UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENTTRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`CLOVER NETWORK,LLC,
`Petitioner,
`
`Vv.
`
`CLOUDOFCHANGE, LLC
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`Case IPR2023-00287
`Patent 11,226,793
`
`DECLARATION OF ALEX CHENG
`
` Alex Cheng
`
`CloudofChange 2008 1 of 99
`Clover Network, LLC v. CloudofChange, LLC
`IPR2023-00287
`
`

`

`Page(s)
`TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................................................................................... i
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................... 1
`
`EXPERIENCE AND QUALIFICATIONS .................................................. 2
`
`MATERIALS CONSIDERED ...................................................................... 3
`
`LEGAL STANDARDS ................................................................................. 3
`
`ONE OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ............................................... 9
`
`TECHNOLOGY BACKGROUND .........................................................12
`
`OVERVIEW OF THE ’793 PATENT .....................................................16
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`III.
`
`IV.
`
`V.
`
`VI.
`
`VII.
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ......................................................................33
`
`VIII. BRIEF OVERVIEW OF WOYCIK and TENGLER ....................................37
`
`A. Woycik (Ex. 1004) .......................................................................................37
`B.
`Tengler (Ex. 1005) ......................................................................................40
`IX.
`REVIEW OF PETITIONER’S INVALIDITY GROUNDS .......................47
`
`A. Ground 1 ......................................................................................................48
`Claim 1 .....................................................................................................51
`Claim 27 ...................................................................................................59
`Claim 42 ...................................................................................................67
`Claim 43 ...................................................................................................68
`Claim 44 ...................................................................................................69
`B. Ground 2 ......................................................................................................77
`Claim 1 .....................................................................................................77
`Claim 27 ...................................................................................................82
`Claim 42 ...................................................................................................86
`
`

`

`Claim 43 ...................................................................................................90
`Claim 44 ...................................................................................................90
`SECONDARY CONSIDERATIONS .........................................................94
`
`X.
`
`

`

`I, Alex Cheng, declare as follows:
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`My name is Alex Cheng. I am over twenty-one years old; I am fully
`
`competent to make this declaration. I understand that willful false statements and
`
`the like are punishable by fine or imprisonment, or both (18 U.S.C. 1001) and may
`
`jeopardize the validity of the application or any patent issuing thereon. All
`
`statements made of my own knowledge are true and all statements made on
`
`information and belief are believed to be true.
`
`2.
`
`I have been retained by Patent Owner CloudofChange, LLC
`
`(“CloudofChange”) as an independent technical expert.
`
`3.
`
`Unless otherwise noted, the statements made herein are based on
`
`my personal knowledge, and if called to testify, I would testify competently to
`
`the matters contained herein. For my work in connection with this case, I am
`
`being compensated at my usual rate of $525 per hour. My compensation does
`
`not depend on the content of my opinion or the outcome of this proceeding.
`
`4.
`
`In formulating my opinions, I have relied upon my knowledge,
`
`training, and experience in the relevant art. I have knowledge of the facts set forth
`
`in this declaration based on my review of these patents and my technical
`
`expertise. My review of these patents followed my ordinary practice. I began
`
`

`

`by reading the patents themselves and then reviewed their respective prosecution
`
`histories.
`
`I.
`
`EXPERIENCE AND QUALIFICATIONS
`
`5. My qualifications and publications are listed on the attached copy of
`
`my curriculum vitae, which is Appendix A to this declaration.
`
`6.
`
`By way of overview, I have a Bachelor’s degree in Science from the
`
`University of Toronto. I have over 30 years of experience in the field of
`
`computers
`
`and
`
`software
`
`development
`
`including
`
`e-commerce,
`
`telecommunications, and information technology.
`
`7.
`
`I am currently a consultant providing advice regarding computer
`
`technology to: financial, telecommunications, food services, real estate,
`
`manufacturing, transportation, retail, and government sectors.
`
`8.
`
`I have specific consulting and testifying experience in patent and civil
`
`cases regarding POS, call center, e-commerce, financial card transactions, and
`
`analysis of IT governance and implementation. A list of the cases on which I have
`
`consulted is attached as Appendix B to this declaration.
`
`9. My experience prior to consulting includes an extensive background in
`
`POS terminals. For example, major projects I worked on for Rogers Cantel, I
`
`managed cellular billing system development and later designed and built Wireless
`
`POS terminals. At Advantis, that later became IBM Global Network, I supported
`
`

`

`numerous retailer POS systems in this IBM/Sears joint venture to resell Sears’ POS
`
`network infrastructure.
`
`10.
`
`I held international leadership positions while at IBM and AT&T
`
`that included subscription services and I have overseen multinational staff on
`
`projects and services spanning over 50 countries.
`
`11. Further detail on my education, work experience, and the cases in
`
`which I have previously given testimony in the past five years is contained in
`
`my CV.
`
`II. MATERIALS CONSIDERED
`
`12.
`
`In preparing this Declaration, I have reviewed U.S. Patent No.
`
`11,226,793 (the “’793 Patent”) and related prosecution history, and Petitioner’s
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 11,226,793. I have also
`
`reviewed U.S. Patent No. 9,400,640 (the “’640 Patent”) and U.S. Patent No.
`
`10,083,012 (the “’012 Patent”), as well as their complete prosecution history. I
`
`also have reviewed the exhibits to the Petition, CloudofChange’s Exhibits, and all
`
`other documents or materials I refer to in this declaration.
`
`III. LEGAL STANDARDS
`
`13.
`
`I have been instructed that institution of an inter partes Review (“IPR”)
`
`is discretionary and the Board may deny institution under § 325(d) where the petition
`
`includes the same or substantially the same prior art or arguments that previously
`
`

`

`were presented to the Office. I also have been instructed that the Board addresses
`
`§ 325(d) by applying a two-part framework: (1) whether the same or substantially
`
`the same art previously was presented to the Office or whether the same or
`
`substantially the same arguments previously were presented to the Office; and (2) if
`
`either condition of first part of the framework is satisfied, whether the petitioner has
`
`demonstrated that the Office erred in a manner material to the patentability of
`
`challenged claims.
`
`14.
`
`I also have been instructed that the Board looks to the following factors
`
`when applying the two-part framework: (a) the similarities and material differences
`
`between the asserted art and the prior art involved during examination; (b) the
`
`cumulative nature of the asserted art and the prior art evaluated during examination;
`
`(c) the extent to which the asserted art was evaluated during examination, including
`
`whether the prior art was the basis for rejection; (d) the extent of the overlap between
`
`the arguments made during examination and the manner in which Petitioner relies
`
`on the prior art or Patent Owner distinguishes the prior art; (e) whether Petitioner
`
`has pointed out sufficiently how the Examiner erred in its evaluation of the asserted
`
`prior art; and (f) the extent to which additional evidence and facts presented in the
`
`Petition warrant reconsideration of prior art or arguments.
`
`15.
`
`I have been instructed that patent claims are construed as they would
`
`be understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art. I have been instructed that
`
`

`

`factors that may be considered in determining level of ordinary skill in the art
`
`include: (i) the educational level of the inventor; (ii) type of problems encountered
`
`in the art; (iii) prior art solutions to those problems; (iv) rapidity with which
`
`innovations are made; (v) sophistication of the technology; and (vi) educational level
`
`of active workers in the field. I also have been instructed that not all such factors
`
`may be present in every case, and one or more of these or other factors may
`
`predominate in a particular case. The opinions stated in this declaration are from
`
`the perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”).
`
`16. When interpreting claim terms, I have been informed and
`
`understand that one must endeavor to employ the perspective of a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the relevant art at the time of invention. When interpreting the
`
`claims, I understand that the ordinary meaning of the language within the claims
`
`should be utilized unless the specification or prosecution history clearly provides
`
`reason for applying a different interpretation. In other words if a claim term has
`
`a well-known and understood meaning to a person of ordinary skill in the art that
`
`meaning should be applied to the claims unless the patentee states a clear and
`
`unambiguous alternative meaning that they intend to be in force. I have been
`
`informed that any terminology in the preamble that limits the structure of the
`
`claimed invention must be treated as a claim limitation.
`
`

`

`17.
`
`I have been informed that a patent is invalid for indefiniteness if its
`
`claims, read in light of the specification delineating the patent, and the
`
`prosecution history, fail to inform, with reasonable certainty, those of ordinary
`
`skill in the art about the scope of the invention.
`
`18.
`
`I have been informed that to institute an IPR, Petitioner bears the
`
`burden to establish a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to at least one
`
`challenged claim. Petitioner has the burden to identify with particularity the
`
`evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim. I have been
`
`informed that Petitioner’s burden never shifts to CloudofChange. I have been
`
`informed that once instituted, Petitioner bears the ultimate burden of proof to prove
`
`unpatentability by a preponderance of evidence, and this burden never shifts to
`
`Patent Owner.
`
`19.
`
`I understand that Petitioner’s burden of proof is not satisfied by
`
`employing mere conclusory statements. I further understand that obviousness
`
`determinations based on conclusory and unsupported statements risks allowing the
`
`challenger to use the challenged patent as a roadmap to reconstruct the claimed
`
`invention using disparate elements from prior art—i.e., the impermissible ex post
`
`reasoning and hindsight bias.
`
`20.
`
`I have been instructed that obviousness is a question of law premised
`
`on underlying issues of fact, all of which must be considered, including: (i) the scope
`
`

`

`and content of the prior art; (ii) the level of ordinary skill in the art; (iii) the
`
`differences between the claimed invention and the prior art; and (iv) secondary
`
`considerations of nonobviousness. I understand that a patent for a claimed invention
`
`may not be obtained if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior
`
`art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before
`
`the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in
`
`the art to which the claimed invention pertains.
`
`21.
`
`I understand that each element of a claim must be disclosed in the prior
`
`art references for a claim to be found obvious. I further understand that a patent is
`
`not proved obvious merely by demonstrating that each of its elements was,
`
`independently, known in the prior art. I further understand that hindsight
`
`reconstruction of the claimed invention must be carefully guarded against.
`
`22.
`
`I understand that although a problem in the prior art may form the basis
`
`of a motivation to combine, Petitioner must demonstrate the alleged problem was
`
`known in the art or that Petitioner’s formulation of the problem was derived directly
`
`from the prior art rather than from the challenged claims. I further understand that
`
`defining the problem in terms of its solution reveals improper hindsight in the
`
`selection of the prior art relevant to obviousness. I further understand that the
`
`rationale must be more than mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some
`
`

`

`articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal
`
`conclusion of obviousness.
`
`23.
`
`I have been instructed and understand that where each of the references
`
`of a purported combination independently accomplishes similar functions and
`
`operates effectively to achieve their purposes, a POSITA may have no reason to
`
`combine the features of those references. I understand that while a prior art reference
`
`may support any finding apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art, prior art
`
`references that address different problems may not, depending on the art and
`
`circumstances, support an inference that the skilled artisan would consult both of
`
`them simultaneously.
`
`24.
`
`I understand that the proponent of objective indicia of nonobviousness
`
`must establish a nexus between the evidence and the merits of the claimed invention,
`
`and that there is no nexus unless the evidence presented is reasonably commensurate
`
`with the scope of the claims. I further understand that CloudofChange is entitled to
`
`a presumption of nexus when CloudofChange shows that the asserted objective
`
`evidence is tied to a specific product and that product embodies the claimed features,
`
`and is coextensive with them. I understand that the purpose of the coextensiveness
`
`requirement is to ensure that nexus is only presumed when the product tied to the
`
`evidence of secondary considerations is the invention disclosed and claimed.
`
`

`

`25.
`
`I understand that the failure of others to provide a feasible solution to a
`
`long-standing problem is probative of nonobviousness. I further understand that
`
`establishing a long-felt need first requires objective evidence that an art recognized
`
`problem existed for a long period of time without a solution; the long-felt need must
`
`not have been satisfied by another before the invention by the applicant; and the
`
`invention must satisfy the long-felt need.
`
`26. For the ’793 Patent, I have assumed the time of the invention is
`
`February 5, 2008.
`
`IV. ONE OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`
`27. For purposes of this declaration, I understand that Petitioner’s
`
`grounds challenging the patentability of the Challenged Claims of the ’793
`
`Patent are based on obviousness. I further understand that Petitioner bears the
`
`burden to prove that the Challenged Claims would have been obvious to a person
`
`of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) at the time of the invention. I further
`
`understand that Petitioner’s burden of proof cannot be met based on conclusory
`
`statements and hindsight bias.
`
`28.
`
`In the Petition, Petitioner proposes that,
`
`[a] “person of ordinary skill in the art” (POSITA) at the time
`of the effective filing date of the ’793 patent would have been
`someone with a working knowledge of designing and
`developing web-based software and systems. A POSITA
`
`

`

`would have a Bachelor of Science in computer science or a
`related field, and approximately two years of professional
`experience or equivalent study in the design and development
`of web-based software and systems, including web-based
`POS systems. Additional graduate education could substitute
`for professional experience, or significant experience in the
`field could substitute for formal education.
`
`Petition, 8.
`
`29.
`
`In my opinion, a POSITA in the field of the ’793 Patent at the time of
`
`the effective filing date of the ’793 Patent would have a Bachelor of Science in
`
`computer science or a related field, and approximately two years of professional
`
`experience or equivalent study in the design and development of retail point of sale
`
`(“POS”) systems, including experience with building POS screens. Additional
`
`graduate education could substitute for professional experience, or significant
`
`experience in the field could substitute for formal education.
`
`30.
`
`In my opinion, Petitioner’s proposed definition of a POSITA does not
`
`require any specific experience with retail POS systems—namely building POS
`
`screens—that is the subject matter of the ’793 Patent. Instead, Petitioner proposes a
`
`definition for a POSITA that references “approximately two years of professional
`
`experience or equivalent study in the design and development of web-based software
`
`and systems, including web-based POS systems.” Petition, 8.
`
`31.
`
`In my opinion, Petitioner’s proposed definition of a POSITA makes
`
`

`

`experience in “web-based POS systems” optional. That is, a POSITA could have
`
`general professional experience in web-based software, yet no experience with the
`
`technology, state of the art, and problems particular to the entire field of web-based
`
`POS systems at the time of the filing of the ’793 Patent.
`
`32.
`
` In my opinion, CloudofChange’s proposed definition of a POSITA
`
`remedies this deficiency by including experience or equivalent study in the field of
`
`the ’793 patent: retail point of sale POS systems, including experience with building
`
`POS screens.
`
`33.
`
`I understand that Petitioner has provided a declaration of Dr. Todd
`
`Mowry (Ex. 1002). In my opinion, under a proper definition of a POSITA that
`
`includes experience or additional study in the field of retail point of sale POS
`
`systems, including experience with building POS screens, Todd Mowry is not a
`
`POSITA with reference to the ’793 Patent. I offer myself as a POSITA on the basis
`
`of my direct experience with retail POS systems. In the early 90s, while at Rogers
`
`Cantel I designed and built some of the first wireless POS terminals using off the
`
`shelf components. Later, I joined Advantis an IBM/Sears joint venture that resold
`
`the Sears POS network to other retailers. While there I supported POS networks in
`
`use by several retailers and was involved in the software of IBM outsourced POS
`
`systems in use at Sears, Canadian Tire, and Blinds-to-Go. Advantis later became
`
`IBM Global Network and was later acquired by AT&T. While at AT&T I was head
`
`

`

`of the International Custom Engineering Division where among other projects we
`
`designed international POS networks. More recently, I have been involved in
`
`consulting work where I have been an expert in cases involving retail POS systems.
`
`This retail POS system case work has included the review of POS system source
`
`code for patent infringement (including, but not limited to Sam’s Club, and H-E-B)
`
`for servers and POS terminals that were PC, iOS and Android based. In December
`
`2022, I had the opportunity to review source code of POS systems offered by
`
`Lightspeed, the petitioner in IPR2022-01143 (which is the matter Petitioner is
`
`seeking to join).
`
`V. TECHNOLOGY BACKGROUND
`
`34.
`
`I understand that the ’793 Patent claims priority to the ’640 Patent,
`
`which was filed February 5, 2008. Ex. 1001, 1. I further understand that there is
`
`not a dispute of the priority date.
`
`35.
`
`In 2008, when U.S. Patent No. 9,400,640 (the parent application of the
`
`’793 Patent) was filed, how POS content was created and implemented was
`
`important to the claimed invention. It remains important today. Prior to the ’640
`
`Patent, typically each POS vendor had its own proprietary set of technologies and
`
`methods in place to create, implement, and manage POS content. POS hardware
`
`vendors’ business model typically included a services division that produced
`
`revenues for the company to create this content for merchants. Additionally, many
`
`

`

`third parties existed which charged merchants to maintain this content. Accordingly,
`
`there were business reasons in place that provided incentives for companies to make
`
`these technologies difficult for merchants to use. That is, prior to the ’640 Patent,
`
`point of sale (POS) systems were tethered to in-store local servers and required
`
`expensive and time-consuming manual software configuration for store and
`
`restaurant owners to make even minor changes to menu items or product offerings.
`
`Historically, “only specially trained people” could build or change these POS
`
`systems, which were still “difficult” and “prone to error” leading to store owners to
`
`“to retain older, inaccurate, out-of-date POS screens in order to avoid the POS screen
`
`editing process.” Ex. 1001, 1:46-52. The patented invention, a web-based POS
`
`builder system, eliminated these challenges by providing an inexpensive and
`
`efficient method for “assist[ing] non-expert business operators in building, editing
`
`and testing a [POS] system to manage their businesses” while simultaneously
`
`removing the requirement of purchasing and maintaining on site computer servers
`
`for POS systems. Id. at Abstract, 5:47-48.
`
`36.
`
`“Web-based” technologies started to take hold in the mid-to-late 2000s
`
`when wide-spread adoption started taking place. Prior to this time, legacy
`
`technologies—mainframes and client/server
`
`technologies—were
`
`the most
`
`predominant and the legacy computing style was typically centralized and
`
`proprietary. Most POS vendors managed POS content using a large, centralized
`
`

`

`computer with connected remote computers, all under a proprietary connection.
`
`Outside of the POS industry, “web-based” technologies began to sever this link and
`
`allowed for open source (generally free, standardized technology stacks) as well as
`
`standardized computing languages that allowed for an expanded pool of resources
`
`and benefits for lay persons.
`
`37.
`
`In contrast to the legacy computing environment, with private,
`
`proprietary connections, the Internet (web-based) allowed for more open, more
`
`prolific, and more standardized connectivity. This connectivity enabled what is now
`
`called the “Cloud.” While “cloud” based technology is prolific in today’s computing
`
`environment, tactical application of cloud computing was in its formative stages in
`
`the mid-to-late 2000s. The term itself had not proliferated widely, but the use of the
`
`underlying technologies for the business model of Software as a Service (SaaS) and
`
`“Hosted” solutions were becoming common in the mid to late 2000s. Simply put,
`
`Cloud computing is a computing style in which the actual computations or data is
`
`location agnostic.
`
`38. Additionally, in February 2008, developers and maintainers of POS
`
`systems were struggling to find solutions to problems related to access management,
`
`application security, and encryption. Ex. 1001, 4:56-62. Access management (login
`
`and password), application security (segregated database instances), and encryption
`
`are well known requirements for web servers. These requirements are documented
`
`

`

`in the ’793 Patent specification to describe the web server of the Patent.
`
`39. By February 2008, numerous security breaches had been reported by
`
`the press. One of the largest was the exposure of over 45 million payment card
`
`numbers stored in the POS system of TJ Maxx. Ex. 2017. Due to data breaches, by
`
`February 2008, to maintain consumer trust in the use of credit and debit cards, the
`
`Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard (“PCI DSS”) was established by
`
`Visa, MasterCard, Discover Financial Services, JCB International and American
`
`Express. PCI DSS compliance by June 30, 2007 would grant safe harbor for retailers
`
`from fines of $500,000 per breach. EX2018. In turn, this would require providers
`
`of POS systems and services to be PCI DSS compliant as well. Even with the
`
`motivation to avoid the risk of stiff fines, a 2007 Forrester Research survey revealed
`
`that only 60 percent of US respondents planned to be PCI DSS compliant by the end
`
`of 2008. The three largest reasons for the delay were identified as access
`
`management, application security and encryption. EX2019. These problems proved
`
`to be so severe that by 2010, it was reported that PCI compliance from 2007 to 2009
`
`only rose from 46% to 51%. North American organizations are still not where they
`
`should be, and the level of PCI compliance in Europe is especially poor.” EX2020.
`
`Consequently, in February 2008, a POSITA would be strongly motivated away from
`
`solutions that introduce requirements for access management, application security
`
`and encryption.
`
`

`

`VI. OVERVIEW OF THE ’793 PATENT
`
`40. The ’793 Patent titled “WEB-BASED POINT OF SALE BUILDER,”
`
`has a priority date of February 5, 2008. Ex. 1001, 1. The field of art of the ’793
`
`Patent is retail point of sale POS systems, including building POS screens.
`
`41. On February 5, 2008, the inventors filed U.S. Patent Application Serial
`
`No. 12/012,666 (“the ’666 Application). The ’666 Application was published on
`
`August 6, 2009, as U.S. Patent Publicaton No. 2009/0199154 A1 and issued on July
`
`26, 2016, as the ’640 Patent, which is the grandparent patent to the ’793 Patent.
`
`42. On November 30, 2017, CloudofChange filed U.S. Patent Application
`
`No. 15/827,948 (“the ’948 Application”). The ’948 Application published on March
`
`29, 2018, as U.S. Patent Publication No. 2018/0088909 and issued on January 18,
`
`2022, as the ’793 Patent, which is the subject of this proceeding.
`
`43. The ’948 Application is a continuation of U.S. Patent Application
`
`No. 15/198,117 filed on June 30, 2016, and issued as U.S. Patent No. 9,715,371 on
`
`July 25, 2017, which is itself a continuation of U.S. Patent Application No.
`
`12/012,666 filed February 5, 2008, and issued as the ’640 Patent.
`
`44. The ’640 Patent and its children, including the ’793 Patent, involve
`
`technology for systems, services, and products for POS systems to manage business
`
`operations. Id. at 1:12-13. The technology includes “an online, web-based point of
`
`sale builder method, which can assist non-expert business operators in assembling a
`
`

`

`point of sale system to manage their businesses” and whose operation “can range
`
`from a single branch to a large chain of stores or branches.” Id. at Abstract. The
`
`’793 Patent states, and illustrates in FIG. 3, that “[t]he key advantages of the Web-
`
`based POS builder are that it is completely built on the foundation of the Web.” Id.
`
`at 5:39-40. The POS builder builds, edits, and tests new POS terminals in real time.”
`
`Ex. 1001, 5:43-47.
`
`
`
`Ex. 1001, FIG. 3 (annotated). Some embodiments disclosed in the ’793 Patent relate
`
`to a customizable system having a POS terminal that can be edited and built from a
`
`server-accessible POS builder interface, which may be, for example, a centralized
`
`interface used by a remote or local POS system controller. Ex. 1001, 5:57-66.
`
`45. Below, I have reproduced the Challenged Claims of the ’793 Patent:
`
`

`

`1
`
`Challenged Claims Listing
`1[pre] A web-based point of sale (POS) builder system comprising:
`[a] at least one server configured to:
`[b] communicate with one or more POS terminals over a network
`comprising the Internet, wherein the one or more POS terminals are
`configured to display one or more POS screens;
`[c] receive, over the network from a POS builder interface, information used
`for creating or modifying the one or more POS screens including creating or
`modifying one or more display interfaces for display on the one or more
`POS screens, the one or more display interfaces being associated with one or
`more items;
`[d] receive, from at least one of the one or more POS terminals over the
`network, further information regarding one or more POS transactions
`corresponding to the one or more items;
`[e] configure the one or more POS terminals with the information over the
`network to create or modify based on the further information regarding one
`or more POS transactions the one or more POS screens displayed on the one
`or more POS terminals; and
`[f] wherein the further information regarding the one or more POS
`transactions, the information used for creating or modifying the one or more
`POS screens, or a combination thereof comprises one or more of employee
`clock information, customer add/update information, item add/update
`information, promotion information, loyalty point information, discount
`information, taxation information, item cost information, or inventory
`information;
`[g] wherein said further information regarding the one or more POS
`transactions relate to one or more transactions by corresponding customers
`respectively associated with at least one of said one or more POS terminals.
`2 The web-based point of sale (POS) builder system of claim 1, wherein the
`POS builder interface is configured to run on a computing device.
`
`

`

`7
`
`8
`
`3
`
`4
`
`Challenged Claims Listing
`The web-based point of sale (POS) builder system of claim 1, wherein the
`one or more POS terminals comprise a plurality of POS terminals in a
`plurality of locations.
`The web-based point of sale (POS) builder system of claim 1, wherein the
`one or more items comprise at least one of: one or more items for sale, one
`or more promotions, or one or more loyalty points programs.
`The web-based point of sale (POS) builder system of claim 1, wherein the
`information regarding one or more POS transactions comprises one or more
`of the employee clock information, the customer add/update information, the
`item add/update information, or the promotion information.
`The web-based point of sale (POS) builder system of claim 1, wherein the
`information regarding one or more POS transactions are viewable via the
`POS builder interface.
`9 The web-based point of sale (POS) builder system of claim 1, wherein the
`one or more display interfaces comprise one or more buttons or keys.
`The web-based point of sale (POS) builder system of claim 1, wherein the
`received information comprises information indicative of at least one of a
`number, shape, or arrangement of the one or more display interfaces.
`11 The web-based point of sale (POS) builder system of claim 1, wherein the
`POS builder interface is accessible via a web browser.
`12 The web-based point of sale (POS) builder system of claim 1, wherein the
`one or more display interfaces are accessible on the POS builder interface.
`
`10
`
`

`

`14
`
`16
`
`17
`
`13
`
`Challenged Claims Listing
`[pre]The web-based point of sale (POS) builder system of claim 1, wherein
`the at least one server is further configured to:
`[a] receive, over the network from the POS builder interface, second
`information regarding a modification to at least one of the one or more POS
`screens; and
`[b] update the at least one of the one or more POS screens on the one or
`more POS terminals based on the second information.
`The web-based point of sale (POS) builder system of claim 1, wherein the at
`least one server is further configured to store information regarding the one
`or more POS screens.
`15 The web-based point of sale (POS) builder system of claim 1, wherein the at
`least one server is located remotely from the one or more POS terminals.
`The web-based point of sale (POS) builder system of claim 1, wherein the at
`least one server is further configured to receive the information for creating
`or modifying the one or more POS screens and create or modify the one or
`more POS screens in real time while the one or more POS terminals are in
`use performing one or more POS transactions.
`The web-based point of sale (POS) builder system of claim 1, wherein the
`one or more POS terminals use the one or more POS screens after
`completing a pending POS transaction.
`The web-based point of sale (POS) builder system of claim 1, wherein the at
`least