- Apple, Inc. / Domino’S Pizza, Inc. et al. v. Ameranth, Inc.Some claims unpatentablePTAB · Mar 20, 2015 · CBM2014-00013 · APJ Meredith C Petravick · CBM · Final written decision
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 10, and 12 are unpatentable under § 101; claims 3, 6–9, 11, and 13–16 were not shown unpatentable because the petition did not establish their claimed features were conventional.
RulingsFinal written decision- BurdenMixed
“We are persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument. Petitioner states that the claimed linking is a “classic example[] of manual tasks that cannot be rendered patent-eligible merely by performing them with a computer.” Reply 15. However, Petitioner fails to provide sufficient evidence to support its statement. See Pet. 49–66; Reply 9–15. Petitioner provides insufficient evidence to establish that a menu having the functionality to perform the claimed linking from a GUI on a hand-held device, was well-known or conventional and merely require a general purpose computer. See id. Upon review, we determine that Petitioner fails to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 3 and 11 recite patent-ineligible subject matter.” slip op. at 37
- Skill levelOther
“B. Claim Construction The Board interprets claims of unexpired patents using the broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.300(b). Under the broadest reasonable construction standard, claim terms are given their ordinary and customary meaning, as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art in the context of the entire disclosure. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Any special definition for a claim term must be set forth with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision. In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994). In the absence of such a definition, limitations are not to be read from the specification into the claims. In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Prior to construing the relevant claim limitations, we turn to some initial matters raised by Patent Owner. First, Patent Owner argues that we must construe “the entirety of the challenged claims” (PO Resp. 31), and proposes constructions for some, but not all, limitations of the challenged claims (see id. at 34–36). Claim construction, however, “is not an inviolable prerequisite to a validity determination under § 101.” Bancorp Servs. L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assur. Co. of Canada (U.S.), L.L.C., 687 F.3d 1266, 1273 (Fed. Cir. 2012). See, e.g., Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng'g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (only those terms that are in controversy need to be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy). Below, we construe the limitations that are relevant to the issues of patent-eligibility discussed below. We determine that all other claim limitations need no explicit construction.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notPreamble not limitingDecided for petitioner
“In general, a preamble limits the invention if it recites essential structure or steps, or if it is ‘necessary to give life, meaning, and vitality’ to the claim.” Catalina Mktg. Int'l, Inc. v. Coolsavings.com, Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 808 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (citing Pitney Bowes Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). A preamble, however, is not limiting where the claim body defines a structurally complete invention and the preamble only states a purpose or intended use for the invention. Id. slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“We are persuaded by Petitioner that the broadest reasonable construction in light of the Specification of the term CPU is the computational and control unit of a computer. Petitioner’s construction is consistent with the Specification, which describes that the system of the ’733 patent uses typical hardware elements in the form of a computer workstation and that “a typical workstation platform includes hardware such as a central processing unit (‘CPU’), e.g., a Pentium® microprocessor.” Ex. 1033, col. 6, ll. 52–54; see also id. at col. 6, l. 65 (“a CPU, e.g., Pentium® microprocessor”). Further, Petitioner’s construction is consistent with the Specification, which as discussed above, discloses using a desktop PC to generate and download menus to a connected handheld device (see id. at col. 7, l. 38–col. 10, l. 15), as well as, discloses the use of a central back-office server (e.g., see id. at col. 2, ll. 37–40). Patent Owner’s proposed construction improperly reads into the claims the central back-office server. See Renishaw, 158 F.3d at 1249 (explaining that extraneous features should not be read into the claims). For these reasons, we determine that the broadest reasonable construction, in light of the Specification, of CPU is the computational and control unit of a computer.” slip op. at 15
Patent outcomesUS 6,982,733 mixedClaim construction§ 101 eligibilitycites Alice · MayoPatents in suitUS 6,982,733
Holdings, summaries, rulings, issues, outcomes, winners and claim constructions shown for a decision were generated by a large language model reading the opinion. They are a guide to the decision, not the decision. Confirm every one against the court's own text before relying on it. Outcomes read from the patent owner’s side. Party names are extracted from the decision and are missing on about 900 short Director denials and scans, which carry the trial number instead.