Ex Parte Grossi

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 22, 2017

13350558 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 22, 2017)

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.
13/350,558 01/13/2012 Paul Grossi 27TW-166548 2464
30764 7590 11/27/2017
SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
12275 EL CAMINO REAL, SUITE 200
SAN DIEGO, CA 92130
EXAMINER
VETTER, DANIEL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3628
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/27/2017 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):
DOCKETING@ SHEPPARDMULLIN.COM
S heppardMullin_Pair @ firsttofile. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte PAUL GROSSI
Appeal 2016-006414
Application 13/350,558
Technology Center 3600
Before: ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, TERRENCE W. McMILLIN, and
MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges.
MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1,
3, 4, 6-12, 14, 15, and 17—22. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Appeal 2016-006414
Application 13/350,558
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claimed invention is directed to delivering items to a user upon
building a virtual order, splitting the virtual order into two streams including
order detail information and credit card information, sending the order detail
information to dispatch screens, automatically communicating order status to
the user’s device and using the credit card information to process the order
for payment. Abstract.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A method for delivering items, comprising:
upon a user launching a computer program on a device or
visiting a proprietary mobile website using the device,
presenting the user with a series of user-selectable events and
participating venues on the device;
wherein the computer program comprises a mobile device
application that is installed on the device or downloaded to the
device from the proprietary mobile website and is configured to
communicate with a POS system by way of a secure facility;
passing menu items specific to a selected venue to the
user's device based on criteria entered by the user;
prompting the user to check out and confirm a selection
of menu items the items selected for purchase;
prompting the user to enter credit card information or
select a stored payment method associated with the user;
building a virtual order, wherein building the order
comprises:
passing the user's credit card information or stored
payment method and personal information to a data center
server in the secure facility;
using one or more API's to build the virtual order in
conformance with the specific POS system of the selected
venue; and
passing the virtual order to a POS server of the POS
system physically located at the venue;
2
Appeal 2016-006414
Application 13/350,558
splitting the virtual order into two streams including
order detail information and credit card information;
sending the order detail information to dispatch screens;
automatically communicating order status to the user's
device; and
using the credit card information to process the order for
payment.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Gillespie US 2002/0023054 A1 Feb. 21,2002
Banfield US 2008/0172337 A1 Jul. 17, 2008
Breitenbach US 2011/0173041 A1 Jul. 14, 2011
Juliver US 2012/0041675 A1 Feb. 16, 2012
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 6-12, and 17-22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Breitenbach in view of Banfield.
Claims 3 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Breitenbach in view of Banfield, and further in view of
Juliver.
Claims 4 and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Breitenbach in view of Banfield, and further in view of
Gillespie.
ANALYSIS
We adopt the Examiner’s findings in the Answer and Final Action and
we add the following primarily for emphasis. We note that if Appellant
failed to present arguments on a particular rejection, we will not unilaterally
3
Appeal 2016-006414
Application 13/350,558
review those uncontested aspects of the rejection. See Ex parte Frye, 94
USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential); Hyatt v. Dudas, 551 F.3d
1307, 1313—14 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (The Board may treat arguments Appellant
failed to make for a given ground of rejection as waived).
Appellant first argues that Breitenbach is silent as to any “secure
facility” through which the customer (by way of his/her mobile customer
device 130) may ultimately communicate with a Point of Sale (POS)/venue-
side of the system (App. Br. 10).
We do not agree with Appellant. We agree with Examiner’s finding
that Breitenbach teaches a remote system controller, which is not venue-
specific, as it communicates with multiple venue systems (see paras. 101-02,
114, and Fig. 1), and sends the order to the venue POS devices (Ans. 3).
The Examiner finds that the interface 700 may be powered and/or generated
by a specially-programmed application that allows POS devices,
components, and/or personnel to accept orders from customers (i.e., routed
through and/or processed by a controller) for products and/or service at
(and/or via) a venue (i.e., venue where the POS is located) (Ans. 3 citing
para. 114). Thus, we agree with the Examiner that the customer device does
not directly communicate with the POS devices, but rather communicates by
way of a secure facility (i.e., controller) (Ans. 3).
Appellant then argues that while Breitenbach describes a “virtual”
shopping cart (paras. 105, 106, 109, and 110), this does not constitute a
virtual order (App. Br. 12). More particularly, Appellant asserts that the
Specification requires that building a virtual order is achieved by passing the
user’s credit card information or stored payment method and personal
information to a data center server in a secure facility using one or more
APIs to build the virtual order and passing the virtual order to a POS server
4
Appeal 2016-006414
Application 13/350,558
of the POS system physically located at the venue (App. Br. 12) According
to Appellant, Breitenbach, on the other hand, merely describes placing
“desired item(s)” in “the customers virtual shopping cart. . . once any order
details are selected and/or otherwise defined” and “listing] items added to
the cart by the customer ... as well as prices” (paras. 106, 110).
Appellant further argues that Breitenbach does not teach or suggest using
one or more APIs to build a virtual order in conformance with a specific
POS system of the selected venue (App. Br. 12).
We do not agree. Appellant offers no construction of the term “virtual
order” that would distinguish it from the orders in Breitenbach, and there is
no special definition provided in the Specification (Ans. 4). We agree with
the Examiner that the order data for the transaction is stored in and passed
through the different network devices (see Fig. 1) and as such is “virtual”
(Ans. 4). The Examiner finds, and we agree, that the plain and ordinary
meaning of the term “virtual order” is an order that is not physically
existing, but rather stored and carried out by a computer, and the orders in
Breitenbach meet this requirement (Ans. 4).
Furthermore, with respect to the use of an API, Breitenbach explicitly
discloses APIs used both for the customer’s mobile device application to
build orders and for order fulfillment at the POS device (Ans. 4 citing paras.
98, 113, 136). We also agree with the Examiner’s finding that although
Appellant alleges that “Breitenbach has no need, and is indeed silent,
regarding ‘passing’ the virtual order to a POS server,” the reference
explicitly discloses that orders are “routed through and/or processed by a
controller” to venue POS devices (Ans. 4 citing para. 114).
Appellant further argues that “since the integrated venue system of
Breitenbach requires customer registration, there would be no need to
5
Appeal 2016-006414
Application 13/350,558
‘enhance customer privacy’ ... in an order transaction because the identity,
payment information, etc. associated with a customer would already be
known” (App. Br. 14). We note that although Breitenbach only discloses
sending order detail information without credit card information to dispatch
screens, and it does not explicitly teach a step of splitting the virtual order
into two streams including order detail information and credit card
information (Final Rej. 4), the Examiner relied on Banfiel for this teaching
(paras. 35, 122-24). We agree with the Examiner’s conclusion that it would
have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
invention to incorporate this feature for the same reason it is useful in
Banfield-namely, to enhance customer privacy (Final Rej. 4). We agree
with the Examiner’s finding that it is not clear why Breitenbach would not
benefit from increased data privacy techniques by de-identifying transaction
data simply because it requires customer registration (Ans. 4).
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 and for
the same reasons the Examiner’s rejection of claims 3, 4, 6—12, 14, 15, and
17-22.
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 3, 4, 6—12, 14, 15, and 17—22 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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
6