9313456 et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 10, 2020

90014031 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jan. 10, 2020)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
90/014,031 10/11/2017 9313456 32983-00022 1956
33772 7590 01/10/2020
MCDONALD HOPKINS LLC
600 Superior Avenue, East
Suite 2100
CLEVELAND, OH 44114-2653
EXAMINER
KE, PENG
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3992
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/10/2020 PAPER
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte NSIXTY LLC
Patent Owner and Appellant
____________

Appeal 2019-003777
Reexamination Control 90/014,031
Patent 9,313,456
Technology Center 3900
____________

Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, MARC S. HOFF, and ERIC B. CHEN,
Administrative Patent Judges.

CHEN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2019-003777
Reexamination Control 90/014,031
Patent 9,313,456

2
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(b) and 306, Appellant1 appeals from the
final rejection of claims 1–21. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
An oral hearing was held on December 2, 2019. The record includes
a written transcript of the oral hearing.
We AFFIRM.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Reexamination Proceedings
A request for ex parte reexamination of U.S. Patent No. 9,313,456 B2
(“the ’456 patent”) was filed on October 1, 2017, and assigned
Reexamination Control No. 90/014,031. The ’456 patent, entitled “Video
Communication System and Method for Using Same,” issued April 12, 2016
to James Matthew Stephens and Matthew Berlage, based on Application
No. 14/084,258, filed November 19, 2013, which is said to be a continuation
of Application No. 12/688,238, filed January 15, 2010, now U.S. Patent
No. 8,619,115, issued December 31, 2013, which claims priority to
Provisional Application No. 61/205,140, filed on January 15, 2009.

Claimed Subject Matter
The claims are directed to a video communication system, which
includes a kiosk for recording video messages created by a user and a
database for storing and providing access to the video. (Abstract.)

1 Appellant identifies the real party in interest as NSixty, LLC. (Br. 3.)
Appeal 2019-003777
Reexamination Control 90/014,031
Patent 9,313,456

3
Related Litigation
The ’456 patent has been asserted in NSixty v. uPost Media, Inc., No.
2:17-cv-2233 (D. Nev. Aug. 22, 2017) and NSixty, LLC v. Open Air
Entertainment, LLC, No. 2:17-cv-08650 (C.D. Calif. Nov. 30, 2017). These
cases have been stayed pending the outcome of this ex parte reexamination
proceeding. (Br. 3.)
The ’456 patent has also been asserted in Nsixty, LLC v. A2z, Inc., No.
1:17-cv-1987 (D.C. Md. July l7, 2017). This case has been terminated
pursuant to a settlement agreement. (Id.)

The Claims
Independent claims 1, 12, and 17, reproduced below, are illustrative of
the claimed subject matter, with disputed limitations in italics:
1. A portable kiosk system comprising:
an input device integrated within the portable kiosk
configured to receive identification information associated with
a user; and
a message-recording device integrated within the
portable kiosk and configured to capture media data;
wherein the portable kiosk component is configured to:
associate the captured media data with the
identification information associated with the user; and
transmit, to a device connected to a
communication network, the captured media data to
enable access of the captured media data via the
communication network.

Appeal 2019-003777
Reexamination Control 90/014,031
Patent 9,313,456

4
12. A portable kiosk system comprising:
an input device integrated within the portable kiosk
configured to receive identification information associated with
a user; and
a message-recording device integrated within the
portable kiosk and configured to capture media data;
wherein the portable kiosk component is configured to:
associate the captured media data with the
identification information associated with the user; and
transmit, to a device connected to a
communication network, the captured media data to
enable access of the captured media data via the
communication network wherein at least one of the input
device or the message-recording device comprises a
mobile device.

17. The media message communication system of
claim 16, wherein the database is further configured to send the
advertisement to a user entity of a social network based on the
user identity.

REFERENCES
Name Reference Date
Woodworth et al. US 7,961,212 B2 June 14, 2011
Massarsky US 2010/0161752 Al June 24, 2010
Belz et al. US 7,158,175 B2 Jan. 2, 2007
Hoyt et al. US 6,085,195 July 4, 2000
Davis et al. US 2003/0001846 Al Jan. 2, 2003
Zigler US 2003/0160811 Al Aug. 28, 2003

Appeal 2019-003777
Reexamination Control 90/014,031
Patent 9,313,456

5
The Rejections
A. Claims 1–3, 5–16, and 18–21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Woodworth and Massarsky.
B. Claim 4 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Woodworth, Massarsky, and Belz.
C. Claim 17 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Woodworth, Massarsky, and Davis.
D. Claims 1–16 and 18–21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Hoyt, Belz, and Massarsky.
E. Claim 17 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Hoyt, Belz, Massarsky, and Davis.
F. Claims 1, 13, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being
unpatentable over Zigler, Belz, and Massarsky.

OPINION
§ 103 Rejection—Hoyt, Belz, and Massarsky
Claims 1–11, 13–16, and 19–21
We are unpersuaded by Appellant’s arguments (Br. 15–17) that the
combination of Hoyt, Belz, and Massarsky would not have rendered obvious
independent claim 1, which includes the limitation “portable kiosk.”
The Examiner found that the photobooth/e-mail center of Massarsky
corresponds to the limitation “portable kiosk.” (Final Act. 16.) In
particular, the Examiner interpreted “portable” as meaning “capable of being
carried or moved about” (Ans. 6) and cited to Figure 3 of Massarsky, which
Appeal 2019-003777
Reexamination Control 90/014,031
Patent 9,313,456

6
illustrates “a photo booth having a wheel” (Final Act. 16). We agree with
the Examiner’s findings.
Independent claim 1 recites a “portable kiosk” (emphasis added).
One relevant plain meaning of “portable” is “capable of being carried or
moved about.” MERRIAM-WEBSTER’S COLLEGIATE DICTIONARY 907 (10th
ed. 1999). Moreover, the Specification of the ’456 patent describes the
following:
As illustrated in FIGS. 2 and 3, the kiosk 12 may be a
stand-alone unit. With reference to FIG. 2, the components of
the kiosk 12 may be contained within a body 28. Alternatively,
as shown in FIG. 3, the components of the kiosk 12 may be
connected to a leg assembly 30. It will be understood,
however, that the kiosk 12 may be supported in any manner.
For example, the kiosk 12 may be mounted or secured to a wall,
post, or other stable portion of the venue. In addition, the kiosk
12 may be portable such as installed in a vehicle, or configured
as a mobile unit.
(Col. 5, ll. 4–13 (emphases added).)
In an embodiment, the message-recording device 20
includes a digital video camera, a microphone, and a keyboard.
. . . The kiosk 12 may include a display 24 to allow the user to
watch or review the video communication during or after it is
recorded.
(Col. 4, ll. 14–21 (emphases added).) Figures 2 and 3 of the ’456 patent,
which illustrates kiosk 12 as stand-alone units, are reproduced below:
Appeal 2019-003777
Reexamination Control 90/014,031
Patent 9,313,456

7

As illustrated in Figures 2 and 3, the height of message-recording device 20
(e.g., digital video camera) or display 24, which allows a user to watch a
video communication, can be approximated as the height of the user. Thus,
under the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the
Specification, we interpret “portable” as “capable of being carried or moved
about,” which includes stand-alone kiosk 12 (e.g., unsecured to walls), such
kiosk 12 having the approximate height of the user.
Massarsky relates to “a combination photobooth/e-mail center [10]
adapted to take a digitized photograph of a user at a first station . . . and to
transmit the photograph via electronic mail.” (Col. 1, ll. 7–10.) Figure 1 of
Massarsky illustrates photobooth/e-mail center 10, having photobooth
station 12 and e-mail station 14 (col. 4, ll. 23–27), which includes monitor
32 for displaying the digitized photograph or for e-mail (col. 5, ll. 22–25).
Appeal 2019-003777
Reexamination Control 90/014,031
Patent 9,313,456

8
Figure 3 of Massarsky, which illustrates a cross-sectional photobooth/e-mail
center 10, further includes a wheel (unlabeled). Moreover, Figure 6 of
Massarsky, which illustrates two-sided station 50, is reproduced below:

Figure 6 of Massarsky illustrates two-sided station 50 as a free standing unit,
such that that height of monitor 32 (unlabeled) is approximately the height to
the user (see Fig. 8). Thus, because Figure 3 of Massarsky illustrates that
photobooth/e-mail center 10 further includes a wheel, which provides for the
capability for photobooth/e-mail center 10 to be moved about, Massarsky
teaches the limitation “portable kiosk.” Alternatively, because Figure 6
illustrates two-sided station 50 as a free standing unit with the height of the
user, such that two-sided station 50 is capable of being carried or moved
about, Massarsky teaches the limitation “portable kiosk.”
Appeal 2019-003777
Reexamination Control 90/014,031
Patent 9,313,456

9
First, Appellant argues “the examiner contends that the specification
does not clearly define a ‘portable kiosk,’ and then turns directly to an online
dictionary to define the term ‘portable’ as ‘capable of being moved’ without
ever referring to the specification.” (Br. 15.) However, Appellant argues,
“[c]laim construction should have begun with the specification, which
describes the portable kiosk in Figures 2–3 and column 5, lines 4–14.” (Id.)
As discussed previously, in view of the ’456 patent, we interpret the term
“portable kiosk” as including an unsecured stand-alone kiosk 12, as
illustrated in the Figures 2 and 3. Also discussed previously, stand-alone
kiosk 12, as illustrated in Figure 2 of the ’456 patent, is similar in
dimensions to two-sided station 50 of Massarsky, as illustrated Figure 6.
Accordingly, the limitation “portable kiosk” is broad enough to encompass
two-sided station 50 of Massarsky. A side-by-side comparison of Figure 2
of the ’456 patent (left) and Figure 6 of Massarsky (right) is reproduced
below:
Appeal 2019-003777
Reexamination Control 90/014,031
Patent 9,313,456

10

Second, Appellant argues that “[i]t [claim construction] should
continue with other intrinsic evidence, such as the prosecution history” and
“[t]he prosecution histories of the [related] ’115 and ’456 patents shows that
the claims were amended from ‘kiosk’ to a ‘portable kiosk’ to distinguish
the inventions from shopping mall-type kiosks and other non-portable
kiosks.” (Br. 15.) Accordingly, Appellant argues that following:
Massarsky’s mall booth/center 10 is a disclaimed “public
kiosk.” It has both an email station 14 and a photobooth
station 12. It does not disclose a “portable kiosk.” Massarsky
shows a very large stationary photobooth/center 10. This
center 10 is installed at a mall. While the wheel may allow for
movement during installation or to plug this public kiosk into
an outlet, the wheel is not material to the term “portable kiosk.”

Appeal 2019-003777
Reexamination Control 90/014,031
Patent 9,313,456

11
(Br. 17.) Initially, Appellant has not presented any evidence that
photobooth/e-mail center 10 must be located in “public” or in a “mall,”
particularly when Massarsky is silent with respect to the location of such
photobooth/e-mail center 10. Moreover, even if Appellant is correct that the
photobooth/e-mail center 10 must be located in “public” or in a “mall,”
Appellant has not explained how the location of such photobooth/e-mail
center 10 is relevant to portability. As found by the Examiner, the presence
of the wheel, as illustrated in Figure 3 of Massarsky, facilitates moving
photobooth/e-mail center 10, and accordingly, such photobooth/e-mail
center 10 is “portable.”
Last, Appellant argues the following:
The original Examiner understood that the specification defines
the term “portable kiosk” as not a standard kiosk or a public
kiosk, and as kiosk that requires more than the ability to be
moved with a wheel. We know this because the original
Examiner cited U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2002/0106620 to Barnum
during prosecution, which identifies wheels 120. The original
USPTO Examiner then allowed the ’456 Patent to issue because
these wheels did not make Barnum’s kiosk a “portable kiosk,”
even though Barnum was movable.
(Br. 16.) A review of the original prosecution history for Application
No. 14/084,258 indicates that Barnum was cited on form PTO-892 (“Notice
of References Cited”), in which the original Examiner stated “[t]he prior art
made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s
disclosure.” (Final Act. 4, mailed Sept. 9, 2015.) In other words, the
original Examiner did not provide any reasons for allowing the original
claims over Barnum. Accordingly, Appellant’s argument that “[t]he original
USPTO Examiner then allowed the ’456 Patent to issue because these
Appeal 2019-003777
Reexamination Control 90/014,031
Patent 9,313,456

12
wheels did not make Barnum’s kiosk a ‘portable kiosk,’ even though
Barnum was movable” is unsupported by the prosecution history.
Thus, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of Hoyt, Belz,
and Massarsky would have rendered obvious independent claim 1, which
includes the limitation “portable kiosk.”
We are also unpersuaded by Appellant’s arguments (Br. 13) that the
combination of Hoyt, Belz, and Massarsky would not have rendered obvious
independent claim 1, which includes the limitation “associate the captured
media data with the identification information associated with the user.”
The Examiner found that the website of Belz for providing digital
printing services for user accounts, corresponds to the limitation “associate
the captured media data with the identification information associated with
the user.” (Ans. 4.) We agree with the Examiner’s findings.
Belz relates to “a digital camera to receive and display information
from the Internet.” (Col. 1, ll. 19–20.) In the “Background of the Invention”
section, Belz explains the existence of web sites (e.g., “OFOTO” at
www.ofoto.com) that “enable a user to upload a group of digital images for
sharing with others over the Internet, and for providing digital printing
services.” (Col. 2, ll. 1–4.) Moreover, Belz explains that “[t]his site
[OFOTO] permits a user to obtain an account using his e-mail address as the
account name, and to provide a password and address information” and then,
“[t]he user can . . . upload a group of images.” (Col. 2, ll. 4–7.) Because
Belz explains that a user e-mail is used to create an account before images
can be uploaded to the OFOTO web site, such that that uploaded images are
Appeal 2019-003777
Reexamination Control 90/014,031
Patent 9,313,456

13
linked the user e-mail, Belz teaches the limitation “associate the captured
media data with the identification information associated with the user.”
Appellant argues that “[t]he Board should find claims 1–12 patentable
over the rejections . . . for the independent reason that [the] examiner’s only
citation for the above recited term is to Woodworth.” (Br. 13.) However,
the Examiner also cited to Belz for teaches the limitation “associate the
captured media data with the identification information associated with the
user.” (Ans. 4.) Appellant does not provide any persuasive evidence or
arguments as to why the Examiner’s findings with respect to Belz are
erroneous.
Thus, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of Hoyt, Belz,
and Massarsky would have rendered obvious independent claim 1, which
includes the limitation “associate the captured media data with the
identification information associated with the user.”
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of independent claim 1 under
35 U.S.C. § 103. Claims 2–11 depend from claim 1 and Appellant has not
presented any additional substantive arguments with respect to these claims.
Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claims 2–11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103,
for the same reasons discussed with respect to independent claim 1.
Independent claims 13, 18, and 19 recite limitations similar to those
discussed with respect to independent claim 1, and Appellant has not
presented any additional substantive arguments with respect to these claims.
We sustain the rejection of claims 13, 18, and 19, as well as dependent
claims 14–16, 20, and 21, for the same reasons discussed with respect to
claim 1.
Appeal 2019-003777
Reexamination Control 90/014,031
Patent 9,313,456

14
Claim 12
We are unpersuaded by Appellant’s arguments (Br. 19–20) that the
combination of Hoyt, Belz, and Massarsky would not have rendered obvious
independent claim 12, which includes the limitation “wherein at least one of
the input device or the message-recording device comprises a mobile
device.”
The Examiner found that the photobooth/e-mail center 10 of
Massarsky corresponds to the limitation “wherein at least one of the input
device or the message-recording device comprises a mobile device.” (Final
Act. 19.) In particular, the Examiner found that “Massarsky teaches the
kiosk include wheels or castors” with a citation to Figure 3. (Id.) We agree
with the Examiner’s findings.
Independent claim 12 recites the following: (i) “an input device
integrated within the portable kiosk”; (ii) “a message-recording device
integrated within the portable kiosk”; and (iii) “wherein at least one of the
input device or the message-recording device comprises a mobile device”
(emphases added). Thus, claim 12 requires either the “input device” or the
“message recording” to be a “mobile device,” which is “integrated within
the portable kiosk.”
One relevant plain meaning of “integrate” is “to unite with something
else” or “to incorporate into a larger unit.” MERRIAM-WEBSTER’S
COLLEGIATE DICTIONARY 608 (10th ed. 1999). Such definition is consistent
with the Specification of the ’456 patent describes the following:
The message-recording device 20 may further include a
sound-recording component such as a microphone or other
sound-receiving device. The sound-recording component may
Appeal 2019-003777
Reexamination Control 90/014,031
Patent 9,313,456

15
be integrated with or separate from the visual recording
component.
(Col. 4, ll. 4–11.) Thus, under the broadest reasonable interpretation
consistent with the Specification, we interpret “integrated” as to unite with
something else or to incorporate into a larger unit. Applying this claim
interpretation, claim 12 requires the “mobile device” to be united or
incorporated into “the portable kiosk” to form a larger unit.
With respect to the claim limitations “input devices,” “message
recording devices,” and “mobile device,” the ’456 patent further describes
the following:
The input device may include a keyboard 22, mouse,
touch screen monitor, microphone, scanner, USB port, voice
recognition, or any other means for inputting data.
(Col. 4, ll. 34–36 (emphasis added).)
The message-recording device 20 may include a visual
recording component such as a camera, video camera, or web
camera.
(Col. 3, ll. 55–57 (emphasis added).)
The message-recording device 20 may further include a
sound-recording component such as a microphone or other
sound-receiving device. . . . The message-recording device 20
may also include a keyboard 22, graphical user interface 31
such as a touch screen monitor, or other known components for
receiving text from a user.
(Col. 4, ll. 4–11 (emphases added).)
Many cell phones, PDAs [personal digital assistants], and
other electronic devices provide a convenient and direct way of
communicating a photo or video message to an individual. For
example, many cell phones are equipped with digital cameras
for recording photos or videos. Additionally, many phones
Appeal 2019-003777
Reexamination Control 90/014,031
Patent 9,313,456

16
allow an electronic photo or video file to be sent to another cell
phone via a text or an email or uploaded directly to the Internet.
(Col. 1, ll. 42–48.) While the ’456 patent provides numerous examples for
both “input device” and “message recording devices,” not all such devices
can be used for a “mobile device,” such as cell phones or PDAs, due to size
limitations. Thus, we interpret “the input device or the message-recording
device comprises a mobile device” as devices appropriately sized for mobile
device, for example, as smaller-scale keyboard, touch screen monitor,
camera, or video camera.
As discussed previously, because Figure 3 of Massarsky illustrates
photobooth/e-mail center 10 having a wheel, which provides for the
capability for photobooth/e-mail center 10 to be moved about, Massarsky
teaches the limitation “portable kiosk.” Also discussed previously, because
Figure 6 illustrates two-sided station 50 as a free standing unit with the
height of the user, such that two-sided station 50 is capable of being carried
or moved about, Massarsky teaches the limitation “portable kiosk.”
Massarsky further explains that “E-mail station 14 also is fitted with
keyboard 38 for entering the code and any other information” (col. 4, ll. 53–
54) and “[t]he [photobooth] station [12] also includes video camera 18 for
taking the digitized photograph of the user” (col. 4, ll. 34–35). Because
Massarsky explains that email station 14 includes keyboard 38 and
photobooth station 12 includes video camera 18, Massarsky teaches the
limitations “input device” and “message recording devices,” respectively.
While Massarsky does not teach the limitation “the input device or the
message-recording device comprises a mobile device,” it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill to in the art to modify the dimensions of
Appeal 2019-003777
Reexamination Control 90/014,031
Patent 9,313,456

17
keyboard 38 and video camera 18. Where the only difference between the
prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the
claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would
not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not
patentably distinct from the prior art device. See Gardner v. TEC Sys., Inc.,
725 F.2d 1338, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830 (1984).
Appellant argues the following:
Claim 12 is patentable over these rejections because the
examiner’s construction is unreasonably broad and no reference
discloses a mobile device (e.g., a mobile communication
device, such as a mobile telephone handset, tablet computer,
Personal Digital Assistant, or the like) as would have been
understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of
invention.
(Br. 19.) Similarly, Appellant argues that “[t]he examiner unreasonably
construed a ‘mobile device’ of the portable kiosk to encompass the entire
kiosk of Massarsky” and “[t]his contradicts the claim language itself and
basic tenants of claim construction.” (Br. 20.) However, as discussed
previously, independent claim 12 requires both the “input device” and the
“message recording,” either of which is a “mobile device,” to be “integrated
within the portable kiosk,” and thus, the “mobile device” is united or
integrated with the “portable kiosk” as a larger unit. Accordingly, Appellant
has not demonstrated that the Examiner’s citation to Figure 3 of Massarsky
for a “mobile device” is in error.
Thus, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of Hoyt, Belz,
and Massarsky would have rendered obvious independent claim 12, which
includes the limitation “wherein at least one of the input device or the
message-recording device comprises a mobile device.”
Appeal 2019-003777
Reexamination Control 90/014,031
Patent 9,313,456

18
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of independent claim 12 under
35 U.S.C. § 103.

§ 103 Rejection—Hoyt, Belz, Massarsky, and Davis
We are unpersuaded by Appellant’s arguments (Br. 21–22) that the
combination of Hoyt, Belz, Massarsky, and Davis would not have rendered
obvious dependent claim 17, which includes the limitation “social network.”
The Examiner found that the web site of Belz for uploading and
sharing digital images corresponds to the limitation “social network.”
(Ans. 7–8.) We agree with the Examiner’s findings.
As discussed previously, Belz explains the existence of web sites
(e.g., “OFOTO” at www.ofoto.com) that “enable a user to upload a group of
digital images for sharing with others over the Internet, and for providing
digital printing services.” (Col. 2, ll. 1–4.) Because Belz explains that the
OFOTO web site permits users to upload digital images for sharing with
others over the Internet, Belz teaches the limitation “social media.”
Appellant argues that “a social network, under the broadest reasonable
interpretation, is a social networking service or website used to build social
networks between users” and “Belz’s November 30, 2001 filing predates
Facebook, MySpace, and YouTube.” (Br. 22.) Thus, Appellant argues,
“[c]laim 17. . . recites a ‘social network,’ and no combination of references
discloses the aspects recited therein.” (Id.) However, Appellant’s
arguments are not commensurate in scope with claim 17, because the claim
does not recite any specific social network, such as Facebook, MySpace, or
YouTube. Even if we apply Appellant’s claim construction, the limitation
Appeal 2019-003777
Reexamination Control 90/014,031
Patent 9,313,456

19
“social network” is broad enough to encompass the “OFOTO” web site of
Belz, which permits users to upload digital images for sharing with others
over the Internet.
Thus, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of Hoyt, Belz,
Massarsky, and Davis would have rendered obvious dependent claim 17,
which includes the limitation “social network.”
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of dependent claim 17 under
35 U.S.C. § 103.

Remaining § 103 Rejections
We do not reach the additional cumulative rejections of claims 1–21
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over various combinations of
Woodworth, Massarsky, Belz, Davis, and Zigler. Affirmance of the
obviousness rejection based on various combinations of Hoyt, Belz,
Massarsky, and Davis discussed previously renders it unnecessary to reach
the remaining obviousness rejections, as claims 1–21 have been addressed
and found unpatentable. Cf. In re Gleave, 560 F.3d 1331, 1338 (Fed. Cir.
2009) (not reaching additional obviousness rejections).

CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–16 and 18–21 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 over Hoyt, Belz, and Massarsky is affirmed.
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
over Hoyt, Belz, Massarsky, and Davis is affirmed.
Appeal 2019-003777
Reexamination Control 90/014,031
Patent 9,313,456

20
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
References Affirmed Reversed
1–16, 18–21 103 Hoyt, Belz,
Massarsky
1–16, 18–21
17 103 Hoyt, Belz,
Massarsky,
Davis
17
Overall
Outcome
1–21

REQUESTS FOR EXTENSIONS OF TIME
Requests for extensions of time in this ex parte reexamination
proceeding are governed by 37 C.F.R. § 1.550(c). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f).

AFFIRMED

sl

Appeal 2019-003777
Reexamination Control 90/014,031
Patent 9,313,456

21
PATENT OWNER:
MCDONALD HOPKINS LLC
600 Superior Avenue, East
Suite 2100
Cleveland, OH 44114-2653

THIRD PARTY REQUESTER:

WEIDE & MILLER, LTD. (GENERAL)
10655 Park Run Drive, Suite 100
Las Vegas, NV 89144