Ex Parte BaharDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 24, 201512660647 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 24, 2015) Copy Citation 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. 12/660,647 03/01/2010 Reuben Bahar 6589-A15 2218 77553 7590 09/25/2015 MARVIN A. GLAZER 2141 E. HIGHLAND AVE SUITE 155 PHOENIX, AZ 85016 EXAMINER LUDWIG, PETER L ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3687 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/25/2015 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 REUBEN BAHAR __________ Appeal 2012-003818 Application 12/660,6471 Technology Center 3600 ____________ Before HUBERT C. LORIN, BART A. GERSTENBLITH, and JAMES A. WORTH, Administrative Patent Judges. LORIN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Reuben Bahar (Appellant) seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the final rejection of claims 2–14, 16–18, 24–30, and 32–35. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2012). SUMMARY OF DECISION We REVERSE.2 1 The Appellant identifies Reuben Bahar as the real party in interest. App. Br. 2. Appeal 2012-003818 Application 12/660,647 2 THE INVENTION Claim 26, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal. 26. A method for allowing an individual to inspect real estate property that has been placed for sale or rent, the real estate property having a lockbox located proximate to an entry to the real estate property, the lockbox housing a key for gaining access to the real estate property, said method comprising the steps of: a) establishing a user account for the individual in a computer system of a remote service provider; b) receiving a request at the remote service provider for allowing the individual to inspect the real estate property; c) using the computer system of the remote service provider to authenticate the request; d) debiting the individual’s user account a fee for permitting access to the real estate property; and e) sending an approval signal from the remote service provider after authenticating the individual's request, the approval signal allowing the access key to be obtained from the lockbox. THE REJECTIONS The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence of unpatentability: 2 Our decision will make reference to the Appellant’s Appeal Brief (“App. Br.,” filed Oct. 25, 2011) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed Dec. 12, 2011), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed Nov. 23, 2011). Appeal 2012-003818 Application 12/660,647 3 Myatt US 5,231,569 July 27, 1993 Danler US 5,280,518 Jan. 18, 1994 Foodman US 6,975,220 B1 Dec. 13, 2005 Bengson US 2009/0030718 A1 Jan. 29, 2009 Fisher US 7,734,068 B2 June 8, 2010 The following rejections are before us for review: 1. Claims 2–8, 11–14, 16–18, 24–30, and 32–35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Danler, Foodman, and Myatt.3 2. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Danler, Foodman, Myatt, and Fisher. 3. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Danler, Foodman, Myatt, and Bengson. ISSUES Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 2–8, 11–14, 16–18, 24–30, and 32–35 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Danler, Foodman, and Myatt; claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Danler, Foodman, Myatt, and Fisher; and claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. §103 (a) as being unpatentable over Danler, Foodman, Myatt, and Bengson? 3 The statement of the rejection as set forth in the Answer at page 14 is incorrect. It includes claims 20–22 and 31, which were cancelled. See App. Br. 2. Appeal 2012-003818 Application 12/660,647 4 FINDINGS OF FACT We rely on the Examiner’s factual findings stated in the Answer. Additional findings of fact may appear in the Analysis below. ANALYSIS The rejection of claims 2–8, 11–14, 16–18, 24–30, and 32–35 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Danler, Foodman, and Myatt. The rejection of claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Danler, Foodman, Myatt, and Fisher. The rejection of claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Danler, Foodman, Myatt, and Bengson. With respect to each of the independent claims 26, 32, and 35, the Examiner’s position is that Danler discloses the claimed subject matter, but for “debiting the individual’s user account a fee for permitting access to the real estate property” (step d)) for which Myatt is relied upon (Ans. 16–17), and, further with respect to independent claims 32 and 35, but for “providing surveillance equipment at said real estate property for monitoring the requesting individual’s inspection of the real estate property” for which Foodman is relied upon (id. at 15–16). According to the Examiner, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art over the cited prior art given the standard of obviousness articulated in KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007); that is, a “combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.” (id. at 416). Ans. 38. A principal issue is whether Danler discloses a “remote service provider” as claimed; that is, a “remote service provider” to “establish[] a Appeal 2012-003818 Application 12/660,647 5 user account for [an] individual[;]” “receiv[e] a request[;]” “authenticate the request[;]” and “send[] an approval signal . . . after authenticating the . . . request.” According to the Examiner, “the central computer is located at the office of the Multiple Listing Service (MLS) that oversees operation of the lock box system.” Ans. 14–15 (citing Danler, col. 2, ll. 45–48; col. 10, ll. 44–62). Said cited disclosures are reproduced below. A basic lock box system 10 according to the illustrated embodiment of the present invention includes one or more lock boxes or keysafes 12, electronic keys 14, programming bases 16 and computers 18. Lock box 12 contains the door key to the dwelling and is mounted securely on or near the dwelling. Electronic key 14 is used by real estate agents to open the lock box and gain access to a dwelling key 20 contained therein. Electronic key 14 can also be used to read access log data from the lock box and to set certain variables within the lock box. Programming bases 16 are used to load data to, and retrieve data from, the lock boxes and electronic keys. Computer 18 serves as a central station at which data from a plurality of programming bases can be assembled. The computer can also serve to program the programming bases 16. In the illustrated embodiment, the central computer is located at the office of the Multiple Listing Service (MLS) that oversees operation of the lock box system. Danler, col. 2, ll. 29–48. In the preferred form of the invention, a system component (lock box, electronic key or programming base) can be associated with more than one MLS. Such multiple MLS capability is important in large metropolitan areas in which a single brokerage may show properties listed by several different multiple listing services. To effect multiple MLS capability, the memories of the system components are arranged to store data for up to six different multiple listing services. An electronic key, for example, may have six multiple listing identifier data, each of Appeal 2012-003818 Application 12/660,647 6 which has an update code corresponding thereto. All of this data is exchanged in the lock box/electronic key interaction and the requested operation is authorized only if (1) the lock box is associated with a MLS included among the electronic key’s six multiple listing services; (2) the key update code corresponding to that MLS is timely; and (3) any other necessary criteria (Timed Access, Shown By Appointment, Lockout Lists) are met. Id. at col. 10, ll. 44–62. The Appellant argued that the central computer located at an office of the Multiple Listing Service (MLS), as Danler describes, does not correspond to the “remote service provider” as claimed. We have reviewed Danler and find that a preponderance of the evidence weighs in favor of the Appellant’s position. Danler’s central computer is represented by element 18 in Figure 14. The central computer is shown linked to programming base 16 of a lockbox. The associated disclosure states that “programming base 16 is used in the present invention to read from and write to the system keys 14 and lock boxes 12. The programming base is also used to obtain instructions from, and provide data to the central computer 18.” Danler, col. 9, ll. 18–22. Danler describes various functions that programming base 16 can provide, adding that it “can also be used for a variety of other purposes, such as for relaying diagnostic maintenance log data from electronic keys or lock boxes to the central computer 18, and for synchronizing the calendar-clock circuit 134 in the electronic key with a master calendar-clock maintained by the central computer 18.” Id. at col. 10, ll. 10–16. However, there is no disclosure that Danler’s central computer performs the functions as claimed, as the Examiner has argued. Appeal 2012-003818 Application 12/660,647 7 For example, the Examiner found that column 20, lines 53–57, and column 21, lines 18–23, disclose the claim step of “receiving a request at the remote service provider for allowing the individual to inspect the real estate property.” Ans. 15. But the cited passages do not mention Danler’s central computer. Because a preponderance of the evidence does not support the fact that Danler discloses the “remote service provider” as claimed, a prima face case of obviousness has not been made out in the first instance for the subject matter of independent claims 26, 32, and 35 and the claims dependent therefrom. CONCLUSIONS The rejections of claims 2–8, 11–14, 16–18, 20–22, and 24–35 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Danler, Foodman, and Myatt; claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Danler, Foodman, Myatt, and Fisher; and claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Danler, Foodman, Myatt, and Bengson are not sustained. DECISION The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 2–14, 16–18, 24–30, and 32–35 is reversed. REVERSED Klh Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation