Ex Parte Francis

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 29, 2016

13111698 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 29, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/111,698 05/19/2011
21884 7590 08/01/2016
WELSH FLAXMAN & GITLER LLC
2000 DUKE STREET, SUITE 100
ALEXANDRIA, VA 22314
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Mitchell J. Francis
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.
FRA-007 6015
EXAMINER
VETTER, DANIEL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3628
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
08/01/2016 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 MITCHELL J. FRANCIS
Appeal2014-005536 1
Application 13/111,6982
Technology Center 3600
Before BIBHU R. MOHANTY, JAMES A. WORTH, and
BRADLEY B. BAY AT, Administrative Patent Judges.
WORTH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's final
rejection of claims 1, 3-10, and 14. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§§ 134 and 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
1 Our decision refers to the Appellant's Appeal Brief ("Appeal Br.," filed
Dec. 9, 2013) and Reply Brief ("Reply Br.," filed Apr. 1, 2014), and the
Examiner's Final Office Action ("Final Act.," mailed July 10, 2013) and
Answer ("Ans.," mailed Feb. 5, 2014).
2 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Mitchell J. Francis
(Appeal Br. 1 ).
Appeal2014-005536
Application 13/111,698
Introduction
Appellant's disclosure relates to "a travel, restaurant and
entertainment reservation, sales, ordering and information system employing
a virtual travel, restaurant and entertainment booking magazine." (Spec.
2).
Claim 1, reproduced below, is the sole independent claim on appeal
and is representative of the subject matter on appeal:
1. A reservation, sales, ordering and information system,
compnsmg:
a front end interface network composed of a graphical user
interface operating on multiple consumer computers and a back end
network composed of a network of data sources, data input
mechanisms and processing mechanisms available via the graphical
user interface;
the graphical user interface being composed of a virtual travel,
restaurant and entertainment booking magazine replicating a travel
magazine providing ready access to information, the booking
magazine including a cover, a table of contents and descriptive
material provided on separate pages; wherein a consumer may tum
pages of the booking magazine by clicking on an icon indicating
page-by-page browsing of the booking magazine or clicking on a page
icon designated in the table of contents for immediate access to
specific content in the booking magazine;
wherein the graphical user interface provides links to hotels,
shows, restaurants, or attractions, and for each of the links to articles,
hotels, shows, restaurants or attractions the graphical user interface
provides links offering an option of watching a video promo, booking
a reservation and viewing rates and reviews, selected options being
provided for viewing by the consumer in the form of windows
displayed within the virtual, travel, restaurant and entertainment
booking magazine.
(Appeal Br., Claims App.)
2
Appeal2014-005536
Application 13/111,698
Rejections on Appeal
The Examiner maintains, and the Appellant appeals, the following
rejection:
1. Claims 1, 3-8, 10, and 14 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Rose (US 2005/0267787
Al, pub. Dec. 1, 2005) and Bosurgi (US 2004/0061721 Al, pub. Apr.
1, 2004).
2. Claim 9 stands rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Rose, Bosurgi, and Jacob (US 2007/0075136
Al, pub. Apr. 5, 2007).
ANALYSIS
Independent claim 1
We are unpersuaded by Appellant's argument that Rose fails to
disclose a cover, a table of contents or descriptive material, as recited by
independent claim 1, i.e., "the graphical user interface being composed of a
virtual travel, restaurant and entertainment booking magazine replicating a
travel magazine providing ready access to information, the booking
magazine including a cover, a table of contents and descriptive material
provided on separate pages" (Appeal Br. 7-13). Appellant asserts that Rose
merely discloses a website for facilitating instructions with conventional
hypertext icons (Appeal Br. 7, 9, 12). However, the Examiner correctly
finds that Figure 5 of Rose depicts cover page 90 and table of contents 92-
102, which link to various pages of the publication (Ans. 2; see Final Act.
2). Indeed, paragraph 50 of Rose, which discusses Figure 5, refers to each
of 92, 94, and 98 as a "link" (see also Rose i-fi-1 55-59 (describing links in
Figures 6B, 7, 8) ).
3
Appeal2014-005536
Application 13/111,698
As to the descriptive content, the Examiner finds that paragraphs 43
and 56-58 of Rose disclose descriptive material regarding travel, restaurant,
and entertainment options (see Final Act. 2-3). Paragraph 43 discloses
templates for golf courses, restaurants, and movie houses. Paragraph 56
discloses the display of descriptions of restaurants. Further, paragraph 50 of
Rose discloses a link to the "bed and breakfast super-community."
Paragraph 49 of Rose discloses that it was known that "bookings by
customers are generally made in advance," and there is a section heading,
"Internet Bookings," which precedents paragraph 52. As such, we agree
with the Examiner that Rose discloses "travel, restaurant, and entertainment"
options, as recited by independent claim 1.
Second, we are unpersuaded by Appellant's argument that the prior
art relied on by the Examiner fails to disclose page-by-page browsing, as
recited by independent claim 1, i.e., "wherein a consumer may tum pages of
the booking magazine by clicking on an icon indicating page-by-page
browsing of the booking magazine or clicking on a page icon designated in
the table of contents for immediate access to specific content in the booking
magazine" (Appeal Br. 13-14). In particular, Appellant states that the
Examiner admits that Rose does not teach page-by-page browsing, and
Appellant asserts that Bosurgi merely discloses software tools to facilitate
navigation (id. at 13). However, the Examiner finds that Bosurgi (i-fi-f 11 and
17) discloses page-by-page browsing (Final Act. 3--4). We agree. Indeed,
paragraph 11 of Bosurgi discloses that a user is able to tum a page.
Third, we are unpersuaded by Appellant's argument that the
combination of Rose and Bosurgi fails to disclose a travel magazine that also
functions as a highly interactive reservation, sales, ordering, and information
4
Appeal2014-005536
Application 13/111,698
system, as recited by the preamble of independent claim 1, employing the
graphical user interface (Appeal Br. 13-14). One cannot show non-
obviousness by attacking references individually when the rejection is based
on a combination of references. See In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091,
1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425-26 (CCPA 1981).
The Examiner correctly finds that Rose discloses a booking magazine and
relies on Bosurgi for the graphical user interface in combination therewith
(see Final Act. 3--4).
To the extent that Appellant argues that the Examiner fails to state an
adequate rationale for the combination of Rose and Bosurgi (Appeal Br. 13-
17; Reply Br. 4), we agree with the Examiner that the desire to present
material to users in a familiar format is adequate reasoning and more than
conclusory (see Final Act. 4; Ans. 4). Further, we agree with the Examiner
that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill to use the
graphical user interface of Bosurgi to present the information in Rose, as the
combination of elements which serve the same purpose as it did
independently, for the reasons stated by the Examiner (see Final Act. 4).
Finally, we are unpersuaded by Appellant's argument that the prior art
relied on by the Examiner fails to disclose a graphical user interface for the
subject matter recited by independent claim 1, i.e.,
wherein the graphical user interface provides links to hotels,
shows, restaurants, or attractions, and for each of the links to
articles, hotels, shows, restaurants or attractions the graphical
user interface provides links offering an option of watching a
video promo, booking a reservation and viewing rates and
reviews, selected options being provided for viewing by the
consumer in the form of windows displayed within the virtual,
travel, restaurant and entertainment booking magazine
5
Appeal2014-005536
Application 13/111,698
(Appeal Br. 18-19). In particular, Appellant asserts that paragraph 43 (of
Rose) merely discloses a Web Helping Module, and argues that neither this
paragraph nor paragraphs 55-59 disclose the limitation (Appeal Br. 19).
However, we agree with the Examiner's findings, for the reasons discussed
above, that paragraphs 55-59 of Rose disclose the recited descriptive
content.
Thus, we sustain the Examiner's rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of
independent claim 1. Appellants do not argue the rejections of claims 3-10
and 14 separately from claim 1, from which they depend. We, therefore,
sustain the Examiner's rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of claims 3-10
and 14 for similar reasons as for independent claim 1.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision to reject claims 1, 3-10, and 14 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) is 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
6