- Meta Platforms, Inc. v. Sitnet, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Sep 8, 2025 · IPR2024-00530 · APJ Thu A Dang · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–16 are unpatentable as obvious; the Board denied the contingent motion to amend proposing substitute claims 17–32.
RulingsFinal written decision- Expert testimonyOther
“iv. Claim 1 Conclusion Based on the complete record presented, Petitioner has shown that Gage teaches all limitations of claim 1. Thus, we determine that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the subject matter of claim 1 would have been obvious over Gage. v. Independent claim 8 Independent claim 8 recites a method of “providing situation related information to a situation authority via a situational network,” wherein the method comprises “receiving, by a participant device, a roll call query soliciting a reply related to a status of a participant based on the participant being determined, by the situation authority, to be geographically proximate to the situation,” “receiving, by the participant device, a selection of a status response from the participant,” and “sending the status response to the central authority, wherein the status response is included in a roll call list.” Ex. 1001, 34:46–57. Petitioner generally refers to its contentions with respect to claim 1. Pet. 34–36. In particular, Petitioner contends that Gage teaches a subscriber device that communicates a status indicator to the disaster response system through a subscriber status reporting system that implements a “situational network” configured for use during disasters. Id. at 34 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 19, 25). Petitioner additionally contends that Gage’s “disaster response system” is a “situation authority” because the disaster response system detects an occurrence of a disaster affecting a region, receives and aggregates information related to the disaster, and then provides the information to various participants in the network. Id. (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 8–9, 21, 36, 45; Ex. 1003 ¶ 104). With respect to the “situational network” limitation, Patent Owner” slip op. at 39
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“1. “situational network” (claims 1, 8, 13) Patent Owner points out that the district court has already construed” slip op. at 12
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successUnpatentableMotivation foundUnpatentable
“viii. Ground 1 Conclusion In light of the above analysis, we determine that Petitioner’s evidence” slip op. at 46
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsMotion to amend, deniedDenied
“c. Conclusion on Petitioner’s Patentability Challenges based on Obviousness for Proposed Substitute Claims For the above reasons, we determine that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of evidence that the subject matter of proposed substitute claims 17–32 would have been unpatentable. IV. CONCLUSION9 For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that Petitioner has shown by a” slip op. at 82
Patent outcomesUS 9,877,345 unpatentableClaim construction§ 101 eligibility§ 103 obviousnesscites Alice · Mayo · Bilski · Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,877,345 - American Express Company / American Express Travel Related Services Company, Inc. v. Signature Systems, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Oct 30, 2019 · CBM2018-00035 · APJ Frances L Ippolito · CBM · Final written decision
Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 9, 10, 13, and 14 are unpatentable under § 101; proposed substitute claims 17–20 are unpatentable under § 101, and the contingent motion to amend is denied.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelOther
“F. Level of Skill in the Art Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”)” slip op. at 32
- Expert testimonyOther
“For the above reasons, we are persuaded that Petitioner has met its” slip op. at 62
- Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Corresponding structure / algorithm (indefinite if none)Decided for petitioner
“1. Principles of Law Use of the word “means” in a claim gives rise to a rebuttable” slip op. at 12
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsMotion to amend, deniedDenied
“Further, based on the entirety of the record, we determine that proposed substitute claims 17–20 are unpatentable by a preponderance of the evidence based on 35 U.S.C. § 101. Motion to Amend Outcome Claims Substitute Claims: Proposed in the Amendment 17–20 Substitute Claims: Motion to Amend Denied 17–20” slip op. at 101
Patent outcomesUS 8,423,402 unpatentableClaim construction§ 101 eligibilitycites Alice · Mayo · Bilski · Berkheimer · EnfishPatents in suitUS 8,423,402 - Life Technologies Corporation v. Unisone Strategic IP, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Jun 23, 2017 · CBM2016-00025 · APJ Hyun J Jung · CBM · Final written decision
Claims 1, 14, 19, 22–28, 32, 34–36, and 45 are unpatentable under § 101 as patent-ineligible subject matter.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“II. ANALYSIS A. Claim Construction Although Petitioner presents constructions for several claim terms (Pet. 39), we determine that no terms require express construction for purposes of this Decision. Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (only claim terms in controversy need to be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy).” slip op. at 9
- BurdenFwd all claims unpatentableUnpatentable
“Patent Owner presents no arguments regarding Petitioner’s challenge that claims 1, 14, 19, 22–28, 32, 34–36, and 45 are directed to patent-ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Patent Owner acknowledges that the Scheduling Order (Paper 8, 3) cautions that “any arguments for patentability not raised in the response will be deemed waived.” Paper 15, 5. Patent Owner’s counsel also stated that “Patent owner has been advised of all the orders from the board.” Ex. 1037, 6:9–12. In view of the record before us, we determine that Patent Owner has been cautioned and advised regarding waiver of patentability arguments, and because Patent Owner has not raised any arguments for patentability, we find that it has waived its arguments regarding Petitioner’s challenge of claims 1, 14, 19, 22–28, 32, 34–36, and 45 as directed to patent-ineligible subject matter. Therefore, the record now is the same as with our Decision on Institution. For the reasons stated in that decision, we conclude that claims 1, 14, 19, 22–28, 32, 34–36, and 45 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 101.” slip op. at 23
- Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step one — 'directed to'Unpatentable
“Patent Owner presents no arguments regarding Petitioner’s challenge that claims 1, 14, 19, 22–28, 32, 34–36, and 45 are directed to patent-ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Patent Owner acknowledges that the Scheduling Order (Paper 8, 3) cautions that “any arguments for patentability not raised in the response will be deemed waived.” Paper 15, 5. Patent Owner’s counsel also stated that “Patent owner has been advised of all the orders from the board.” Ex. 1037, 6:9–12. In view of the record before us, we determine that Patent Owner has been cautioned and advised regarding waiver of patentability arguments, and because Patent Owner has not raised any arguments for patentability, we find that it has waived its arguments regarding Petitioner’s challenge of claims 1, 14, 19, 22–28, 32, 34–36, and 45 as directed to patent-ineligible subject matter. Therefore, the record now is the same as with our Decision on Institution. For the reasons stated in that decision, we conclude that claims 1, 14, 19, 22–28, 32, 34–36, and 45 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 101.” slip op. at 23
Patent outcomesUS 6,996,538 unpatentableClaim construction§ 101 eligibilityPatents in suitUS 6,996,538 - Life Technologies Corporation v. Unisone Strategic IP, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Jun 28, 2016 · CBM2015-00037 · APJ Jacqueline Wright Bonilla · CBM · Final written decision
Claims 52, 62, 67, 70–76, 81, 83–85, and 96 are unpatentable under § 101 because they claim the abstract idea of inventory management using generic computer components.
RulingsFinal written decision- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“degrees in inventory management or similar fields such as supply chain control or logistics” per se, and has “not studied, for a profession, the history of inventory management.” Id. at 34–35 (citing Ex. 2005, 16:14–21, 41:22– 42:3). According to Patent Owner, “Dr. Siegel admits he has no expertise in information management history and only attempted to educate himself in order to prepare his declaration.” Id. at 35. It is clear from Dr. Siegel’s testimony, however, that he has extensive experience in “the use of information technology with business strategy and operations,” has handled professionally “issues related to the integration of information” using computer and software systems, and holds advanced degrees in engineering and computer science. Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 3–11. We are satisfied that Dr. Siegel possesses sufficient qualifications to testify on matters that are relevant to our analysis here, including matters that do not concern the alleged “ancient” history of inventory management. PO Resp. 35. For example, Dr. Siegel testifies that relevant aspects of automated inventory management and VMI were well known before the priority date of the ’538 patent. Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 25–28 (citing Ex. 1018); Ex. 1027 ¶¶ 5–22 (citing Exs. 1020-1022, 1024, 1025). Dr. Siegel also testifies that the ’538 patent specification describes hardware and software that “require only generic computer implementation—not specialized hardware or software.” Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 43–54, 78–79, 89. In addition, Dr. Siegel discusses general concepts of inventory management using a computer and whether certain limitations of the challenged claims can be performed mentally, using pen and paper, or manually, without use of a computer. Id. at ¶¶ 40, 58–66, 80, 90.” slip op. at 23
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“Both Petitioner and Patent Owner present constructions for several claim terms. Pet. 19–24; PO Resp. 12–23. For example, Patent Owner asserts that Petitioner misconstrues the term “customer” by defining it as “a buyer (person or organization) that uses the claimed inventory management.” PO Resp. 15; Pet. 19–20. Consistent with the specification of the ’538 patent, we adopt Patent Owner’s construction of “customer” as referring to a “buyer of products via the present invention” (Ex. 1001, 5:52– 56), i.e., a buyer of products using the inventory management system recited in the respective claims.” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“Patent Owner also presents constructions in relation to other claim terms such as “inventory restocking parameters provided by said customer,” “tracks” or “tracking,” “access” to information according to “assigned permissions or roles,” and “detecting.” PO Resp. 18–23. For many of the reasons stated in Petitioner’s reply to those constructions, we decline Patent Owner’s invitation to import inappropriately “computerized” aspects into those general terms, notwithstanding the fact that the challenged claims elsewhere recite computer components, such as a “computer,” “databases,” and “software.” Reply 23–25; see also Ex. 1001, 3:3–10 (stating that Customer Inventory System 130 allows manual inventory tracking). For purposes of this Decision otherwise, however, we need not expressly construe claim terms further. Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (only claim terms in controversy need to be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy).” slip op. at 8
- Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step one — 'directed to'Step1 directed to exceptionUnpatentable
“Based on the complete record before us, we determine that claim 67 is directed to the abstract idea of managing inventory in view of information. We are persuaded that managing inventory in view of collected and analyzed customer inventory, cost information, restocking information provided by a customer, as recited in claim 67, describes the basic concept of inventory management, i.e., a “fundamental economic practice.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2356. The method of claim 67 is sufficiently similar in this regard to the method of hedging against financial risk at issue in Bilski, 130 S.Ct. 3218 (2010), and the idea of intermediated settlement at issue in Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2356–57 (discussing Bilski). See also Accenture Global Servs., GmbH v. Guidewire Software, Inc., 728 F.3d 1336, 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (holding the abstract idea at the heart of a system claim to be “generating tasks [based on] rules . . . to be completed upon the occurrence of an event” (citation omitted)).” slip op. at 22
Patent outcomesUS 6,996,538 unpatentableClaim construction§ 101 eligibilitycites Alice · Mayo · BilskiPatents in suitUS 6,996,538 - 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 - Agilysys, Inc. / Expedia, Inc. et al. v. Ameranth, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Mar 20, 2015 · CBM2014-00016 · APJ Meredith C Petravick · CBM · Final written decision
Claims 1–10 are unpatentable under § 101 because they claim the abstract idea of generating a criteria-based menu and transmitting it using conventional computer elements.
RulingsFinal written decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Petition (Paper 8, “Pet.”) requesting review under the transitional program for covered business method patent of claims 1–15 of U.S. Patent No. 6,871,325 B1 (Ex. 1032, “the ’325 patent”). On March 26, 2014, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 324, we instituted this trial as to claims 1–10 of the ’325 patent on only one proposed ground of unpatentability, 35 U.S.C. § 101. Paper 19 (“Dec. to Inst.”). We did not institute as to claims 11–16 on any of the grounds proposed in the Petition. Ameranth, Inc. (“Patent Owner”) filed a Patent Owner Response (Paper 26, “PO Resp.”) and Petitioner filed a Reply (Paper 27, “Reply”).” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for petitioner
“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. 30), and proposes constructions for some, but not all, limitations of the challenged claims (see id. at 33–35). 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). We construe, below, the limitations that are relevant to the issues of patenteligibility discussed below. We determine that all other claim limitations need no explicit construction.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notPreamble not limitingDecided for petitioner
- 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 ’325 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. 1032, col. 5, ll. 43–45; see also id. at col. 5, ll. 54–56 (“a CPU, e.g., Pentium® microprocessor”). Further the Specification discloses using a desktop PC to generate and download menus to a connected handheld device (see id. at col. 6, l. 33–col. 9, l. 3), as well as, discloses the use of a central back-office server (e.g., see id. at col. 2, ll. 31–37). 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 6,871,325 unpatentableClaim construction§ 101 eligibilitycites Alice · Mayo · BilskiPatents in suitUS 6,871,325 - Agilysys, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Mar 20, 2015 · CBM2014-00015 · APJ Meredith C Petravick · CBM · Final written decision
Claims 1–11 are unpatentable under § 101 because they claim the abstract idea of generating and transmitting menus using only generic computer elements and conventional activity.
RulingsFinal written decision- 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. The body of claim 1 recites a system that includes a central processing unit (“CPU”), a data storage device, an operating system with a GUI, a first menu, a modifier menu, a sub-modifier menu, and application software. Ex. 1031, col. 14, l. 48–col. 15, l. 11. The application software is recited as “for generating a second menu from said first menu” and the wherein clause further defines how the second menu is generated from the first menu. Id. at col. 15, ll. 1–11. The application software is recited, further, as “for . . . transmitting said second menu to a wireless handheld computing device or Web page.” Id. at col. 15, l. 1–2. As can be seen from the above, the body of claim 1 recites a structurally complete invention; one that corresponds to the embodiment that has a desktop PC and a menu configuration application described in the Specification at column 6, line 9 thru column 8, line 62 and depicted in Figure 1. See also Ex. 1031, col. 3, ll. 35–41 (describing the present invention as a software tool for building a menu, modifying a menu, and downloading it to a handheld device or Web Page). As described in the Specification, a menu is updated using the GUI of the menu configuration application and, then, the updated menu is downloaded to a connected handheld device by clicking on a “Download Database” item or icon in GUI 1. Ex. 1031, col. 8, ll. 45–62; see also id. at col. 3, ll. 35–37; col. 6, ll. 22– 25; col. 7, ll. 12. Thus, the updated menu is the same on the desktop PC and the handheld device. At the oral hearing, Patent Owner indicated that downloading is synchronizing, as “[i]t’s making something the same with something else.” See Tr. 28. For these reasons, we agree with Petitioner that the preamble is non- slip op. at 9
- 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 ’850 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. 1031, col. 5, ll. 34–40; see also id. at col. 5, ll. 48–49 (“a CPU, e.g., Pentium ® microprocessor”). Further, as discussed above, the Specification discloses using a desktop PC to generate and downloads menus to a connected handheld device (see id. at col. 6, l. 22–col. 8, l. 62), as well as, discloses the use of a central back-office server (e.g., see id. at col. 2, ll. 29–33). 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 12
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Plain and ordinary meaningDecided for patent owner
“We are not persuaded by Patent Owner that its proposed construction is the broadest reasonable construction in light of the Specification. We see nothing in the Specification, and Patent Owner does not point to anything in the Specification, that provides support for Patent Owner’s proposed construction, in particular that the menus have a “linked levels” feature. Although the Specification discloses some menus that are linked to additional menus, this “linked levels” feature is extraneous and should not be read from the Specification into the claim. See Ex. 1031, col. 5, ll. 23–33 (“File options can have additional subordinate or child options associated with them. If a file option having a subordinate option is selected . . .” (emphases added)). We give “menu” its ordinary and customary meaning. RANDOM HOUSE WEBSTER’S COLLEGE DICTIONARY defines menu as “a list of options available to a user, as displayed on a computer or TV screen.” RANDOM HOUSE WEBSTER’S COLLEGE DICTIONARY, 520 (2nd ed. 1997). This definition is consistent with the Specification, which describes menus as providing choices or options in a GUI. See Ex. 1031, col. 5, ll. 17–20; see Fig. 1 (depicting a menu, a modifier menu, and a sub modifier menu). For these reasons, we determine that the broadest reasonable construction, in light of the Specification, of “menu” is a list of options available to a user displayable on a computer. v. “the second menu is capable of being displayed on the display screen of a” slip op. at 13
- Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step one — 'directed to'Step1 directed to exceptionUnpatentable
“The claims recite a system that generates a second menu from a first menu by selecting menu categories and items from the first menu, adding menu categories and items to the second menu, and selecting parameters from modifier and sub-modifier menus to assign to items in the second menu. The claims also recite that the system transmits the second menu to a wireless handheld computing device or Web page. As discussed in section I(A) above, the Specification discloses a user generating a menu by adding or deleting menu categories, such as salads or desserts; menu items, such as caesar salad or green salad; menu modifiers, such as dressing; and menu sub-modifiers, such as ranch or blue cheese to create the second menu. Ex. 1031, col. 6, l. 35–col. 8, l. 20. The Specification states: [w]hile the preferred embodiment of the invention includes the selection of items from a master menu wherein the master menu is displayed using a graphical user interface, it is to be appreciated that any means for displaying the master menu to the user and generating another menu in response to and comprised of the selections made is encompassed by the contemplated invention. (id. at col. 13, ll. 52–58) and [t]he inventive concept encompasses the generation of a menu in any context known to those skilled in the art where an object is to facilitate display of the menu so as to enable selection of items from that menu. . . . Likewise, displaying menus generated in accordance with the invention on PDAs and Web pages to facilitate remote ordering are but a few examples of ways in which such menu might be used in practice. Any display and transmission means known to those skilled in the art is equally usable with respect to menus generated in accordance with the claimed invention.” slip op. at 18
Patent outcomesUS 6,384,850 unpatentableClaim construction§ 101 eligibilitycites Alice · MayoPatents in suitUS 6,384,850
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.