COMPURANTS LIMITED

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 18, 2020

2020004118 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 18, 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.
14/621,578 02/13/2015 Daniel POTTER 359037.00007 7841
78905 7590 12/18/2020
Saul Ewing Arnstein & Lehr LLP (Philadelphia)
Attn: Patent Docket Clerk
Centre Square West
1500 Market Street, 38th Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19102-2186
EXAMINER
CHAMPAGNE, LUNA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3627
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/18/2020 ELECTRONIC
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.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
patents@saul.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte DANIEL POTTER, NOEL HUNWICK and
NICHOLAS WENTWORTH-SHAW
___________

Appeal 2020-004118
Application 14/621,578
Technology Center 3600

____________

Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., ADAM J. PYONIN and
MICHAEL J. ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judges.

WHITEHEAD JR., Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE1

1 Rather than reiterate Appellant’s arguments and the Examiner’s
determinations, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed December 26, 2019), the
Reply Brief (filed May 13, 2020), the Final Action (mailed April 26, 2019)
and the Answer (mailed May 13, 2020), for the respective details.

Appeal 2020-004118
Application 14/621,578
2

Appellant2 is appealing the final rejection of claims 1−25 and 27−293
under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a). Appeal Brief 5. Claim 26 is cancelled. See Final
Action 2. Claims 1 and 27 are independent. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Introduction
According to Appellant, the claimed subject matter relates to
“management systems including a hub, a set of clients, and a point of sale
system, the management system operable to be controlled by management
tool software.” See Specification ¶ 2.

Representative Claim
1. A system including a restaurant chain and a management system for
the restaurant chain, the management system comprising a hub including a
hub processor, a downloadable application embodied on a non-transitory
storage medium, a plurality of electronic point of sale (EPOS) systems, each
associated with a respective restaurant of the restaurant chain and each
including a respective EPOS system processor, and management tool
software embodied on one or more non-transitory storage media, the
management system operable to be controlled by the management tool
software, wherein the management tool software is executable on the hub

2 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42(a). Appellant identifies Ordamo Limited as the real party in interest.
Appeal Brief 2.

3 The Examiner’s obviousness rejection statement rejects claims 30 and 31.
See Final Action 3; Appeal Brief 5. However, Appellant’s Claim Appendix
does not include claims 30, 31. See Appeal Brief 27−32.
Appeal 2020-004118
Application 14/621,578
3

processor and/or on the EPOS system processors, to support an interactive
restaurant chain food and/or drink ordering user interface for each of a set of
customer facing computer interface devices, each including a respective
processor and a respective display, in which an end-user orders specific
restaurant chain items of food and/or drink for a restaurant of the restaurant
chain by providing input to a customer facing computer interface device and
the EPOS system associated with the restaurant tracks each order made for
the restaurant on the customer facing computer interface devices, wherein
the customer facing computer interface devices are wireless devices each
including the downloadable application embodied on a non-transitory
storage medium, the downloadable application executable on the respective
processor to make restaurant chain food and/or drink orders in advance.

References
Name4 Reference Date
Kurland US 4,553,222 November 12, 1985
Aronoff US 2005/0065851 A1 March 24, 2005
Feldman US 2009/0076920 A1 March 19, 2009
Hong US 2009/0167553 A1 July 2, 2009
Werbitt US 7,945,477 B2 May 17, 2011
Gagner US 8,430,405 B2 April 30, 2013

Rejections on Appeal
Claims 1−9, 11−14 and 27−29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Aronoff and Hong. Final Action 2–6.
Claims 15−17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Aronoff, Hong and Werbitt. Final Action 6–7.

4 All reference citations are to the first named inventor only.

Appeal 2020-004118
Application 14/621,578
4

Claims 10, 18, 19, 20 and 22−24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Aronoff, Hong and Kurland. Final
Action 7–8.
Claim 21 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Aronoff, Hong, Kurland and Gagner. Final Action 8.
Claim 25 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Aronoff, Hong, Kurland and Feldman. Final Action 9.

ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 27
Appellant contends, “With regard to independent Claims 1 and 27, the
skilled person would understand that the downloadable application is
downloadable at least in the sense that it is downloadable to the customer
facing computer interface wireless devices.” Appeal Brief 6. Appellant
argues:
Aronoff discloses “The on-site server 102 sends the appropriate
software to the mobile devices 104.” (Para. [0193]), and “The
invention supports sending new versions of software and patches
from the information center 100 to the on-site server 102 where
they are installed or as appropriate sent from the on-site server
102 to the mobile device 104.” (Para. [0281]).
Appeal Brief 6.
Appellant reasons:
But the proposed modification of Aronoff by the Examiner, to
change that the software for the mobile devices is sent from the
on-site server to the mobile devices, to the case in which the
customer facing computer interface devices are wireless devices
each including a downloadable application, changes the principle
of operation of Aronoff, because when downloadable
applications are provided for the mobile devices, the
downloadable applications may or may not be downloaded. If a
Appeal 2020-004118
Application 14/621,578
5

new software application is provided which has been modified
such as to provide operational robustness, and the new software
application is not downloaded to the mobile device, operational
robustness will therefore be compromised. Therefore the
proposed modification of Aronoff by the Examiner changes the
principle of operation of Aronoff, in contravention of MPEP
2143.01.VI.
Appeal Brief 8−9.
Aronoff discloses:
Briefly stated, the invention includes systems, methods,
computer program products, and combinations and sub-
combinations thereof, for enabling content and services to be
displayed on mobile devices (as well as other types of data
processing devices), and for users of mobile devices to interact
with such content and services while collecting information to
improve both the user’s experience and the operation of a
business.
Aronoff ¶ 33 (emphasis added).
In addition, Aronoff discloses, “FIGS. 5A-5E collectively depict an
example of how the invention operates from a customer’s point of view in
the context of a restaurant example.” Aronoff ¶ 60. Aronoff devotes
paragraphs 142−157 to describe the invention’s employment in a restaurant.
Aronoff, for example in paragraph 148, discloses:
Referring now to FIG. 5B, the user can interact with the mobile
device 104 to see detailed descriptions of the restaurants’ menu,
alternative views of the menu (including but not limited to
foreign languages, menus sorted by calories, meals containing no
ingredients they may be allergic to, meals containing desired
ingredients, such as mushrooms and oregano, etc.), an example
is depicted in FIG. 24G.

The Examiner determines that Aronoff teaches the claimed invention
with the exception that, “Aronoff do not explicitly disclose a downloadable
application embodied on a non-transitory storage medium.” Final Action 4;
Appeal 2020-004118
Application 14/621,578
6

see Aronoff ¶¶ 197, 198. The Examiner finds, “However, Hong et al.
disclose -wherein the customer facing computer interface devices are
wireless devices each including a downloadable application embodied on a
non-transitory storage medium.” Final Action 4 (citing Hong ¶¶ 56, 73, 96).
Hong further discloses a ‘“mobile and online based ordering and reservation
system’ by integrating, synchronizing and utilizing the capability of wireless
devices, Internet servers, business web sites and service aggregation portals,
to automate the mobile and online ordering and reservation processes in real
time, and therefore offering a plural of new mobile and online services and
applications.” Hong, Abstract.
We find Appellant’s mere attorney argument without supporting
evidence is conclusory, and, therefore, unpersuasive. See In re Geisler, 116
F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (attorney argument is not the kind of
factual evidence required to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness); In re
Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1405 (CCPA 1974) (“Attorney’s argument in a
brief cannot take the place of evidence”). Accordingly, we do not find
Appellant’s arguments that “the proposed modification of Aronoff by the
Examiner changes the principle of operation of Aronoff” persuasive of
Examiner error because we find no support in Aronoff or Hong that it does.
See Appeal Brief 8−9.
Appellant further argues that “a principle of operation of Aronoff is
that the customer is a diner in a restaurant and hence is ordering food or
drink items at meal time.” Appeal Brief 12. Appellant contends, “But
Claim 1 recites the very different limitation that the application is executable
on the respective processor to make restaurant chain food and/or drink
orders in advance.” Appeal Brief 10. “As our precedents make clear,
however, the analysis need not seek out precise teachings directed to the
Appeal 2020-004118
Application 14/621,578
7

specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account
of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art
would employ.” KSR Int’l v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). We
find advanced ordering in view of the disclosures of both Aronoff and Hong
is well within the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art. Especially
noted, the claim does not specify what constitutes ordering in advance.
Further, Hong discloses many options when using a mobile phone or device
such as “mobile phone reservation, mobile phone reservation with advanced
ordering.” Hong ¶ 9. Accordingly, we do not find Appellant’s argument
persuasive of Examiner error.
Appellant further argues that:
Applicant agrees that Aronoff’s teaching away from the
invention of Claim 1 does not mandate a finding of non-
obviousness. But the burden of showing that the invention of
Claim 1 is obvious lies with the Examiner, and the fact that
Aronoff teaches away from the invention of Claim 1 definitely
does not make Claim 1 obvious.
Appeal Brief 14.
“A reference may be said to teach away when a person of ordinary
skill, upon reading the reference, would be discouraged from following the
path set out in the reference, or would be led in a direction divergent from
the path that was taken by the applicant.” In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 990
(Fed. Cir. 2006) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). See also
In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (noting that merely
disclosing more than one alternative does not teach away from any of these
alternatives if the disclosure does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise
discourage the alternatives). We do not find Aronoff teaches away from
combining with Hong to disclose the claimed invention. Nor has Appellant
indicated where Aronoff discourages, criticize or discredits ordering in
Appeal 2020-004118
Application 14/621,578
8

advance as taught by Hong. Accordingly, we do not find Appellant’s
argument persuasive of Examiner error. We sustain the Examiner’s
obviousness rejection of independent claims 1 and 27 argued together. See
Appeal Brief 15.
Claims 4, 5
Claim 4 originally recited, “The management system of Claim 1,
wherein the hub comprise an ordering process.” See Claims filed February
13, 2015. Claim 4 now recites, “The system of Claim 1, wherein the hub
processor is configured to execute an ordering process.” See Claim
Appendix. There is no indication that there is a special meaning for the term
“hub processor” in Appellant’s Specification. Accordingly, we do not find
Appellant’s argument that “Aronoff teaches away from the hub processor
being configured to execute an ordering process” persuasive because
Appellant does not indicate where Aronoff discourages, criticize or
discredits using a hub processor. We agree with the Examiner’s findings
that Aronoff teaches using a hub processor. See Final Action 5.
Claim 8
The Specification discloses, “In Figure 1, there is shown an E-Table
Hub including an Ordering Process, a Web Service, and an EPOS (electronic
point of sale) Abstraction.” Specification ¶ 51. Figure 1 shows an E-Table
Hub comprising the ordering process, web service and EPOS Abstraction.
The Examiner finds Aronoff discloses “the EPOS Abstraction is associated
with a [customer] facing computer interface device.” Final Action 5 (citing
Aronoff ¶¶ 183, 210, 223 and 354). We agree with the Examiner’s findings
that Aronoff discloses an EPOS Abstraction. See Aronoff ¶ 210 (“Examples
of other devices 316 may include mobile paging devices, cell phones, or
interfaces to a point of sale system (POS). In all cases the content server
Appeal 2020-004118
Application 14/621,578
9

300 logs the request in content server log 326 and returns the content and
services 320 to the mobile devices 104”).
Claim 9
Claim 9 recites, “The system of Claim 8, wherein the EPOS
Abstraction is associated with a customer facing computer interface device.”
Appellant argues, “Aronoff teaches away from the hub comprising an EPOS
Abstraction associated with a customer facing computer interface device.”
Appeal Brief 18. We do not find Appellant’s argument persuasive of
Examiner error because Appellant does not indicate where Aronoff
discourages, criticize or discredits “from the hub comprising an EPOS
Abstraction associated with a customer facing computer interface device.”
See Appeal Brief 18. The Examiner finds Aronoff discloses “the EPOS
Abstraction is associated with a [customer] facing computer interface
device.” Final Action 5 (citing Aronoff ¶¶ 183, 210, 223 and 354). We
agree with the Examiner’s findings that Aronoff discloses an EPOS
Abstraction. See Aronoff ¶ 210 (“Examples of other devices 316 may
include mobile paging devices, cell phones, or interfaces to a point of sale
system (POS). In all cases the content server 300 logs the request in content
server log 326 and returns the content and services 320 to the mobile devices
104”).
Claims 28, 29
Appellant argues:
[I]nstead of disclosing making restaurant chain food and/or drink
orders in advance, Aronoff instead discloses that the customer is
a diner in a restaurant (e.g. Aronoff paras. [0144], [0165],
[0246]) and hence is ordering the items at meal time.
Accordingly, Aronoff does not disclose making restaurant chain
food and/or drink orders in advance, or making restaurant chain
Appeal 2020-004118
Application 14/621,578
10

food and/or drink orders in advance in association with the
reservation, of Claim 28.
Appeal Brief 20–21.
As we stated above, we find advanced ordering in view of the
disclosures of both Aronoff and Hong is well within the purview of one of
ordinary skill in the art. Further, Hong discloses many options when using a
mobile phone or device such as “mobile phone reservation, mobile phone
reservation with advanced ordering.” Hong ¶ 9; see Final Action 6.
Accordingly, we do not find Appellant’s argument persuasive of Examiner
error.
Claim 15
Claim 15 recites, “The system of Claim 1, wherein the management
tool software requires a username and password, so that only designated staff
can operate the management tool software.”
Appellant contends:
The motivation for requiring patron login in Werbitt appears to
include patron safety. For example, preference information is
retrieved, which may include dietary restrictions, medical needs,
emergency contacts, and so forth (Werbitt Col. 9 lines 30 to 34).
But such preference information would not appear to be relevant
to designated staff, hence there is no motivation from Werbitt to
require designated staff to provide a username and password, as
required by Claim 15.
Appeal Brief 22.
Werbitt discloses, “Patron application 227 generally facilitates
authenticating a patron’s credentials/identification when logging onto the
system or prior to submitting an order or a request” (column 9 lines 24–26)
as well as “[s]ecurity authentication procedures may be performed when
logging portable staff units 104 onto network 110” (column 23, lines 20–22).
Thus, Werbitt discloses a security system requiring the user to create
Appeal 2020-004118
Application 14/621,578
11

credentials are well known in the art regardless of who is required to create
the credentials. See KSR Int’l v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. at 418; Answer 5.
Accordingly, we find Appellant’s argument unpersuasive of Examiner error
and agree with the Examiner’s findings. See Final Action 6−7.
Claim 17
Claim 17 recites, “The system of Claim 1, wherein the management
system is operable to receive input from a games remote control.” Appellant
argues, “Werbitt, do not make it obvious that the management system is
operable to receive input from a games remote control, for example because
there is no reference to a dedicated computer games system.” Appeal Brief
23. We do not find Appellant’s argument persuasive of Examiner error
because Werbitt discloses, “A user can enter commands and information into
central unit 106 via input devices such as a keyboard 434 and a pointing
device 436 (e.g., a ‘mouse’). Other input devices 438 (not shown
specifically) may include a microphone, joystick, game pad, satellite dish,
serial port, scanner, and/or the like.” Werbitt, column 13 lines 31−36; see
Final Action 6.
Claim 10
Claim 10 recites, “The system of Claim 3, wherein an EPOS system is
selectable from a set of EPOS systems using the management tool software.”
Appellant contends:
[T]he Examiner rejects Claim 10 over Aronoff in combination
with Hong and Kurland, on the basis of Kurland Abstract’s
disclosure of an “‘intelligent” terminal.’ But an “‘intelligent”
terminal’ does not make obvious that an EPOS system is
selectable from a set of EPOS systems using the management
tool software, as required by Claim 10.
Appeal Brief 24; see Final Action 7.
Appeal 2020-004118
Application 14/621,578
12

The Examiner also finds Kurland discloses, “The charges, where
applicable, for both the entertainment and food selections can be
compositely automatically billed to the table station, with each patron having
a unique identification code for billing and/or service purposes, and the bills
printed either centrally or at each table station.” See Final Action 7 (citing
Kurland, column 2, lines 28−33). Kurland discloses that each patron has an
unique code for billing and therefore Kurland discloses where an EPOS
system is selectable based upon the patron’s unique identification code.
Claim 20
Claim 20 recites, “The system of Claim 18, wherein the management
tool software is operable to select a particular customer facing computer
interface device from the set of customer facing computer interface devices
to run on a particular table.” Appellant contends:
For different devices to be runnable on a particular table, as
required by Claim 20, a greater degree of change in the table
terminal of Kurland would need to be disclosed or made obvious,
such as the operating system at the table being changeable, so as
to be able to provide a very significantly different device. But
no such disclosure is made in Kurland.
Appeal Brief 25.
We do not find Appellant’s arguments persuasive of Examiner error
because each of the inventions disclosed in Aronoff, Hong and/or Kurland
discloses wherein the management tool software is operable to select a
particular customer. Aronoff, for example, discloses in the Abstract,
“Described herein are systems, methods, computer program products, and
combinations and sub-combinations thereof, for enabling content and
services to be displayed on mobile devices (as well as other types of data
processing devices).” (emphasis added). Accordingly, we sustain the
Appeal 2020-004118
Application 14/621,578
13

Examiner’s rejection for claim 20. See KSR Int’l v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. at
418.
Claim 21
Claim 21 recites, “The system of Claim 18, wherein the hub is an E-
Table hub.” The Specification does not describe with specificity what
comprises or composes an E-Table hub. As stated above, Figure 1 discloses
that it consists of an ordering process, web service and EPOS Abstraction.
As we stated above, the Examiner finds Aronoff discloses “the EPOS
Abstraction is associated with a [customer] facing computer interface
device.” Final Action 5 (citing Aronoff ¶¶ 183, 210, 223 and 354); see Final
Action 8 (citing Gagner column 6 lines 27−41, column 10, lines 25−29).
Accordingly, we do not find that claim 21 is distinguished over the
references cited. We sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claim
21.
We sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of claims 1−25 and
27−29.

CONCLUSION
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1−9, 11−14,
27–29
103 Aronoff, Hong 1−9, 11−14,
27−29

15−17 103 Aronoff, Hong,
Werbitt
15−17
10, 18, 19,
20, 22−24
103 Aronoff, Hong,
Kurland
10, 18, 19,
20, 22−24

21 103 Aronoff, Hong,
Kurland, Gagner
21
25 103 Aronoff, Hong,
Kurland, Feldman
25
Appeal 2020-004118
Application 14/621,578
14

Overall
Outcome
1−25, 27−29

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(v).

AFFIRMED