IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`WACO DIVISION
`
`CloudofChange, LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`vs.
`
`Lightspeed POS Inc.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`Civil Action No. 6:21-cv-01102-ADA
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`DEFENDANT’S FINAL INVALIDITY CONTENTIONS
`
`Pursuant to the Court’s May 2, 2022, Scheduling Order (Dkt. 31) and the November 7,
`
`2022, Joint Notice (Dkt. 50), Defendant Lightspeed POS Inc., now known as Lightspeed
`
`Commerce Inc. (“Lightspeed”), serves the following final invalidity contentions to Plaintiff
`
`CloudofChange, LLC (“COC”). Lightspeed is concurrently producing all prior art referenced in
`
`these invalidity contentions that Lightspeed has not previously produced. Lightspeed produced
`
`technical documents sufficient to show the operation of the accused products on February 9, 2022.
`
`These contentions incorporate by reference the appendices to Lightspeed’s Preliminary Invalidity
`
`Contentions served March 9, 2022 and to Lightspeed’s First Supplemental Preliminary Invalidity
`
`Contentions served June 8, 2022.
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`
`COC has alleged infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 9,400,640 (“the ’640 patent”),
`
`10,083,012 (“the ’012 patent”), and 11,226,793 (“the ’793 patent”) (collectively, “the Asserted
`
`Patents”). By identifying exemplary prior art that anticipates and/or renders obvious the Asserted
`
`Claims, Lightspeed does not admit that the claim limitations are definite, nor does Lightspeed
`
`

`

`admit that any claim limitations are supported with an appropriate written description and/or
`
`enabling disclosure in the applicable patent specifications. Nothing herein should be construed as
`
`an admission of agreement with COC’s apparent claim constructions or its application of the
`
`Asserted Claims to any of the accused products.
`
`COC served Preliminary Infringement Contentions on January 12, 2022, and First
`
`Amended Preliminary Infringement Contentions on March 30, 2022. Lightspeed reserves the right
`
`to amend and supplement these invalidity contentions in response to any amendments to, or
`
`revisions of, COC’s infringement contentions or claim construction assertions, or otherwise as
`
`permitted by the Court’s Scheduling Order.
`
`While Lightspeed contests that any of the claim limitations of the Asserted Patents read on
`
`the accused products, to the extent COC alleges infringement, under COC’s interpretation, it has
`
`conceded the invalidity of the Asserted Patents where an accused product predates the Asserted
`
`Patents. See Peters v. Active Mfg. Co., 21 F. 319, 321 (C.C.S.D. Ohio 1884), aff’d, 129 U.S. 530
`
`(1889) (“That which infringes, if later, would anticipate, if earlier.”).
`
`The prior art and obviousness combinations identified or described herein and/or in
`
`Appendices A1–A21, Appendices B1–B18, Appendices C1–C13, and Appendices D–G, are
`
`exemplary and are not intended to be exhaustive. Additional obviousness combinations of the
`
`references identified in these contentions are possible, and Lightspeed reserves the right to use any
`
`such combinations in this litigation. In particular, Lightspeed is currently unaware of the extent,
`
`if any, to which COC will contend the limitations of the claims at issue are not disclosed in the art
`
`identified by Lightspeed. To the extent COC contests any such limitation is not present in a
`
`reference or combination of references, Lightspeed reserves the right to identify other references
`
`that would have made obvious the addition of the allegedly missing limitation to the disclosed
`
`

`

`system or method of operation. Similarly, to the extent COC attempts to swear behind the priority
`
`date asserted in its contentions (i.e., February 5, 2008 for all Asserted Claims), or otherwise
`
`contends any reference does not qualify as prior art, Lightspeed reserves the right to identify other
`
`references that anticipate or render obvious the Asserted Claims.
`
`Lightspeed’s investigation into prior art remains ongoing, including prior art identified in
`
`these disclosures, prior art not yet known to Lightspeed, third-party prior art (including in response
`
`to third-party subpoenas), and related evidence, documents, and knowledgeable witnesses.
`
`Moreover, prior art may become relevant depending upon the invention date COC alleges for each
`
`of the Asserted Patents, the evidence supporting such allegations, the claim constructions COC
`
`asserts, any supplemental claim constructions the Court adopts, COC’s amendment or
`
`supplementation of its infringement contentions, Lightspeed’s further understanding of COC’s
`
`infringement contentions, COC’s discovery responses, and COC’s responses to Lightspeed’s
`
`disclosed motivations to combine or modify references. Additional information and evidence
`
`about prior art, including documentation and witness testimony, may be obtained and/or presented
`
`in support of Lightspeed’s invalidity contentions. Lightspeed reserves the right to present this
`
`additional information and evidence in support of its invalidity contentions and to amend and
`
`supplement these invalidity contentions accordingly in a manner consistent with the Scheduling
`
`Order, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the Court’s rules.
`
`II. The Asserted Patent Claims
`
`In its First Amended Preliminary Infringement Contentions, COC has asserted that
`
`Lightspeed allegedly infringes the following claims of the Asserted Patents (collectively, “the
`
`Asserted Claims”):
`
`

`

`Patent
`the ’640 patent
`the ’012 patent
`the ’793 patent
`
`Asserted Claims1
`1, 14
`1–2 and 6–13
`1–4, 9–11, 42, and 44
`
`Although COC has not proffered infringement contentions with respect to other unasserted
`
`claims of the Asserted Patents, Lightspeed reserves the right to modify, amend, and/or supplement
`
`its invalidity contentions if the Court allows COC to assert infringement of presently unasserted
`
`claims of the Asserted Patents. While Lightspeed provides the following invalidity contentions
`
`for the claims asserted by COC, Lightspeed hereby reserves its right to seek invalidation of all
`
`claims in each of the Asserted Patents.
`
`III.
`
`Invalidity Contentions
`
`To focus the issues, Lightspeed cites representative portions of an identified reference,
`
`even where a reference may contain additional support for a particular claim limitation.2 Persons
`
`of ordinary skill in the art generally read an item of prior art as a whole and in the context of other
`
`publications and literature. Thus, to understand and interpret any specific statement or disclosure
`
`within a prior art reference, such persons would rely on other information within the reference,
`
`along with other publications and their general scientific knowledge. Lightspeed may rely on
`
`uncited portions of the prior art references and on other publications (e.g., prior art references cited
`
`1 By email dated April 22, 2022, COC withdrew the following asserted claims: 3–6 and 8–13 of
`the ’640 patent and claims 3–4 of the ’012 patent. Accordingly, only claims 1 and 14 of the ’640
`patent are currently asserted, while the asserted claims of the ’012 patent are claims 1–2 and 6–
`13.
`2 The Local Rules do not require Lightspeed to provide any quotations or excerpts from
`documents where that information is readily identifiable through pinpoint citations (e.g.,
`column/page and line cites and paragraph cites). Lightspeed’s inclusion of quoted text is only
`for convenience and does not limit the portions of the reference that Lightspeed may rely on to
`establish its defenses. Lightspeed may rely on all cited portions of the identified references, even
`if not quoted therein. Further, Lightspeed reserves the right to rely on additional portions of the
`reference to provide context for the cited portions, to provide motivations to combine with other
`references, and to respond to any arguments by COC.
`
`

`

`on the face of the Asserted Patents and the patents or technical references cited within the body of
`
`the Asserted Patents) and expert testimony to provide context, and as aids to understanding and
`
`interpreting the portions that are quoted and/or cited. Lightspeed may rely on expert opinions for
`
`additional or different motivations to combine the prior art references. Lightspeed may also rely
`
`on explicit or implicit motivations to combine prior art references disclosed in the references.
`
`Where Lightspeed cites a particular figure in a prior art reference, the citation should be
`
`understood to encompass the caption and description of the figure and any text relating to the
`
`figure in addition to the figure itself. Conversely, where a cited portion of text refers to a figure,
`
`the citation should be understood to include the figure as well. Additional evidence regarding the
`
`features and elements of the prior art reference may be provided by witness testimony, or by
`
`additional documents that describe the prior art reference that are discovered through the course
`
`of discovery.
`
`Lightspeed may rely on any additional prior art and/or motivations to combine prior art
`
`references identified or produced in the future by any party in this litigation or in any related
`
`litigation, as well as any references discussed or disclosed during third party discovery or in any
`
`expert report on the validity of any of the Asserted Patents. Lightspeed expressly incorporates by
`
`reference herein the invalidity contentions served by defendants in related cases filed by COC
`
`(e.g., Appendix F, CloudofChange, LLC v. NCR Corp., 6:19-cv00513 (W.D. Tex.)) and NCR’s
`
`Expert Report of Sandeep Chatterjee Ph.D. re: Invalidity of Asserted Claims of U.S. Patent Nos.
`
`9,400,640 and 10,083,012 (COCLTS0004036-COCLTS0004132), as they relate to the Asserted
`
`Patents. Lightspeed also expressly incorporates herein IPR2022-00779, IPR2022-00997,
`
`IPR2022-01143, IPR2023-00232, IPR2023-00287, IPR2023-00288 and any other inter partes
`
`review petitions, including accompanying petitions, declarations, and exhibits related to the
`
`

`

`Asserted Patents (including, but not limited to the prior art references and motivations to combine
`
`those references) that are filed against the Asserted Patents during this lawsuit. For prior art
`
`references identified and/or addressed in any attached or referenced claim chart, expert report,
`
`expert declaration, and/or IPR petition, Lightspeed reserves its right to rely on any and all
`
`disclosures of such prior art reference identified in such documents collectively. Lightspeed
`
`reserves the right to modify, amend, and/or supplement its invalidity contentions in response to
`
`positions taken by COC in related proceedings. Lightspeed may also rely on references identified
`
`in the file history of any of the Asserted Patents.
`
`A. Prior Art
`
`1. Prior Art Patents and Patent Publications Under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a), (b), (e), (g)
`
`Number
`
`Country
`
`U.S. Patent Pub. No.
`2005/0021409 (“Michaud”)
`WO 02/39226
`(“Thompson”)
`U.S. Patent App. Pub.
`2005/0049921 (“Tengler”)
`WO 03/065178
`(“Redmond”)
`U.S. Patent App. Pub.
`2007/0265935 (“Woycik”)
`U.S. Patent Pub. No.
`2008/0208696 (“Olson”)
`JP 2004-164194A
`(“Nakamura”)
`Patent 2003-0088637
`(“Choi”)
`U.S. Patent Pub. No.
`2004/0128199 (“Cusack”)
`WO 01/65427 (“Costello”)
`U.S. Patent Pub. No.
`2006/0235755 (“Mueller”)
`
`United States
`
`Date of
`Issue/Publication
`January 27, 2005
`
`Date of Application
`
`July 16, 2004
`
`PCT
`
`May 16, 2002
`
`November 8, 2001
`
`United States
`
`March 3, 2005
`
`August 29, 2003
`
`PCT
`
`August 7, 2003
`
`January 30, 2003
`
`United States
`
`November 15, 2007
`
`May 1, 2007
`
`United States
`
`August 28, 2008
`
`February 26, 2007
`
`Japan
`
`June 10, 2004
`
`November 12, 2002
`
`South Korea
`
`November 20, 2003
`
`May 14, 2002
`
`United States
`
`July 1, 2004
`
`December 15, 2003
`
`PCT
`United States
`
`September 7, 2001
`October 19, 2006
`
`March 2, 2001
`July 10, 2006
`
`

`

`Number
`
`Country
`
`Date of
`Issue/Publication
`September 16, 2004
`
`Date of Application
`
`March 12, 2003
`
`United States
`
`U.S. Patent Pub. No.
`2004/0181454 (“Manno”)
`U.S. Patent Pub. No.
`2007/0175992 (“Brown”)
`U.S. 6,247,032
`(“Bernardo”)
`U.S. Patent Pub. No.
`2006/0195510 (“McNally”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,920,312
`(“Wagner”)
`U.S. Patent Pub. No.
`2002/0194074 (“Jacobs”)
`
`United States
`
`August 2, 2007
`
`January 23, 2007
`
`United States
`
`June 12, 2001
`
`June 19, 1998
`
`United States
`
`August 31, 2006
`
`February 10, 2006
`
`United States
`
`July 6, 1999
`
`October 31, 1996
`
`United States
`
`December 19, 2002
`
`May 17, 2002
`
`2. Prior Art Systems Under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a), (b), (g)
`
`Lightspeed identifies the systems disclosed in the patents and publications listed above as
`
`prior art. Additionally, Lightspeed identifies the following products and systems, including
`
`constituent software, hardware, methods, and processes, as prior art that may anticipate or render
`
`obvious the Asserted Claims. Documentation regarding the identified systems are referred to
`
`herein using the nomenclature defined in the associated charts for each system, and any system
`
`documentation, source code, or other evidence may be used collectively or individually in
`
`combination with other systems and references for the teachings identified in the associated charts
`
`for such documentation. On information and belief, each product and/or system (1) was known or
`
`used in this country before the alleged invention of the claimed subject matter of the Asserted
`
`Patents, (2) was in public use and/or on sale in this country more than one year before the effective
`
`filing date of the application for the Asserted Patents and/or (3) was made in this country prior to
`
`the alleged invention of the claimed subject matter of the Asserted Patents by another inventor
`
`who had not abandoned, suppressed or concealed it.
`
`

`

`System or Product
`CSS Live POS (LivePOS)
`
`Simphony(TM)
`Flashpoint POS
`
`TransactionwareEnterprise
`HTMLWorks, VxWorks
`
`Seller/Provider/User
`CSS Holdings Corporation
`
`MICROS Systems
`T.R.I.M. POS Software Corp.
`
`Triversity Inc.
`Wind River
`
`MICROS Systems
`XSilva Systems Inc.
`
`Exit41, Inc.
`Nextep Systems, Inc.
`
`Micros Doc Café Version 3.0.4 (and earlier versions)
`LightSpeed Onsite (including version 2.5 and earlier
`versions)
`OrderPerfect
`Nextep self-order kiosks and related software (including at
`least Series 3.3 and earlier), including without limitation
`“Casino Express” self-order kiosk technology
`Aldelo for Restaurants (formerly NextPOS for Restaurants) Aldelo Systems Inc. (formerly
`NextPOS Corp.)
`Agilysys, Inc. (formerly
`InfoGenesis)
`Global Retail Technology,
`LLC
`Global Retail Technology,
`LLC
`
`InfoGenesis (formerly Revelation / e-Revelation)
`
`Mercator (POS and Back Office)3
`
`posAppliance
`
`Discovery is ongoing, and Lightspeed will provide further identification of the above
`
`systems and any other systems Lightspeed learns about through discovery (“the Prior Art
`
`Systems”), including constituent software, hardware, methods, and processes, as prior art that may
`
`anticipate or render obvious the Asserted Claims, as such information becomes available.
`
`Lightspeed is diligently searching for additional relevant documentation regarding the LightSpeed
`
`3 On December 15, 2022, Lightspeed became aware of additional evidence regarding the
`Mercator system which has been produced as LIGHTSPEED073146 and in the prior art source
`code production under the folder: “System Art Public Source Code\Source Code FreeMercator
`SourceForge.” Lightspeed reserves the right to amend the associated charts to include additional
`details from these materials and other recently-identified materials as Lightspeed evaluates them.
`
`

`

`product and will produce such documentation and/or further supplement these invalidity
`
`contentions as discovery proceeds and such documents are identified. Lightspeed reserves the right
`
`to amend and supplement these contentions to provide disclosures based on further investigation
`
`and as Lightspeed obtains additional information about these products and systems.
`
`3. Admitted Prior Art
`
`Lightspeed reserves the right to rely on the admitted prior art in the Asserted Patents. See,
`
`e.g., ’640 Patent at 1:20–62 (Description of Related Art). For example, the applicant/patentee
`
`admitted:
`
`• Configuring POS terminals to display POS screens, including “defining the position
`
`and operation of touch screen keys” was known. (Id. at 1:20–33)
`
`• “Users can configure display screens either at a point of sale location or at home with
`
`a personal computer.” (Id. at 1:44–46)
`
`• Networked server-client applications, including remotely configurable application
`
`interfaces, were known. (Id. at 1:42-62)
`
`• “Software as a Service (SMS) is a software distribution model in which applications
`
`are hosted by a vendor or service provider and made available to customers over a
`
`network, typically the Internet.” (Id. at 5:60–63)
`
`B.
`
`Invalidity Under 35 U.S.C. § 103
`
`In addition to being anticipated, the Asserted Claims are also invalid as obvious over the
`
`same teachings identified for anticipation and various combinations of the references. A person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) would have been motivated to combine the prior art references
`
`and/or their teachings based on, for example, the nature of the problem to be solved, the teachings
`
`of the prior art, and the knowledge of persons of ordinary skill in the art. In KSR International Co.
`
`

`

`v. Teleflex, Inc., the Supreme Court rejected a “rigid approach” to the question of obviousness in
`
`favor of “an expansive and flexible approach” and provided additional guidance. 127 S. Ct. 1727,
`
`1739 (2007).
`
`In KSR, the Court held that, among other things, “[t]he combination of familiar elements
`
`according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable
`
`results.” Id.; see also id. at 1740 (“[A] court must ask whether the [alleged] improvement is more
`
`than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions.”). The Court
`
`further explained that “if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the
`
`technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill.” Id. at 1740.
`
`Of course, the problem motivating the patentee, i.e., “the problem the patentee was trying
`
`to solve,” may motivate a POSITA to find solutions, but “neither the particular motivation nor the
`
`avowed purpose of the patentee controls.” Id. at 1741–42. The KSR Court also recognized that
`
`other known problems in the field, design needs, and market pressures may motivate a POSITA to
`
`survey known art for solutions to problems. Id. at 1742 (“When there is a design need or market
`
`pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a
`
`person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical
`
`grasp.”). “Under the correct analysis, any need or problem known in the field of endeavor at the
`
`time of invention and addressed by the patent can provide a reason for combining the elements in
`
`the manner claimed.” Id.
`
`When a person of ordinary skill uses an identified, predictable solution to solve a problem,
`
`“it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.” Id. In addition,
`
`when “a work is available in one field of endeavor, design incentives and other market forces can
`
`

`

`prompt variations of it, either in the same field or a different one.” Id. at 1740. If a person of ordinary
`
`skill can implement a predictable variation, § 103 bars its patentability. Id. The rationale to
`
`combine or modify prior art references is significantly stronger when references seek to solve
`
`similar problems, come from the same field, and the solutions to the identified problems in the
`
`references correspond well. In re Inland Steel Co., 265 F.3d 1354, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2001).
`
`“Common sense teaches, however, that familiar items may have obvious uses beyond their primary
`
`purposes, and in many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple
`
`patents together like pieces of a puzzle.” KSR, 127 S. Ct. at 1742. “A person of ordinary skill is
`
`also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” Id.
`
`Here, to the extent not anticipated, the Asserted Claims represent no more than the result
`
`of ordinary implementation of prior art elements and no Asserted Claim goes beyond combining
`
`familiar elements in known ways to achieve predictable results or does more than select between
`
`predictable design choices known to those of skill in the art. Thus, to the extent that an Asserted
`
`Claim is not anticipated, it is nevertheless invalid as obvious.
`
`The patentees identified problems concerning creating or editing POS screens to be solved
`
`by the alleged invention. See, e.g., ’640 Patent at 1:20–40. “[S]tore owners tend to retain older,
`
`inaccurate, out-of-date POS screens in order to avoid the POS screen editing process,” because the
`
`“front-of-screen menu is typically manually coded” and “currently the entry of this front-of-screen
`
`information requires intimate knowledge of a complex interface to a front-of-screen programming
`
`language.” Id. “Currently, only specially trained people can build or change POS screens,” and the
`
`“manual POS building and editing is prone to mistakes and is time-consuming.” Id.; see also, id.
`
`at 2:40-45, 2:53–61, 3:35–37. These problems would motivate a POSITA to look to prior art
`
`references (including known and available prior art systems) for solutions that allow POS screens
`
`

`

`to be created or edited without intimate knowledge of a complex programming language (e.g., by
`
`store employees, managers, or operators). “Also, current POS screen editing occurs offline with
`
`the testing of the screens occurring at a later date, at a remote store location.” Id. at 1:38–40; see
`
`also, id. at 2:53–61, 3:35–37. These problems would motivate a POSITA to look to prior art
`
`references for solutions that would allow POS screen editing to occur online, allow for near
`
`contemporaneous testing of the screens, and/or allow for editing and testing at locations other than
`
`in a store.
`
`The identified prior art references and systems are analogous art, are in the same field as
`
`the claimed invention, and/or are from another field that a person of ordinary skill would look to
`
`in trying to solve the problems the patentees were trying to solve and/or other known needs or
`
`problems in field. But more than that, they are references and systems designed in similar ways to
`
`one another and solve similar problems as the Asserted Patents. Because the references and
`
`systems are so similar to each other and to the alleged inventions of the Asserted Patents, it would
`
`be obvious and routine for a POSITA to combine any of their elements with one another and with
`
`a reasonable expectation of success.
`
`Michaud discloses an application service provider (ASP) POS system for subscribers
`
`through remote access and use of POS system hosted on an ASP server. Michaud at Abstract.
`
`Michaud explains that, among other things, its system solves the problems with conventional POS
`
`systems, which were complex and expensive, require specially equipped computers to run POS
`
`software and communicate data to a back office server, and suffer from high cost, installation
`
`complexity, and the need to continuously provide skilled staff for operation and maintenance of
`
`in-house networked computers and POS systems. Id. at [0004]–[0005], [0009].
`
`Thompson discloses a system for consummating a financial transaction at a POS based on
`
`

`

`a secure electronic communication over a public network such as the Internet to a server.
`
`Thompson at Abstract, p.1–2. Thompson explains, among other things, that its system seeks to
`
`avoid the high cost of building a private network to provide faster transaction times and to improve
`
`integration with the rest of a business’s enterprises. Id.
`
`Tengler discloses a POS system including stations in a quick-serve commercial
`
`establishment that enable users to enter orders and a network interconnecting the stations and
`
`enabling a manager to access the restaurants database remotely through a web interface. Tengler
`
`at [0011], [0022]. Tengler explains, among other things, that order entry and processing is made
`
`simpler and less expensive, and managers can remotely access a user interface designer and to
`
`manage a set of restaurants from the manager’s home or a central corporation office over the
`
`Internet. [0028], [0107]–[0109].
`
`Redmond discloses a secure POS portal architecture for delivering multiple customizable
`
`integrated services to merchants, including customer support, loyalty programs, back office
`
`processing, and system administration, to form a comprehensive POS environment. Redmond at
`
`Abstract, [05]. Redmond explains that current POS systems are essentially static and are
`
`ineffective in delivering new personalized services, but with the rapid development of the Internet
`
`and e-commerce, current POS systems are at a state of imminent change, and merchants want to
`
`leverage these developments and the advantages of the business environment created by the
`
`Internet to increase sales, reduce costs, and ensure customer loyalty. Id. at [03]–[06].
`
`Woycik discloses a computer-based ordering system that includes a plurality of client
`
`terminals having interactive menu screens including buttons to select products and an
`
`administration tool including a menu editor that enables the administrator to create and edit the
`
`interactive menu screens, the administrative tool may be located on a central server with web
`
`

`

`access. Woycik at Abstract, [0075]. Woycik explains that the menus and items are readily editable
`
`through the graphical administration tool, and an advantage of this approach is that it enables
`
`administrators and store owners to make changes without requiring any knowledge of the
`
`underlying code and enables remote administration. Id. at [0095], see also id. at [0129], [0140]
`
`(discussing additional advantages).
`
`Olson discloses managing a POS system with web-based back-office software
`
`implemented on servers and a relational database, to provide cost-effective application
`
`customization. Olson at Abstract. Olson explains that other POS systems require time and money
`
`for software development and testing when changes are implemented, they have weak scalability,
`
`require significant technical skill to manage, and system performance degrades when new POS
`
`terminals are added within a store or branch. Id. at [0006]. Olson explains that using a web-based
`
`back office provides full-scalability which results in improved performance, lower cost, minimal
`
`installation time, and allows for providing POS software as a service over the Internet. Id. at
`
`[0027]. On information and belief, prior art Mercator and posAppliance products/systems
`
`employed the same or substantially similar system architecture and provided the same or similar
`
`benefits described in Olson.
`
`Nakamura discloses a POS application program that is low cost and easily operable on a
`
`mobile phone and downloaded over a network from a system server. Nakamura at Abstract, [0006].
`
`Choi discloses methods for building a POS system at low cost by leasing POS terminals
`
`and software and providing POS management services online and offline to improve the overall
`
`business efficiency. Choi at Abstract.
`
`Costello discloses a POS system for performing POS transactions using a plurality POS
`
`devices and a server at a location remote from the POS devices, where transaction details are
`
`

`

`transmitted from the POS devices to the server and stored in a database within the server. Costello
`
`at Abstract. Costello explains that its POS system is more flexible than standard POS systems,
`
`which are expensive and when used with several stores suffer disadvantages when making changes
`
`such as tax rates and prices because those changes must be made in each store and marketing
`
`reports are difficult to produce. Id. at 1:20–2:5.
`
`Mueller discloses updating a menu display on an electronic display device to include an
`
`automatically determined price based at least in part on revenue management information. Mueller
`
`at Abstract. Mueller explains it is well known that many types of quick service restaurants use
`
`POS terminals connected to a back office server to enter transactions, but it would be advantageous
`
`to provide a system that synchronizes price and item information used at POS terminals to improve
`
`or optimize revenues, gross margin, profits, speed of service, inventory levels, promotions, labor
`
`requirements, and/or customer satisfaction. Id. at [0026]–[0029].
`
`Manno discloses a web-based POS system that employs POS client computers that are
`
`connected over a LAN or the Internet to a server via a web browser of the client computers, which
`
`permits management to make changes in store quantities, prices, etc., select which products are
`
`sold via Internet, at the store, or both, at the time the product is entered into stock, enter and/or
`
`modify item name, price, cost, group, taxable, and inventory, and obtain store performance reports
`
`remotely and can be implemented as an integrated suite for collaboration between store locations.
`
`Manno at Abstract, ¶ 29, 4:50-52. Manno explains that its web-based system permits a computer
`
`(or other device) that is browser enabled to be used as a POS station and allows a retail business
`
`to manage its stores using the Internet, which allows for easy portal integration using various
`
`operating systems, and allows managers to perform their duties remotely accessing the web-based
`
`POS system from home of from a remote site while maintaining the same look and feel as the retail
`
`

`

`environment. Id. at [0001], [0024]–[0026]. Manno further explains that the web-based POS system
`
`permits management to track inventory remotely, make remote sales, print receipts, look up
`
`customers, view database information, and view performance and staff hours, all remotely from
`
`any location, via Internet, which also allows the system to receive automatic upgrades and updates
`
`without requiring any software installation or action within the store. Id. at [0030]. Additionally,
`
`the web-based POS system is less costly than other systems, resulting in operating cost savings.
`
`Id. at [0031]. For example, Manno discloses a partitioned server shared by multiple merchants,
`
`thus eliminating the need for an in-store server at each merchant location.
`
`Brown discloses an integrated inventory and POS management system that manages a
`
`merchant’s complete inventory, whether that inventory is sold on a website or in a retail store and
`
`that can be managed through an ordinary web browser. Brown at Abstract, [0002]. Brown explains
`
`that this solves problems related to setting up a POS system, which requires much work including
`
`acquiring and configuring specialized computer hardware, eliciting the services of technical
`
`personnel capable of maintaining the system, developing a website for web-based sales and
`
`constantly maintaining the items for sale thereon. Id. at [0001].
`
`Bernardo discloses a software tool for use with a computer system for simplifying the
`
`creation of web sites without the web site creator writing any programming code. Bernardo at
`
`Abstract. Bernardo explains that an advantage is that powerful resources available in non-HTML
`
`databases are exposed to a web browser. Id. at 5:50-56.
`
`McNally discloses an information management and synchronous communications system
`
`for web-based systems to provide efficient generation of computerized restaurant menus for
`
`display on smart phones using the Internet. McNally at Abstract, [0002]. McNally explains that it
`
`provides solutions for smart phones and other devices in common use that were not previously
`
`

`

`adapted for use in the hospitality industry without requiring extensive computer expertise to
`
`perform functions such as for restaurant ordering by facilitating user-friendly and efficient
`
`generation of computerized menus for restaurants that utilize equipment with non-PC-standard
`
`graphical formats, display sizes, and/or applications. Id. at [0004]–[0008].
`
`Wagner discloses a builder, tester, and runtime integration method a POS interface that is
`
`less expens