Ex Parte Doan et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Dec 22, 2011

11143332 (B.P.A.I. Dec. 22, 2011)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte CHRISTOPHER HOANG DOAN, MEI FAT HAU,
LEONEL SAENZ III, and THANH K. TRAN
____________________

Appeal 2010-000093
Application 11/143,332
Technology Center 2600
____________________

Before DEBRA K. STEPHENS, JEFFREY S. SMITH, and
BRUCE R. WINSOR, Administrative Patent Judges.

STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2010-000093
Application 11/143,332

2
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) (2002) from a final
rejection of claims 1, 3-5, 7-11, and 13-20. Claims 2, 6, and 12 have been
cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Introduction
According to Appellants, the invention relates to a data processing
system for automatically queuing a patron at a merchant's place of business.
The patron, using a Personal Communication Device (PCD), is placed in a
queue. Once the event occurs, the waiting patron is notified via the PCD.
The patron acknowledges notification via the PCD and is removed from the
queue. (Abstract).

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Exemplary Claim(s)
Claim 1 is an exemplary claim and is reproduced below:
1. A method in a data processing system for automatically
queuing a patron, the method comprising:

receiving a passive registration for a group queue from a device
foreign from the data processing system assembling the group queue,
wherein the group queue is a queue that includes a group of patrons
each with a foreign device waiting for a specified time to occur so that
the group of patrons in the group queue may enter a group event
together, and wherein the foreign device is embedded with a radio
frequency identification microchip that is used for the passive
registration, and wherein the passive registration is established when
the radio frequency identification microchip embedded in the foreign
device comes in proximity with a radio frequency identification reader
that is native to the data processing system assembling the queue;

Appeal 2010-000093
Application 11/143,332

3
responsive to receiving the passive registration for the group
queue from the foreign device, determining whether the group queue
is full;

responsive to determining that the group queue is full,
canceling the passive registration for the group queue and sending a
cancellation of the passive registration via the foreign device;

responsive to determining that the group queue is not full,
placing a patron associated with the foreign device in the group
queue;

determining whether an event has occurred, wherein the event
is the specified time; and

responsive to determining that the specified time has occurred,
notifying the patron a predetermined maximum number of times that
the specified time has occurred via the foreign device, wherein the
predetermined maximum number of times is more than one, and
wherein the patron is notified using a mass patron notification to the
group of patrons in the group queue.

Rejections
(1) Claims 1, 3-5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 13-18, and 20 are rejected under 35
U.S.C. §103(a) as being obvious over Waytena (U.S. Patent No. 5,978,770),
Silver et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0043996), and
Zalewski et al. (U.S. Patent No. 6,771,981).
(2) Claims 9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
obvious over Waytena, Silver, Zalewski, and Dowling (U.S. Patent No.
6,845,361).

Appeal 2010-000093
Application 11/143,332

4
GROUPING OF CLAIMS
(1) Appellants argue claims 1, 3-5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 13-18, and 20 as a
group on the basis of claim 1 (App. Br. 11-15). We select independent claim
1 as the representative claim. We will, therefore, treat claims 3-5, 7, 8, 10,
11, 13-18, and 20 as standing or falling with representative claim 1.
(2) Appellants argue claims 9 and 19 as a group. We address
these claims together.
See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).

ISSUE
35 U.S.C. § 103(a): claims 1, 3-5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 13-18, and 20
a) Appellants argue their invention is not obvious over Waytena,
Silver, and Zalewski (App. Br. 11-15). Specifically, Appellants assert
Waytena only teaches receiving a request for a reservation time for an
attraction and thus, a patron using a PCD (personal communication device)
is only requesting a reservation time for an attraction (App. Br. 12).
Waytena therefore, according to Appellants, does not teach or suggest
“receiving a passive registration for a group queue from a device foreign
from the data processing system assembling the group queue” (id.).
b) Appellants next contend Waytena teaches that a patron is sent
an alert message via the PCD to inform the patron of a change in the
reservation time due to problems or unforeseen circumstances; however, this
disclosure does not teach “determining whether the group queue is full”
(id.).
Appeal 2010-000093
Application 11/143,332

5
c) Appellants further argue Waytena teaches that a patron is
alerted by an audible message or beep, visual indication, or vibration, when
a reserved time is approaching; however Waytena does not teach or suggest
that alert occurs more than once (a predetermined number of times) to alert
the patron via the PCD (App. Br. 13). Therefore, Waytena does not teach or
suggest “notifying the patron a predetermined maximum number of times
that the specified time has occurred via the foreign device, wherein the
predetermined number of times is more than one” (id.).
d) Appellants additionally assert that although Silver “may teach a
passive identification of a patron using a device foreign from the pre-dining
system assembling the seating queue, Silver does not teach or suggest
receiving a passive registration for a group queue” (App. Br. 13-14).
e) Appellants then contend Zalewski does not teach “a mobile
device with a RFID [(radio frequency identification device)] tag embedded
for quick transactions; the RFID tag embedded responds to an interrogation
signal from an external system; and the use of the RFID tag on the mobile
device provides users feedback when an transaction has been made through
the RFID tag” (App. Br. 14). According to Appellants, Zalewski teaches
embedding an RFID transponder in changeable covers and electronic
devices having such a changeable cover attached may be used for e-
commerce (id.) Zalewski, however, does not teach the electronic device
being embedded with the RFID transponder (id.). Therefore, Zalewski does
not teach or suggest “the passive registration is established when the radio
frequency identification microchip embedded in the foreign device comes in
Appeal 2010-000093
Application 11/143,332

6
proximity with a radio frequency identification reader that is native to the
data processing system assembling the queue” (id.).
Therefore, according to Appellants, Waytena, Silver, and Zalewski
fail to teach or suggest the invention as recited in independent claim 1.
In response, the Examiner finds:
a) Waytena teaches receiving patron input from a group of patrons
given one or more PCDs to make reservations for particular attraction(s)
(Ans. 3).
b) Waytena discloses when the reserved time is unavailable, the
queue registration for the attraction may be cancelled. For example,
Waytena teaches the attraction computer may transmit an alert message to
the PCD due to problems with attractions. Therefore, the Examiner finds if
the attraction is unavailable, it is known equivalent to queue being full for
the attraction. (Ans. 9).
c) Waytena discloses the attraction computer may transmit an alert
message to the PCD when the attraction is unavailable. Specifically, the
Examiner finds the alert message sent by the computer is equivalent to
sending a cancellation of the registration (id.). Further, according to the
Examiner, since the PCD alert may a combination of a beep and a vibration,
the patron is notified a number of times. The Examiner contends the claim
does not require that the notifications must occur in a sequential manner, nor
does the claim differentiate from making the notifications simultaneously.
(Ans. 9-10).
d) The Examiner finds Silver teaches receiving a passive
registration and using RFID tags for customer identification (Ans. 5).
Appeal 2010-000093
Application 11/143,332

7
e) The claim term “embedded” is read broadly and the claim does
not specify where the microchip is embedded in the foreign device.
Therefore, Zalewski’s teaching of embedding a transponder on the cover of
a mobile device teaches “the foreign device is embedded with a radio
frequency identification microchip.” The Examiner also finds this is a
structural limitation existing in a method claim of claim 1, and as a result,
the limitation is afforded little weight in a method claim unless it somehow
alters the operation of the method, which it does not in this instance. (Ans.
10).
Therefore, the Examiner finds Waytena, Silver, and Zalewski describe
the invention as recited.

Issue 1: Has the Examiner erred in finding Waytena, Silver, and
Zalewski disclose the invention as recited in claim 1 and commensurately
recited in claims 11 and 16?

ANALYSIS
a) We agree with the Examiner’s finding that Waytena would
have taught or suggested receiving a registration for a group queue from a
device foreign from the data processing system assembling the group queue
as recited in claim 1 and commensurately recited in claim 11.
b) We agree with the Examiner’s findings that Waytena discloses
when the reserved time is unavailable, the queue registration for the
attraction may be cancelled (Ans. 9). We also note Waytena teaches that the
attraction computer processes the incoming reservation request to determine
whether and when the reservation can be accommodated (col. 3, ll. 16-17).
Appeal 2010-000093
Application 11/143,332

8
Therefore, we find that Waytena would have taught or suggested
“responsive to receiving the passive registration for the group queue from
the foreign device, determining whether the group queue is full” as recited in
claim 1 and commensurately recited in claim 11.
c) We agree with the Examiner’s finding that Waytena teaches
notifying the patron that the specified time has occurred via the foreign
device (col. 3, ll. 39-40). Waytena also teaches the alert could take various
forms, e.g., audible message or beep, a visual indication on the screen, or a
vibration, or a combination. Since a skilled artisan could alter the form of
the alert or use more than one alert, we conclude that notifying a patron a
predetermined maximum number of times, where the maximum number of
times is more than one, would not have been uniquely challenging or
otherwise beyond the level of ordinarily skilled artisans. As such, we find
this enhancement would have been obvious. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex
Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007) (noting that if a technique has been used to
improve one device, and an ordinarily skilled artisan would recognize that it
would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is
obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill); see also
Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir.
2007). Therefore, Waytena would have taught or suggested “notifying the
patron a predetermined maximum number of times that the specified time
has occurred via the foreign device, wherein the predetermined number of
times is more than one” as recited in claim 1 and commensurately recited in
claim 11.
Appeal 2010-000093
Application 11/143,332

9
d) We agree with the Examiner’s findings that Silver teaches or
suggests “receiving a passive registration” (Ans. 5). Appellants admit Silver
teaches a passive identification of a patron (App. Br. 13-14). However,
Appellants contend Silver does not teach or suggest a passive registration for
a group queue (id.). Appellants appear to be arguing that individually Silver
does not teach this limitation. However, the Examiner finds the combined
teachings of Waytena and Silver would have taught or suggested “receiving
a passive registration for a group queue” to one of ordinary skill in the art.
One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually
where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re
Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). As discussed
above in Issue 1a), we find Waytena teaches “receiving a registration for a
group queue.” We agree with both Appellants and the Examiner that Silver
teaches a passive registration. Therefore, we conclude the combination of
Waytena and Silver would have taught or suggested “receiving a passive
registration for a group queue” as recited in claim 1 and commensurately
recited in claim 11 to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
invention.
e) We agree with the Examiner’s findings and conclusions (Ans.
10). Therefore, Zalewski would have taught or suggested “the foreign
device is embedded with a radio frequency identification microchip” as
recited in claim 1 and commensurately recited in claim 11. Further, we
agree with the Examiner’s conclusion that this is a structural limitation that
does not further limit the claim and thus, should not be afforded patentable
weight.
Appeal 2010-000093
Application 11/143,332

10

Accordingly, Appellants have not persuaded us of error by the
Examiner in finding the combination of Waytena, Silver, and Zalewski
would have taught or suggested the invention as recited in claim 1 and
claims 3-5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 13-18, and 20, not separately argued. We thus
conclude the Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1, 3-5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 13-
18, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over Waytena, Silver,
and Zalewski.

ISSUE 2
35 U.S.C. § 103(a): claims 9 and 19
Appellants assert their invention is not obvious over Waytena, Silver,
Zalewski, and Dowling because Dowling does not teach or suggest “an
active registration and the active acknowledgement is performed using the
foreign device at an on-site kiosk” as recited in claims 9 and 19 (App. Br.
16). Specifically, Appellants contend Dowling teaches that a “‘remote I/O
module’ is coupled to the user interface manager [and receives] customer
inputs from remote devices such as Internet web browsers and ‘mobile
units’” – not the premises I/O device (id.). As such, Appellants contend
Dowling does not teach or suggest that the active acknowledgement is
performed using the foreign device an on on-site kiosk (id.).

The Examiner finds Dowling teaches a customer with a mobile unit
may register and acknowledge a queue at the kiosk at the premises I/O
device (Ans. 10). Therefore, the Examiner finds since the customer may use
Appeal 2010-000093
Application 11/143,332

11
the mobile unit at the premise or at home, Dowling teaches or suggests that
active acknowledgement is performed using a mobile unit as the premises
I/O device (id.).

Issue 2: Has the Examiner erred in finding the combination of
Waytena, Silver, Zalewski, and Dowling would have taught or suggested “an
active registration and the active acknowledgement is performed using the
foreign device at an on-site kiosk” as recited in claims 9 and 19?

ANALYSIS
We agree with the Examiner’s findings and conclusions (Ans. 10).
Accordingly, Appellants have not persuaded us of error by the Examiner in
finding the combination of Waytena, Silver, Zalewski, and Dowling would
have taught or suggested the invention as recited in claims 9 and 19.
Therefore, the Examiner erred did not err in rejecting claims 9 and 19 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over Waytena, Silver, Zalewski, and
Dowling.

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 3-5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 13-18, and 20
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over Waytena, Silver, and
Zalewski is affirmed.
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 9 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being obvious over Waytena, Silver, Zalewski, and Dowling is affirmed.

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
Appeal 2010-000093
Application 11/143,332

12
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2010).

AFFIRMED

msc