks Corp., No. 3-13-cv-01072
`(S.D. Cal.) filed May 6, 2013. Pet. 2 (citing Ex. 1045). Petitioner notes that
`Patent Owner has asserted the ’850 patent against thirty-five other
`defendants in a number of civil actions that have been consolidated into
`Ameranth, Inc. v. Pizza Hut, No. 3-11-cv-01810 (S.D. Cal.). Id. at 3.
`In a previous proceeding before the Board, claims 1–11 of the ’850
`patent were held to be unpatentable. Agilysys, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc.,
`Case CBM2014-00015 (PTAB Mar. 20, 2015) (Paper 36). Petitioner also
`filed a petition for covered business method patent review of a related
`
`
`4 Alan Demers, et al., The Bayou Architecture: Support for Data Sharing
`Among Mobile Users, Mobile Computing Systems & Applications, 1995.
`Proceedings., Workshop on. IEEE, 1–7, 1995. (Ex. 1009, “Demers”).
`5 Gustavo Alonso et al., Exotica/FMDC: A Workflow Management System
`for Mobile and Disconnected Clients, Databases & Mobile Computing, 28–
`45, 1996 (Ex. 1012, “Alonso”).
`
`3
`
`Apple Inc. Exhibit 1052
`
`
`
`CBM2015-00091
`Patent 6,384,850 B1
`
`patent, U.S. Patent No. 6,871,325 B1. Starbucks Corp. v. Ameranth, Inc.,
`Case CBM2015-00099. Patent Owner identifies eleven covered business
`method patent reviews (both pending and completed) that it states are related
`to this Petition. Paper 5 (Notice of Related Matters). The previous and
`pending related petitions are summarized in the table below.
`
`U.S. Patent No.
`6,384,850 B1
`
`6,871,325 B1
`
`6,982,733 B1
`8,146,077 B1
`
`
`
`Previous CBM Reviews Pending CBM Reviews
`CBM2014-00015
`CBM2015-00080
`CBM2015-00096
`CBM2015-00082
`CBM2015-00097
`CBM2015-00099
`
`CBM2015-00081
`CBM2015-00095
`
`CBM2014-00016
`
`CBM2014-00013
`CBM2014-00014
`
`C. The ‘850 Patent
`The ’850 patent, titled “Information Management and Synchronous
`Communications System with Menu Generation” issued May 7, 2002 based
`on Application No. 09/400,413 filed September 21, 1999. Ex. 1001, at [21],
`[22], [45], [54]. The challenged claims are directed to an information
`management and synchronous communications system. Id. at 16:1–47. This
`system “results in a dramatic reduction in the amount of time, and hence
`cost, to generate and maintain computerized menus for, e.g., restaurants and
`other related applications that utilize non-PC-standard graphical formats,
`display sizes or applications.” Id. at 3:26–30.
`
`4
`
`Apple Inc. Exhibit 1052
`
`
`
`CBM2015-00091
`Patent 6,384,850 B1
`
`The system includes a central database, multiple handheld devices,
`and a web server. Id. at 3:59–63. It also includes an application
`programming interface (“API”) that enables third parties, such as point-of-
`sale companies, affinity program companies, and internet content providers,
`to integrate fully with the computerized hospitality applications. Id. at 2:11–
`16; 3:64–67; 11:15–19. The system has a communications control module
`to “provide[] a single point of entry for all hospitality applications, e.g.,
`reservations, frequent customer ticketing, wait lists, etc.[,] to communicate
`with one another wirelessly and over the Web.” Id. at 4:5–8. This
`communications control module is a layer that sits on top of any
`communication protocol and acts as an interface between hospitality
`applications and the communication protocol. Id. at 4:8–11; 11:24–30.
`Claim 12 of the ’850 patent is illustrative of the claims at issue and
`read as follows:
`12. An information management and synchronous
`communications system for use with wireless handheld
`computing devices and the internet comprising:
`a. a central database containing hospitality applications and
`data,
`b. at least one wireless handheld computing device on which
`hospitality applications and data are stored,
`c. at least one Web server on which hospitality applications and
`data are stored,
`d. at least one Web page on which hospitality applications and
`data are stored,
`e. an application program interface, and
`f. a communications control module,
`wherein applications and data are synchronized between the
`central data base, at least one wireless handheld computing
`
`5
`
`Apple Inc. Exhibit 1052
`
`
`
`CBM2015-00091
`Patent 6,384,850 B1
`
`device, at least one Web server and at least one Web page;
`wherein the application program interface enables intergration
`of outside applications with the hospitality applications and
`wherein the communications control module is an interface
`between the hospitality applications and any other
`communication protocol.
`II. ANALYSIS
`A. Grounds for Standing
`Section 18 of the America Invents Act created a transitional program,
`limited to persons or their privies that have been sued or charged with
`infringement of a “covered business method patent,” which does not include
`patents for “technological inventions.” AIA §§ 18(a)(1)(B), 18(d)(1), Pub.
`L. No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284, 329–331 (2011); see 37 C.F.R. § 42.302.
`Regarding the first requirement, Petitioner contends that it has been
`sued for infringement of the ’850 patent in Ameranth, Inc. v. Starbucks
`Corp., No. 3-13-cv-01072 (S.D. Cal.). Pet. 2, 5. Petitioner also asserts that
`it is not barred or estopped from seeking covered business method patent
`review of the ’850 patent. Id. at 5.
`
`1. Covered Business Method
`We must determine whether the ’850 patent claims a covered business
`method, which is “a method or corresponding apparatus for performing data
`processing or other operations used in the practice, administration, or
`management of a financial product or service.” AIA § 18(d)(1); see 37
`C.F.R. § 42.301(a). A patent need have only one claim directed to a covered
`business method to be eligible for review. See Transitional Program for
`Covered Business Method Patents—Definitions of Covered Business
`Method Patent and Technological Invention; Final Rule, 77 Fed. Reg.
`48,734, 48,736 (Aug. 14, 2012) (“CBM Rules”) (Comment 8). The
`
`6
`
`Apple Inc. Exhibit 1052
`
`
`
`CBM2015-00091
`Patent 6,384,850 B1
`
`“legislative history explains that the definition of covered business method
`patent was drafted to encompass patents ‘claiming activities that are
`financial in nature, incidental to a financial activity or complementary to a
`financial activity.’” See id. at 48,734, 48,735 (quoting 157 Cong. Rec.
`S5432 (daily ed. Sept. 8, 2011) (statement of Sen. Schumer)). Patents
`directed to technological inventions, however, are excluded from covered
`business method patent review. AIA § 18(d)(1); see 37 C.F.R. § 42.301(a).
`
`2. Financial Product or Service
`Petitioner contends that claim 12 establishes that the ’850 patent is
`eligible for covered business method patent review. Pet. 6. According to
`Petitioner, “[c]laim 12 is directed to ‘an information management and
`synchronous communications system . . .’ for computerizing hospitality
`activities such as ordering food for purchase.” Id. at 10 (citing Ex. 1001,
`1:33–37, 2:33–36); see also id. at 10 n. 1 (citing Ex. 1002, 17:4–26 (claim
`11 of a continuation of the ’850 patent wherein claim 11 is identical to claim
`12 of the ’850 patent except for the addition of language specifying that the
`claimed synchronized data relates to orders)). We note that the specification
`describes using the system in the context of online or mobile ordering and
`paying in restaurant and other hospitality contexts. See Ex. 1001, 4:5–8
`(listing hospitality applications such as “reservations, frequent customer
`ticketing, wait lists, etc.”), 1:20–24, 1:61, 3:43–52, Fig. 7. These activities
`are at least incidental to financial activity. Thus, on this record, we are
`persuaded that at least claim 12 of the ’850 patent meets the financial-in-
`nature requirement of § 18(d)(1) of the AIA.
`
`7
`
`Apple Inc. Exhibit 1052
`
`
`
`CBM2015-00091
`Patent 6,384,850 B1
`
`3. Technological Invention
`Petitioner also must show that the ’850 patent is not directed to a
`“technological invention.” To determine whether a patent is for a
`technological invention, we consider “whether the claimed subject matter as
`a whole recites a technological feature that is novel and unobvious over the
`prior art; and solves a technical problem using a technical solution.”
`37 C.F.R. § 42.301(b). The following claim drafting techniques, for
`example, typically do not render a patent a “technological invention”:
`(a) Mere recitation of known technologies, such as
`computer hardware, communication or computer networks,
`software, memory, computer-readable storage medium,
`scanners, display devices or databases, or specialized machines,
`such as an ATM or point of sale device.
`
`
`(b) Reciting the use of known prior art technology to
`accomplish a process or method, even if that process or method
`is novel and non-obvious.
`
`
`(c) Combining prior art structures to achieve the normal,
`expected, or predictable result of that combination.
`
`
`Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,763–64 (Aug.
`14, 2012).
`Petitioner argues that claim 12 recites a list of well-known computer
`technologies such as a central database, wireless handheld devices, a web
`server, a web page, an API, and a communications control module and does
`not include a novel or unobvious technological feature. Pet. 12. The
`specification describes the recited hardware as “typical” and indicates that
`all of the recited devices were known. See Ex. 1001, 1:1–32; 5:37–55;
`10:34–42; 10:63–11:3, 12:1–61. As to the software elements of claim 12,
`the specification states that “[t]he software applications for performing the
`
`8
`
`Apple Inc. Exhibit 1052
`
`
`
`CBM2015-00091
`Patent 6,384,850 B1
`
`functions falling within the described invention can be written in any
`commonly used computer language. The discrete programming steps are
`commonly known and thus programming details are not necessary to a full
`description of the invention.” Ex. 1001, 11:43–48. Patent Owner argues
`that Petitioner overlooks the claim’s “synchronization functionality,
`application and data storage on a handheld device[, and] ‘integration’ with
`‘outside applications.’” Prelim. Resp. 12–13. Patent Owner asserts that
`without a full analysis from Petitioner of these elements Petitioner failed to
`meet its burden to analyze the claim as a whole. Id.
`We find Petitioner’s argument to be persuasive. As described in the
`specification, the software used to perform the synchronization, storage, and
`integration features discussed by the Patent Owner may be written in any
`software language and is composed of steps that are “commonly known”
`such that no discussion of the details of the software was necessary to
`describe the invention. Ex. 1001, 11:43–48. On this record, we are
`persuaded that the claimed subject matter does not recite a technological
`invention, but instead, the recited elements constitute “[m]ere recitation of
`known technologies” that, as noted in our Trial Practice Guide, do not give
`rise to a technological invention. 77 Fed. Reg. at 48,756.
`For these reasons, we conclude that claim 12 does not “recite[] a
`technological feature that is novel and unobvious over the prior art,” and
`therefore is not directed to a “technological invention.” In view of the
`foregoing, we conclude that the ’850 patent is a covered business method
`patent under AIA § 18(d)(1) and is eligible for review using the transitional
`covered business method patent review program.
`
`9
`
`Apple Inc. Exhibit 1052
`
`
`
`CBM2015-00091
`Patent 6,384,850 B1
`
`B. Claim Construction
`As a step in our analysis for determining whether to institute a trial,
`we construe the claims. Consistent with the statute and the legislative
`history of the AIA, we analyze patentability using the broadest reasonable
`construction of the claims in light of the specification. 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.300(b); In re Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC, 793 F.3d 1268, 1278, 1279
`(Fed. Cir. 2015) (In considering the broadest reasonable interpretation
`standard for post-grant review proceedings, the Federal Circuit determined
`that “Congress implicitly approved the broadest reasonable interpretation
`standard in enacting the AIA” and “the standard was properly adopted by
`PTO regulation.”).
`Petitioner proposes no specific constructions and only states that the
`terms “communications control module” and “hospitality applications”
`should be given their ordinary meaning—without stating explicitly what that
`meaning should be. Pet. 24. Patent Owner discusses twelve terms in its
`Preliminary Response. Prelim. Resp. 28–36. For purposes of this decision,
`we determine that only the claim terms discussed below require express
`construction. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795,
`803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“[O]nly those terms need be construed that are in
`controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.”).
`
`1. Web Page
`Patent Owner notes that in a previous case involving the same patent
`we determined the broadest reasonable construction of this term to be “a
`document, with associated files for graphics, scripts, and other resources,
`accessible over the internet and viewable in a web browser.” Prelim. Resp.
`29–30 (quoting Agilysys, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., Case CBM2014-00015, slip
`
`10
`
`Apple Inc. Exhibit 1052
`
`
`
`CBM2015-00091
`Patent 6,384,850 B1
`
`op. at 8 (PTAB Mar. 26, 2014) (Paper 20)). Patent Owner proposes that that
`construction should be adopted in this case. Id. As in the cited case, here
`we also are persuaded that the ordinary and customary meaning of “web
`page” is consistent with Patent Owner’s proposed construction.
`Accordingly, on this record, we construe “web page” as “a document, with
`associated files for graphics, scripts, and other resources, accessible over the
`internet and viewable in a web browser.”
`
`2. Hospitality Applications
`Patent Owner argues that a previous Board decision, regarding a
`related patent, implicitly construed this term to mean “applications used to
`perform services or tasks in the hospitality industry.” Prelim. Resp. 32–33
`(citing Agilysys, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., Case CBM2014-00014, slip op. at
`16–17 (PTAB Mar. 26, 2014) (Paper 19)). Patent Owner argues that one of
`ordinary skill in the art would have understood “hospitality” to exclude
`travel and transportation activities and in particular a car rental application
`would not be within the scope of the claimed “hospitality applications.”
`Prelim. Resp. 33.
`Petitioner implicitly deals with this issue as part of its discussion of
`Brandt. Pet. 48–49. Petitioner asserts that “[t]he car rental applications
`described in Brandt are hospitality applications.” Id. at 49. In support of its
`position it cites a hospitality textbook. Paul R. Dittmer, Dimensions of the
`Hospitality Industry, Ex. 1035. This 1997 textbook includes a section titled
`“A Definition of Hospitality.” Id. at 5–6. 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.” Id. The authors then discuss a
`broader view of hospitality that includes “services primarily to travelers in a
`
`11
`
`Apple Inc. Exhibit 1052
`
`
`
`CBM2015-00091
`Patent 6,384,850 B1
`
`broad sense of the term. By contrast, other service businesses ordinarily
`deal with customers who are local residents rather than travelers.” Id. at 6.
`The textbook notes that the definition of hospitality “is really quite broad.”
`Id. at 7; see also id. at 404 (listing car rental agencies as a business providing
`service to travelers). On this record, we are persuaded that the ordinary and
`customary meaning of hospitality is broad enough to encompass car rental
`activities.
`Further, we are persuaded that the specification does not manifest a
`clear intention on behalf of the patentee to narrow the meaning of this term.
`The specification provides several generic examples of hospitality
`applications. Ex. 1001, 4:6–7 (“hospitality applications, e.g., reservations,
`frequent customer ticketing, wait lists, etc.”). These generic applications
`could be of use in a wide variety of hospitality businesses, including travel
`and tourist related businesses. See Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 75–76 (discussing
`computing technology in the hospitality industry including reservation
`applications used by travel businesses). We are not persuaded that the
`specification limits the term in a manner that would exclude travel and
`tourism applications such as a car rental application. On this record, we are
`persuaded that the broadest reasonable construction of “hospitality
`applications” is “applications used to perform services or tasks in the
`hospitality industry.” Our construction of hospitality includes businesses,
`such as car rental agencies, that provide services to travelers.
`
`C. Asserted Ground Based on 35 U.S.C. § 101
`Petitioner argues that claims 12–16 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 101, because “(1) they are directed to abstract hospitality activities such as
`ordering food and making reservations, and (2) they merely require generic
`
`12
`
`Apple Inc. Exhibit 1052
`
`
`
`CBM2015-00091
`Patent 6,384,850 B1
`
`computer implementation.” Pet. 69. Patent Owner contends that this
`argument has already been presented and rejected in Agilysys, Inc. v.
`Ameranth, Inc., Case CBM2014-00015 (PTAB Mar. 26, 2014) (Paper 20)
`and should be rejected here for the same reasons. Prelim. Resp. 76. Upon
`review of Petitioner’s analysis and supporting evidence, we have determined
`that on this record Petitioner has not demonstrated that it is more likely than
`not that claims 12–16 are directed to patent-ineligible subject matter.
`Patent eligible subject matter is defined in § 101 of the Patent Act,
`which recites:
`Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process,
`machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new
`and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor,
`subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
`
`There are, however, three limited, judicially created exceptions to the broad
`categories of patent-eligible subject matter in § 101: laws of nature; natural
`phenomena; and abstract ideas. Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus
`Labs., Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289, 1293 (2012).
`While an abstract idea by itself is not patentable, a practical
`application of an abstract idea may be deserving of patent protection. Id. at
`1293–94; Bilski v. Kappos, 130 S. Ct. 3218, 3230 (2010); Diamond v. Diehr,
`450 U.S. 175, 187 (1981). To be patent-eligible, a claim cannot state simply
`the abstract idea and add the words “apply it.” Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294.
`The claim must incorporate enough meaningful limitations to ensure that it
`claims more than just an abstract idea and is not merely a “drafting effort
`designed to monopolize the [abstract idea] itself.” See id. at 1297.
`In Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2355
`(2014), the Supreme Court referred to the Mayo framework, “for
`
`13
`
`Apple Inc. Exhibit 1052
`
`
`
`CBM2015-00091
`Patent 6,384,850 B1
`
`distinguishing patents that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena, and
`abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible applications of those
`concepts.” First, “we determine whether the claims at issue are directed to
`one of those patent-ineligible concepts.” Id. “If so, we then ask, ‘[w]hat
`else is there in the claims before us?’” Id. (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at
`1297). Second, we consider the elements of each claim both individually
`and as an ordered combination to determine whether the additional elements
`transform the nature of the claim into a patent-eligible application. Id. Step
`two of the analysis may be described as a search for an “inventive
`concept”—i.e., an element or combination of elements that is sufficient to
`ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent
`upon the ineligible concept itself. Id. (citing Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294).
`Petitioner contends that the claims “are directed to fundamental and
`abstract activities in the hospitality industry such as ordering food and
`making reservations.” Pet. 69. The challenged claims are system claims,
`however, that in itself is not determinative of whether a claim is directed to
`patentable subject matter. The Federal Circuit has indicated that “a machine,
`system, medium, or the like may in some cases be equivalent to an abstract
`mental process for [the] purposes of patent ineligibility.” Bancorp Servs.
`L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assur. Co. of Canada (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1277 (Fed.
`Cir. 2012).
`Independent claim 12 recites, in relevant part, a system comprising a
`central database, at least one wireless handheld computing device, at least
`one web server, at least one web page, an API, and a communications
`control module. Ex. 1001, 16:1–15. The claim also includes limitations
`regarding the interaction between these elements. Id. at 16:1–23. For
`
`14
`
`Apple Inc. Exhibit 1052
`
`
`
`CBM2015-00091
`Patent 6,384,850 B1
`
`example, hospitality applications and data are synchronized between the
`above recited claim elements and in addition, the claimed API enables
`integration of outside applications with hospitality applications. Id. Claims
`13–16 depend from claim 12 and add further limitations to the system of
`claim 12. For example, claim 13, in relevant part, further recites that the
`communications control module provides a single point of entry for all
`hospitality applications.
`We are not persuaded by Petitioner’s argument. The claims include
`a hospitality application, but the claims as a whole are directed to an
`information management and synchronous computing system which is
`composed of concrete, tangible elements arranged to achieve data
`synchronization in line with the stated objects of the claimed invention.
`We do not view these claims as reciting merely the abstract ideas of
`ordering food and making reservations, but rather as a particular practical
`application of the idea of application and data synchronization. Thus, we
`conclude that Petitioner has not demonstrated that it is more likely than
`not that claims 12–16 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed
`to non-statutory subject matter.
`
`D. Asserted Grounds Based on “hospitality applications and data.”
`Petitioner argues that claims 12–16 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 112 due to lack of enablement, indefiniteness, and lack of written
`description support for “hospitality applications and data.” Pet. 29–36.
`
`1. Asserted Lack of Enablement
`In order for a claim to be enabled, the specification must disclose
`adequately to one of ordinary skill in the art how to make the claimed
`invention without undue experimentation. Genentech, Inc. v. Novo Nordisk,
`
`15
`
`Apple Inc. Exhibit 1052
`
`
`
`CBM2015-00091
`Patent 6,384,850 B1
`
`A/S, 108 F.3d 1361, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Petitioner argues that the
`challenged claims are not enabled because no system is described in which
`hospitality applications and data are stored in the four recited locations, (1) a
`central database, (2) at least one wireless handheld computing device, (3) at
`least one web server, and (4) at least one web page. Pet. 29. Petitioner also
`asserts that the specification is vague and abstract as to what it means for
`applications and data to be synchronized between these locations. Id. at 30.
`We are not persuaded by that the specification fails to enable the
`disputed limitation. For example, the specification provides an example of
`synchronization and storage between these locations.
`The single point of entry works to keep all wireless handheld
`devices and linked Web sites in synch with the backoffice
`server (central database) so that different components are in
`equilibrium at any given time and an overall consistency is
`achieved. For example, a reservation made online is
`automatically communicated to the backoffice server which
`then synchronizes with all the wireless handheld devices
`wirelessly. Similarly, changes made on any of the wireless
`handheld devices will be reflected instantaneously on the
`backoffice server and the other handheld devices.
`
`Ex. 1001, 11:32–42; see also id. at 2:28–32 (“Similarly, changes made on
`any of the wireless handheld devices would be reflected instantaneously on
`the backoffice server, Web pages and the other handheld devices.”).
`Petitioner also argues that the claims are not enabled because the
`“specification fails to teach how hospitality applications can be stored in a
`database.” Pet. 30. Patent Owner responds by stating that it is well-known
`in the art to be able to store software code and not just raw data in a
`database. Prelim. Resp. 40. We are not persuaded that one of skill in the art
`would have to undergo undue experimentation in order to save an executable
`
`16
`
`Apple Inc. Exhibit 1052
`
`
`
`CBM2015-00091
`Patent 6,384,850 B1
`
`file in a database. Petitioner has not explained sufficiently why it would be
`beyond the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art at the relevant time
`to store an application file in a database as opposed to storing raw data.
`Petitioner’s Declarant testified that “it is not typical to store applications
`themselves in a database.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 94. Describing an activity as atypical
`is not evidence that an activity is something that one of skill in the art would
`not have understood how to do. Thus, we are not persuaded by Petitioner’s
`arguments on this point.
`Finally, Petitioner asserts that “[t]he notion of storing applications on
`a web page is also ambiguous. Web pages can be part of an application but
`web pages do not typically store applications on them.” Pet. 30 (emphasis
`added). Here again, arguing that something is atypical is not evidence that
`the activity would require undue experimentation. Patent Owner argues that
`storing an application on a web page was well-known by one of ordinary
`skill in the art. “Similarly, it is well-known that software code (again,
`applications) and data are temporarily stored in dynamic web pages when
`the page is generated; there is no requirement in the art (or in the patent
`specification) that a web page continue to exist permanently after it is
`generated.” Prelim. Resp. 40. We find Patent Owner’s argument to be
`persuasive. Petitioner has not shown sufficiently that one of ordinary skill in
`the art would have to undergo undue experimentation in order to store an
`application on a web page. Thus, we are not persuaded that the challenged
`claims should be held unpatentable due to lack of enablement of the term
`“hospitality applications and data.”
`
`17
`
`Apple Inc. Exhibit 1052
`
`
`
`CBM2015-00091
`Patent 6,384,850 B1
`
`2. Asserted Indefiniteness
`Petitioner asserts that the term “hospitality applications and data”
`renders the challenged claims indefinite because the term, as used in the
`claims, does not specify the relationship between the hospitality applications
`and data in the four locations recited in the claim and the term also lacks
`sufficient antecedent basis. Pet. 30–31. The Federal Circuit stated “that a
`claim could be indefinite if a term does not have proper antecedent basis
`where such basis is not otherwise present by implication or the meaning is
`not reasonably ascertainable.” Halliburton Energy Servs., Inc. v. M-I LLC,
`514 F.3d 1244, 1249 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (citing Energizer Holdings, Inc. v. Int'l
`Trade Comm’n, 435 F.3d 1366, 1370–71 (Fed. Cir. 2006)). Petitioner,
`however, has not shown sufficiently that one of ordinary skill in the art
`would not have been able to ascertain the meaning of this term.
`Claim 12 recites “a central database containing hospitality
`applications and data.” Ex. 1001, 16:4–5. The claim includes a wireless
`handheld computing device, web server, and web page and for each of these
`elements the claim recites “on which hospitality applications and data are
`stored.” Id. at 16:6–12. Finally, claim 12 recites that the “applications and
`data are synchronized” between the above listed elements; the API “enables
`integration of outside applications with the hospitality applications;” and that
`“the communications control module is an interface between the hospitality
`applications and any other communications protocol.” Id. at 16:15–22.
`Patent Owner asserts that “[a] central purpose of the claimed
`invention, as any POSA would understand, is to ‘synchronize’ said
`applications and data so that they thus are the same.” Prelim. Resp. 41
`(citing Ex. 1001, 3:59–63). In light of the requirement that the recited
`
`18
`
`Apple Inc. Exhibit 1052
`
`
`
`CBM2015-00091
`Patent 6,384,850 B1
`
`applications and data be synchronized we are persuaded that one of ordinary
`skill in the art would have understood that the recited applications and data
`are the same in each location. Petitioner contends that
`[u]nder this interpretation, Claims 12[–]16 fail to particularly
`point out and distinctly claim the subject matter related to the
`four separately recited ‘hospitality applications and data’ at the
`four locations, e.g., whether the four separately recited
`‘hospitality applications and da
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
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.
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.
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
