Ex Parte GALE et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 29, 2016

12627329 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 29, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/627,329 11130/2009
35222 7590 02/02/2016
McMillan LLP
BROOKFIELD PLACE, Suite 4400
181 BAY STREET
TORONTO, ON MSJ 2T3
CANADA
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Anthony B. GALE
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.
ECOP102US 3839
EXAMINER
CHEN, GEORGE YUNG CHIER
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3628
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/02/2016 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):
USPTOMail@mcmillan.ca
gregory.forrest@mcmillan.ca
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ANTHONY B. GALE, MARY ANN FERRIS-YOUNG, and
DEREK E. AMERLINCK
Appeal2013-007960 1
Application 12/627 ,3292
Technology Center 3600
Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, NINA L. MEDLOCK, and
AMEE A. SHAH, Administrative Patent Judges.
SHAH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final decision rejecting claims 1-13. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ).
We REVERSE.
1 Throughout this opinion, we refer to the Appeal Brief ("Appeal Br.," filed
Feb. 4, 2013), the Examiner's Answer ("Ans.," mailed Apr. 10, 2013), the
Reply Brief ("Reply Br.," filed June 6, 2013), the Final Action ("Final Act.,"
mailed Feb. 15, 2012), and the Specification ("Spec.," filed Nov. 30, 2009).
2 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is "Ecology &
Environment, Inc." Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal2013-007960
Application 12/627,329
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' invention is directed to "a system and method to
coordinate services among agencies providing transportation for clients with
special needs." Spec. i-f 1.
Claims 1, 7, and 13 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1
(Appeal Br. 45, Claims Appendix) is illustrative of the subject matter on
appeal, and is reproduced below (with the key limitation emphasized):
1. A computer based method for managing special needs
transportation, comprising:
receiving, using a first processor for at least one first
specially programmed computer, data from a plurality of
agencies, each agency having at least one vehicle available for
providing transportation for clients with special needs related to
physical or mental impairment of the clients, the data includes
respective manifests, for the plurality of agencies, with
scheduling for the at least one vehicle and seating in the at least
one vehicle;
receiving, using the first processor, a first request for
transportation for a first client, the first request including a first
pick up location, a first pick up time, and a first destination;
generating, using the first processor, a respective visual
representation of how the first request affects the scheduling for
and seating in the at least one vehicle for said each agency;
enabling, using the first processor, access by respective
computer systems for the plurality of agencies to the data, to the
first request, and to the respective visual representations;
receiving, using the first processor, an offer, from a
respective computer system for an agency from the plurality of
agencies, to provide a first vehicle to provide the transportation
requested in the first request;
modifying, using the first processor, the data to
incorporate change to the data for the agency due to providing
the first vehicle; and,
transmitting, using the first processor, information
regarding the first request to the first vehicle.
2
Appeal2013-007960
Application 12/627,329
REJECTIONS
Claims 1 and 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Gemega (US 2008/0027772 Al, pub. Jan. 31, 2008) and
Park (US2008/006822 l Al, pub. Mar. 20, 2008).
Claims 2, 8, and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Gemega, Park, and Sethna (US 2010/0036688 Al, pub.
Feb. 11, 2010).
Claims 4, 5, 10, and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Gemega, Park, and Sichelman
(US 2010/0205017 Al, pub. Aug. 12, 2010).
Claims 6 and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Gemega, Park, and Dashefsky (US 6,098,048, iss. Aug. 1,
2000).
FINDINGS OF FACT
We determine that the findings of fact in the Analysis section below
are supported at least by a preponderance of the evidence. 3
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed Appellants' responses to the Examiner's responses
and arguments presented in the Appeal and Reply Briefs in support of the
contention that the Examiner has erred. We agree with Appellants'
contention for the reasons discussed below.
3 See Ethicon, Inc. v. Quigg, 849 F.2d 1422, 1427 (Fed. Cir. 1988)
(explaining the general evidentiary standard for proceedings before the
Patent Office).
3
Appeal2013-007960
Application 12/627,329
Appellants contend the Examiner's rejection of claim 1 is in error
because the prior art does not teach a "visual representation of how the
request impacts scheduling because the request does not impact scheduling."
Appeal Br. 18. Specifically, Appellants argue because the prior art does not
teach the user request impacts on "routes, schedule, or availability" of the
vehicle, the prior art does not teach the claimed visual representation. Id. at
10-20.
The Examiner finds that Gemega does not disclose generating a visual
representation of how the request affects the scheduling for and seating in
the transportation vehicle. See Final Act. 6. Although the Examiner finds
Gemega discloses processing collected data to determine viable routing
options that minimized fare, distance, or any other passenger-input criteria,
and a display to present the routing option to the passenger (see id. at 6-7),
the Examiner does not explain how this correlates to generating a visual
representation of how the request affects scheduling or seating. See Appeal
Br. 18. The Examiner finds Park teaches displaying updated status
information on seating (Final Act. 7-8) and concludes that one of ordinary
skill in the art would modify Gemega with Park to provide "critical
information to the driver concerning the transportation request." Id. at 8.
However, it is not clear how Park's status updates on seating (see Park i-f 42)
teach a visual representation of how the first request affects the "scheduling
for and seating in the at least one vehicle." Similarly, although the Examiner
finds that the vehicles of Gemega are "flexible and the availability and
seating is indeed affected" (Ans. 4), it is not clear how the combination of
Gemega and Park teaches that the effects are displayed. Thus, we find the
Examiner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the prior
4
Appeal2013-007960
Application 12/627,329
art teaches "generating, using the first processor, a respective visual
representation of how the first request affects the scheduling for and seating
in the at least one vehicle" as recited in claim 1.
For the above reason, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of
independent claim 1. For the same reason, we do not sustain the Examiner's
rejections of independent claims 7 and 13 that recite a similar limitation. 4
See Appeal Br. 34, 35, 47-50. The Examiner's rejections of dependent
claims 2-6 and 8-12 rely on the same inadequately supported finding
discussed above with respect to claim 1, and are not sustainedfor the same
reason we do not sustain the rejection of claims 1 and 7, from which claims
2---6 and 8-12, respectively, depend.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejections of claim 1-13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) are
reversed.
REVERSED
rvb
4 The Examiner does not rely on Sethna as disclosing "generating a ...
visual representation of how the first request affects the scheduling for and
seating in the at least one vehicle," as recited in independent claim 13.
5