Ex Parte Chen et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Aug 26, 2011

10617525 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 26, 2011)

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.
10/617,525 07/10/2003 Yen-Fu Chen AUS920030419US1 3553
7590 08/29/2011
Robert V. Wilder
Attorney at Law
4235 Kingsburg Drive
Round Rock, TX 78681
EXAMINER
RICHMAN, GLENN E
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3764
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/29/2011 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte YEN-FU CHEN and NANCY T. SUN
____________

Appeal 2009-010600
Application 10/617,525
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before LINDA E. HORNER, JOHN C. KERINS and STEVEN D.A.
McCARTHY, Administrative Patent Judges.

KERINS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2009-010600
Application 10/617,525

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Yen-Fu Chen and Nancy T. Sun (Appellants) seek our review under
35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1-3, 5-7 and
9-19. Claims 4 and 8 have been canceled. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2002).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
THE INVENTION
Appellants’ claimed invention is directed to a method for operating a
workout facility having a plurality of workout stations. Claims 1 and 18,
reproduced below with emphasis added, are illustrative of the claimed
subject matter:
1. A method for operating a workout facility
having a plurality of workout stations arranged for
use by individual users, said method comprising:

receiving identification (ID) signals at one
of said workout stations, said ID signals being
representative of an individual user, wherein said
receiving is accomplished by receiving ID signals
at a reading device located at said workout station,
said ID signals being generated by an initial
reading of a code contained on an article carried
by said individual user;

measuring workout data generated by said
individual user at said workout station;

saving said workout data to a workout data file
associated with said individual user when said user
has finished using said workout station; and

determining when said individual user has finished
using said workout station, said determining being
Appeal 2009-010600
Application 10/617,525

3
accomplished by detecting when said ID signals
are read for a second time at said workout station,
said second reading signifying that said individual
user has completed a workout at said workout
station.

18. A method for operating a workout facility
having a plurality of workout stations arranged for
use by individual users, said method comprising:

receiving a request from a user to schedule a
workout session using said workstations at said
workout facility;

enabling user access to a facility workout schedule
for workout stations within said workout facility;

receiving scheduling input from said user, said
scheduling input defining a user workout schedule
for said user at said workout facility;

storing said user workout schedule at a workout
server used by said workout facility;

reserving workout stations scheduled by said user
to enable only said user to use workstations at
times designated in said user workout schedule;

detecting when said user enters said workstation
facility by detecting a user identification (ID)
signal transmitted from a device carried by said
user;

storing information indicating a presence of said
user at said workout facility in response to said
detecting;

Appeal 2009-010600
Application 10/617,525

4
determining when said user is in proximity to a
first workout station scheduled for use by said
user;

displaying said user workout schedule on a display
device viewable by said user from said first
workout station in response to said determining;

collecting workout data of said user while said user
is working at said first workout station;

determining when said user departs from said first
workout station;

updating said user workout schedule by recording
said workout data of said user collected at said first
workout station after said user has departed from
said first workout station;

terminating said displaying after said determining
that said user has departed from said first workout
station; and

enabling other users to use said first workout
station after said user has departed from said first
workout station.

THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner has rejected:
(i) claims 1, 2, 5, 6, and 9-17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Shea (US 7,056,265 B1, issued June 6, 2006); and
(ii) claims 3, 7, 18 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Shea and Millington (US 6,949,052 B2, issued September
27, 2005).
Appeal 2009-010600
Application 10/617,525

5
ISSUES
Did the Examiner err in concluding that it would have been obvious,
in view of Shea, to perform a step of determining when an individual user
has finished using a workout station by detecting when ID signals are read
for a second time at the workout station?
Did the Examiner err in concluding that it would have been obvious,
in view of the teachings of Shea and Millington, to perform a step of
determining when a user enters a workstation facility by detecting a user ID
signal transmitted from a device carried by the user?

ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 2, 5, 6 and 9-17--Obviousness--Shea
Claim 1 is the only independent claim present in this ground of
rejection. Appellants present arguments for patentability only with respect
to claim 1, and do not separately argue the patentability of the remaining
claims. We will take claim 1 as being representative of the group, with
claims 2, 5, 6 and 9-17 standing or falling with claim 1.
The Examiner and Appellants agree that Shea does not explicitly
teach a step of determining when a user has finished using a workout station,
where the determining is, according to claim 1, “accomplished by detecting
when said [user] ID signals are read for a second time at said workout
station”, with the second reading signifying that the user has completed a
workout at the station. (Ans. 3; Appeal Br. 13)1. The Examiner maintains

1 Both Appellants and the Examiner appear to read claim 1 as being limited
to reading the ID signals a second time as requiring the claimed reading
device to read a “card swipe”. (See, Appeal Br. 13; Ans. 3). We note that
Appeal 2009-010600
Application 10/617,525

6
that it would have nonetheless been obvious to determine when the user
has finished by detecting/reading the user ID signals a second time at the
completion of the workout. (Ans. 3). The Examiner reasons that Shea does
include a step of determining when a user has finished using a workout
station, either by noting that a predetermined time period for the exercise has
elapsed, or by the user pressing a STOP key, and that a second swiping of
the user’s card would be an obvious alternative to the pressing of a STOP
key. (Ans. 3-4).
Appellants urge that the second swiping and the pressing of a STOP
key are not alternatives “since a swipe of the card gives a positive input and
identifies the user whereas a STOP key can be inadvertently pushed or not
pushed at all and does not give a positive indication that a particular user
has finished using a particular workstation.” (Appeal Br. 13). Appellants
also contend that “much more certain information is and may be transmitted
using the card swipe” and that this is not possible using only a STOP key.
(Id.). Appellants aver that “[t]he ID information is necessary in
progressing through the workout schedule contained in the server for
the identified user”, and that “[t]he Shea reference does not even recognize
the need for a positive ID input at the end of [an exercise by] the user of a
workout station”. (Id.).

this appears to be inconsistent with the recitation in claim 7, which
ultimately depends from claim 1, that the determining step is to be
accomplished by detecting an absence of transmitted ID signals at the
workout station. Our decision here is not affected by this apparent
inconsistency.
Appeal 2009-010600
Application 10/617,525

7
We have carefully considered all of these arguments, and have
resolved that they are unpersuasive of nonobviousness of the claimed
invention.
First, with respect to the possibility that a STOP key may be
inadvertently pushed or not pushed at all, the same applies for a reading
device taking a second reading of the user’s ID article. Both depend on the
user initiating the step, and both require, contrary to Appellants’ argument, a
“positive input”. We also disagree that the pushing of a STOP key “does not
give a positive indication that a particular user has finished using a
particular workstation.” The Shea system, in obtaining a user ID input
when the user arrives at a workstation, stores data reflective of a “particular
user” at a “particular workstation”. (Shea, Fig. 5 (input device 213); Figs.
14A-C and related text). The pressing of a STOP key does then give a
positive indication that that particular user has finished at that particular
workstation, with the exercise database for that particular user being updated
to indicate that the “exercise was completed by the exerciser”, as Shea
clearly conveys at steps ST 511-ST 513. (Shea, Figs. 14A, 14B; col. 23, ll.
15-23).
The “much more certain [ID] information” that is “necessary in
progressing through the workout schedule contained in the server
for the identified user” is effectively information that is duplicative
of information already stored by the server, in that the information was
previously received by a reading device in both the claimed invention and
in Shea when the user arrived at the workout station. Since Shea already
discloses providing the user with an ID card having a bar code or magnetic
strip with his/her exercise identifier (Shea, col. 7, ll. 52-57), it would have
Appeal 2009-010600
Application 10/617,525

8
been an obvious expedient, as noted by the Examiner, to employ the same
card to be read by the card reader at the workout station as the action, in lieu
of pressing a STOP key or even measuring an exercise elapsed time, in
determining that a user has finished using a workout station.
The rejection of claim 1, and that of claims 2, 5, 6 and 9-17 depending
therefrom, as being unpatentable over Shea, will be sustained.
Claims 3, 7, 18 and 19--Obviousness--Shea/Millington
Appellants argue, for claims 3 and 7, that neither Shea nor Millington
“suggest the ‘second swipe’ positive input limitation” argued to be present
in claim 1. This is essentially the same argument advanced with respect to
claim 1, which we have found to be unpersuasive. The rejection of claims 3
and 7 as unpatentable over Shea and Millington will be sustained.
The Examiner cites to the passage at column 9, lines 37-57, of
Millington as disclosing the step in claim 18 calling for detecting when said
user enters said workstation facility by detecting a user identification (ID)
signal transmitted from a device carried by the user. (Ans. 6). In response
to Appellants’ contention (Appeal Br. 15) that the cited passage does not
contain any mention of performance of such a step, the Examiner explains
that, in Millington, “[t]he user’s wireless ID tag . . . which is recognized by
the exercise equipment [is] the equivalent of ‘detecting when a user enters
said workstation facility.’” (Ans. 12).
It is possible that Appellants’ use here of the term “workstation
facility”, which we note has no antecedent basis in claim 182, resulted in the
Examiner taking this position. However, it is sufficiently clear from reading

2 The claim should be amended such that the term has proper antecedent
basis, if further prosecution is undertaken.
Appeal 2009-010600
Application 10/617,525

9
the preamble of claim 18 (“workout facility having a plurality of workout
stations”) as well as other limitations in the claim (separate step of
determining user proximity to a workout station), that Appellants intended
that this step be directed to detecting when a user enters the “workout
facility”, which contains a plurality of workout stations.
The Examiner’s equating of the detection of a user at an exercise
station, as disclosed in Millington, to the detection of a user entering the
workout facility, amounts to an unreasonably broad interpretation of claim
18. In particular, claim 18, as noted parenthetically above, includes a
separate and distinct step of “determining when said user is in proximity
to a first workout station”, which is, at most, what Millington discloses.
It would, in these circumstances, not be reasonable to construe the two
separate and distinct steps of detecting when a user enters the facility and
detecting when the user is in proximity to a particular workout station as
being disclosed by Millington.
The rejection of claim 18, and of claim 19 depending therefrom, as
being unpatentable over Shea and Millington, will not be sustained.

CONCLUSIONS
The Examiner did not err in concluding that it would have been
obvious, in view of Shea, to perform a step of determining when an
individual user has finished using a workout station by detecting when ID
signals are read for a second time at the workout station.
The Examiner did err in concluding that it would have been obvious,
in view of the teachings of Shea and Millington, to perform a step of
Appeal 2009-010600
Application 10/617,525

10
determining when a user enters a workstation facility by detecting a user ID
signal transmitted from a device carried by the user.

DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-3, 5-7 and 9-17 is
affirmed. The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 18 and 19 is
reversed.
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)(iv).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

JRG