PTAB

CBM2014-00016

AGIlysis Inc v. Ameranth Inc

Key Events

Petition

Title: Information Management and Synchronous Communications System with Menu Generation
Brief Description: The ’325 patent relates to a computer-based system for information management and synchronous communication, specifically for generating and transmitting menus for applications in the hospitality industry. The technology is described for use in restaurant ordering, reservations, and wait-list management on handheld devices, web pages, and other computing systems.

Core Argument for this Ground:
- Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that all challenged claims were directed to the patent-ineligible abstract idea of generating menus and processing orders—a fundamental and long-standing commercial practice. The petition asserted that the claims merely automated this well-known human activity (e.g., ordering from a waiter using "pen and paper") by implementing it on a general-purpose computer. The patent specification itself was cited as acknowledging the conventional nature of the underlying process and the use of "typical" computer hardware elements, such as a CPU, operating system, and data storage.
- Key Aspects: Petitioner contended that the claims failed to add an "inventive concept" sufficient to transform the abstract idea into a patent-eligible application. The computer-aided limitations were argued to be nothing more than adding the words "apply it" to the abstract idea, with the computer performing only its most basic and conventional functions (e.g., generating, displaying, and transmitting information). The argument heavily relied on the frameworks established in Mayo and Bilski, asserting that the claims did not solve a technical problem but rather a business problem of making ordering more efficient and user-friendly.

Core Argument for this Ground:
- Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner contended that claims 1-15 were facially invalid for being indefinite. The argument was based on the claims being drafted as apparatus claims (i.e., an "information management and synchronous communications system") while also impermissibly reciting active method steps that require user action. For example, independent claims 1 and 7-9 required "selecting parameters from the modifier and sub-modifier menus," and claims 11-13 required that "application and data are synchronized."
- Key Aspects: Citing Federal Circuit precedent such as IPXL Holdings, Petitioner argued that this mixing of statutory classes rendered the claims indefinite because it was unclear when infringement would occur. An accused infringer could not determine whether liability attached upon creating or supplying the system (infringement of an apparatus claim) or only when a user actually performed the recited steps (infringement of a method claim). This ambiguity, Petitioner asserted, failed to provide the public with clear notice of the patent's scope.

Core Argument for this Ground:
- Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that the claims were invalid for lacking adequate written description in the specification. The claims broadly recited a "synchronous communications system," which Patent Owner allegedly construed in litigation to cover systems both with and without a local database on a handheld device. However, Petitioner asserted that the specification only disclosed and enabled a single species of this system: one in which a handheld device synchronizes an existing, local copy of a database with a central master database.
- Key Aspects: The petition contended that the specification failed to provide support for the broader genus of "synchronous communications" that would include real-time data transmission from a central server to a handheld device that does not maintain a local database. Therefore, the applicants were allegedly not in possession of the full claimed scope at the time of filing, and the claims were invalid for failing to meet the written description requirement.
Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional challenges under §112, including indefiniteness of the term "any other communication protocol" (claims 11-15) and both indefiniteness and lack of written description for the limitation "transmitting... to a Web page" (claims 1-10).

"Web Page": Petitioner argued that claims requiring the "transmitting [of a] second menu to a... Web page" were indefinite. It was contended that the ordinary meaning of "web page" at the time of invention was a document, not a device or destination capable of receiving a transmission. Therefore, the claim language was nonsensical and failed to inform those of ordinary skill in the art about the scope of the invention with reasonable certainty.
"Any Other Communication Protocol": Petitioner asserted that this phrase in claims 11-15 rendered them indefinite. The petition argued that the term lacked a meaningfully precise scope, as the specification failed to identify or describe what such protocols might be beyond a single disclosure of HTTP, providing no objective boundaries for the claim.

Petitioner requests institution of a Covered Business Method patent review and cancellation of claims 1-15 of Patent 6,871,325 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §§ 101 and 112.