Ex Parte Campbell

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 26, 2016

12151473 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 26, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/151,473 05/07/2008
22882 7590 03/01/2016
MARTIN & FERRARO, LLP
1557 LAKE O'PINES STREET, NE
HARTVILLE, OH 44632
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
David Matthew Campbell
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
131.0001-00000 1814
EXAMINER
CAMPBELL, SHANNON S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3628
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/01/2016 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):
USPTO-docketing@martinferraro.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DAVID MATTHEW CAMPBELL
Appeal2013-010124
Application 12/151,4 73
Technology Center 3600
Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, and
MICHAEL W. KIM, Administrative Patent Judges.
FISCHETTI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF CASE1
Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the
Examiner's final rejection of claims 1-5, 7-23, and 25--40. We affirm.
1 The Appellants identify Clark Construction Group, LLC, as the real party
in interest. (App. Br. 1 ).
Appeal2013-010124
Application 12/151,4 73
THE CLAIMED INVENTION
Appellant claims a system and method "for managing use and
availability of motorized equipment." (Spec. 1, 11. 9-10). Claim 1 is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method for managing use and availability of units of
equipment on a jobsite, comprising:
providing the units of equipment to the jobsite;
placing a control panel on each of the units of equipment;
making the units of equipment available on a first-come,
first-serve basis to a group of users pre-approved to reserve
and/ or use the units of equipment;
requiring a first user from the group of pre-approved
users to provide an authorization input to the control panel to
reserve one unit of the units of equipment for a specified period
of time within a previously unreserved block of time;
processing the authorization input provided by the first
user, compnsmg:
receiving, via communication between the control
panel and a remote data center, a list of authorized inputs;
and
comparing the authorization input to the list of
authorized inputs;
authorizing, if the authorization input corresponds to one
of the authorized inputs, the first user to reserve the one unit of
the units of equipment for the specified period of time without
requiring the first user to take possession of a reserved unit
immediately after the time of authorizing;
prohibiting a second user from the group of pre-approved
users from reserving the reserved unit for the specified period
of time reserved by the first user and/ or from using the reserved
unit during the specified period of time reserved by the first
user; and
enabling the first user of the reserved unit to actuate the
reserved unit, and to use the reserved unit during the specified
period of time.
2
Appeal2013-010124
Application 12/151,4 73
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Kaman
Hunt
Janda '961
Janda'688
Kady
us 5,660,246
US 2003/0097304 Al
US 2003/0125961 Al
US 2004/0122688 Al
US 7,394,347 B2
REJECTIONS
Aug. 26, 1997
May 22, 2003
July 3, 2003
June 24, 2004
July 1, 2008
The following rejections are before us for review.
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 7, 9, 10, 38, and 39 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Hunt, Kaman, and Janda '961.
The Examiner rejected claims 2--4, 16, 17, and 40 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Hunt, Kaman, Janda '961, and Janda '688.
The Examiner rejected claims 5, 22, 23, and 25-32 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Hunt, Kaman, Janda '961, and Kady.
The Examiner rejected claims 8, 11-15, and 18-21under35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Hunt, Kaman, Janda '961, and Official Notice.
The Examiner rejected claims 33, 34, 36, and 37 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Hunt, Kaman, Kady, Janda '961, and Official
Notice.
The Examiner rejected claim 35 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Hunt, Kaman, Kady, Janda '961, and Janda '688.
3
Appeal2013-010124
Application 12/151,4 73
FINDINGS OF FACT
We find the following facts by a preponderance of the evidence.
1. The Examiner states:
Hunt is used to show authorizing the use of equipment to enable
the operation of the equipment through a control panel was old
and well known in the art at the time of the invention, Hunt
does not place the control panel on each individual piece of
equipment as claimed. Kaman was used to show that a control
panel can be placed on each individual piece of equipment to
authorize usage. Since each individual element and its function
are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references,
the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior
art rests not on any individual element or function but in the
very combination itself--that is in the substitution of the control
panel of Kaman for the control panel of Hunt.
(Answer 3).
2. Hunt discloses a central control panel, stating "Computer System 214,
more fully described below in the discussion of PIG. 3; controls an
RFID tracking system that utilizes the RFID tags on each piece of audio
visual equipment in cooperation with Antennas 216." (Para. 19).
3. Kaman discloses a control panel on each piece of equipment, where
"access control is performed locally (i.e., within the vehicle controller
1 O)." (Col. 7, 11. 20-21 ).
4. The Examiner finds motivation for the substitution of Kaman's control
module into Hunt, at column 2, lines 1-8 of Kaman. (Answer 2-3).
4
Appeal2013-010124
Application 12/151,4 73
ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 6, 7, 9, 10, 38, and 39
Initially, we note that the Appellant argues independent claims 1, 38,
and 39 together as a group. (Br. 6). Correspondingly, we select
representative claim 1 to decide the appeal of these claims, with remaining
claims 38 and 39 standing or falling with claim 1. Appellant does not
provide a substantive argument as to the separate patentability of claims 6, 7,
9, and 10 that depend from claim 1. Thus, claims 6, 7, 9, 10, 38, and 39
stand or fall with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(vii).
Appellant argues there is no motivation to combine Hunt and Kaman,
because combining Kaman's control unit on each equipment item (e.g.,
element 10), with Hunt's system would be redundant. (Br. 6-10).
We are not persuaded by Appellant's argument. The Examiner
clarifies in the Answer that the rejection is based on a substitution of Hunt's
authentication elements (e.g., elements 204, 206, 208, 210, and 212) with the
control unit on each equipment (element 10) from Kaman. (FF 1 ).
Specifically, Hunt discloses a central computer control panel at computer
system 214 with these authentication features (FF 2), which the Examiner
finds would be obvious to substitute with the vehicle-mounted control panel
10 of Kaman (FF 3). Thus, there is no redundancy because the substitution
replaces Hunt's central panel with Kaman's vehicle panel. The motivation
to make the predictable substitution, as articulated by the Examiner, comes
from Kaman, to "prevent unauthorized usage." (FF 4). Appellant does not
respond to this clarification.
Appellant argues the combination of Kaman's control unit on each
equipment item, with corresponding elements of Hunt, would render Hunt
5
Appeal2013-010124
Application 12/151,4 73
inoperable for its intended operation because the resulting "redundancy is
not consistent with the efficient operation taught by Hunt." (Br. 11-12).
We are not persuaded by Appellant's argument, because, as we note
above, the rejection is based on a substitution, not a complete combination,
and therefore there is no redundancy of elements to create inefficiency.
Appellant does not respond to this point.
Claims 2--4, 16, 17, and 40
Appellant argues the rejection of these claims only by reference to the
arguments of claim 1. (Br. 13). Because we find no shortcomings in the
rejection of claim 1, we affirm the rejection of claims 2--4, 16, 17, and 40 for
the same reasons as claim 1.
Claims 5, 22, 23, and 25-32
Appellant argues the rejection of these claims only by reference to the
arguments of claim 1. (Br. 13). Because we find no shortcomings in the
rejection of claim 1, we affirm the rejection of claims 5, 22, 23, and 25-32
for the same reasons as claim 1.
Claims 8, 11-15, 18-21, and 33-37
Appellant presents no argument for the rejections of these claims.
These rejections are thus summarily affirmed.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Appellant has not shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims
1-5, 7-23, and 25--40 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
6
Appeal2013-010124
Application 12/151,4 73
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner's rejections of claims 1-5, 7-23,
and 25--40 are AFFIRMED.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
7