Ex Parte IoliDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 9, 201613679854 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 9, 2016) Copy Citation 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. 13/679,854 11/16/2012 Edward D. Ioli 092283.000755 4043 23377 7590 12/13/2016 R AKFR fr TTOSTRTT FR T T P EXAMINER CIRA CENTRE 12TH FLOOR EPSTEIN, BRIAN M 2929 ARCH STREET PHILADELPHIA, PA 19104-2891 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3628 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/13/2016 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): eofficemonitor@bakerlaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte EDWARD D. IOLI Appeal 2014-006875 Application 13/679,8541 Technology Center 3600 Before ANTON W. FETTING, NINA L. MEDLOCK, and ROBERT J. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE The Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’ decision rejecting claims 21—40. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 “The real party in interest in this appeal is EDWARD D. IOLI TRUST.” Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2014-006875 Application 13/679,854 ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM 21. A method of processing a transaction for a parking session between a parking system and a payment provider on behalf of a user, wherein the user facilitates the transaction through a mobile computing device connected to a remote server, the method comprising: on the mobile computing device of the user, storing a user identifier; first receiving a parking identifier, then sending the user identifier and the parking identifier to the server; on the server, receiving the user identifier and the parking identifier; retrieving parking system information based on the parking identifier; retrieving payment provider information based on the user identifier; processing a transaction between the payment provider and parking system, wherein the transaction amount is based on a duration of the parking session; wherein the parking session has a start time and an end time, wherein the start time is determined from the time a start condition is met, the end time is determined from the time an end condition is met, and the parking session duration is the difference between the end time and start time. CITED REFERENCES The Examiner relies upon the following references: Husemann et al. US 2001/0037264 A1 (hereinafter “Husemann”) Nov. 1,2001 Admasu et al. (hereinafter “Admasu”) US 2002/0032601 Al Mar. 14, 2002 Odinak US 2002/0143611 Al Oct. 3, 2002 Levy US 6,493,676 B1 Dec. 10, 2002 2 Appeal 2014-006875 Application 13/679,854 Hjelmvik US 6,519,329 B1 Han et al. US 2004/0039632 A1 (hereinafter “Han”) Chatterjee et al. US 2004/0068433 Al (hereinafter “Chatterjee”) Brusseaux US 7,319,974 B1 REJECTIONS Feb. 11,2003 Feb. 26, 2004 Apr. 8, 2004 Jan. 15, 2008 I. Claims 21, 24, 27, 28, 36, 38, and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Han. II. Claims 22 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Han and Hjelmvik. III. Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Han and Admasu. IV. Claims 26 and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Han and Odinak. V. Claims 29 and 31—35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Han, Husemann, Odinak, and Brusseaux. VI. Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Han, Husemann, Odinak, Brusseaux, and Chatterjee. VII. Claim 37 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Han and Levy. FINDINGS OF FACT The findings of fact relied upon, which are supported by a preponderance of the evidence, appear in the following Analysis. 3 Appeal 2014-006875 Application 13/679,854 ANALYSIS Independent Claim 21 and Dependent Claims 22—28 The Appellant contends that Han fails to disclose “retrieving parking system information based on the parking identifier,” as recited in claim 21. Appeal Br. 7—8. The Examiner’s position is that Han meets this limitation, through a disclosure of retrieving parking fee information (i.e., the claimed “retrieving parking system information”) that depends upon the information corresponding to the location where the user parks (i.e., the claimed “parking identifier”). Final Action 7 (citing Han || 25, 39-40); Answer 5 (citing Han H 25, 39-40). But, as the Appellant correctly points out (Appeal Br. 7—8, 12) Han does not disclose different rates for different parking areas or retrieving rate information based upon where the user parks. Accordingly, the Examiner erred in determining that Han teaches the identified limitation of claim 21. Therefore, the rejection of claim 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) is not sustained. For the same reason, we do not sustain the rejection of claims dependent from claim 21, as the Examiner’s rejections of these dependent claims do not cure the deficiency in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 21. Specifically, the rejection of claims 24, 27, and 28 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) is not sustained and the rejection of claims 22, 23, 25, and 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is not sustained. 4 Appeal 2014-006875 Application 13/679,854 Independent Claim 29 and Dependent Claims 30—35 The Appellant contends that cited references do not teach “determining a parking provider based on the parking identifier using a processor,” as recited in independent claim 29. Appeal Br. 12. Further, the Appellant contends that the Examiner failed to provide an adequate reason for combining references to arrive at the limitation. Id. The Examiner finds that Brusseaux teaches this limitation. Final Action 14 (citing Brusseaux, col. 3,11. 47—55, col. 4,11. 27—34). In addition, the Examiner determines: It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include determining a parking provider based on the parking identifier using a processor as taught by Brusseaux in the method of Han in view of [the other references relied upon], since . . . one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable in order to account for different parking prices for different areas in a parking lot of Han. Id. See also Answer 8 (“Brusseaux was combined with Han in order to allow differentiated pricing of the parking areas of Han.”) The Appellant contends that the reason for combining the teachings of Brusseaux and the other references is lacking because, as discussed above (in regard to claim 21), the Examiner’s pivotal finding — i.e., that Han teaches different pricing for different parking areas — is erroneous and, therefore, cannot support the Examiner’s reason for combining Brusseaux with Han. We agree with the Appellant that the absence of any disclosure in Han for different parking rates undermines the Examiner’s reason for combining Brusseaux with Han and the other references. 5 Appeal 2014-006875 Application 13/679,854 Accordingly, the Examiner erred in determining that Han teaches the identified limitation of claim 29, such that the rejection of claim 29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is not sustained. For the same reason, we do not sustain the rejection of claims dependent from claim 29, as the Examiner’s rejections of these dependent claims do not cure the deficiency in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 29. Specifically, the rejection of claims 30—35 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is not sustained. Independent Claim 36 and Dependent Claims 37—40 The Appellant contends that Han fails to disclose “electronically retrieving parking supplier information based on the parking identifier,” as recited in claim 36. Appeal Br. 9. The Examiner cites the same portions of Han discussed above (in regard to claim 21) as satisfying this limitation. Final Action 8 (citing Han 1125, 39-40). The Examiner’s Answer relies upon its discussion of claim 21, as articulating the Examiner’s position regarding claim 36. Answer 6. For the same reasons presented above (regarding whether Han teaches “retrieving parking system information based on the parking identifier,” per claim 21), we find that Han also does not teach “retrieving parking supplier information based on the parking identifier,” as required by claim 36. Accordingly, the Examiner erred in determining that Han teaches the identified limitation of claim 36, such that the rejection of claim 36 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) is not sustained. For the same reason, we do not sustain the rejection of claims dependent from claim 36, as the Examiner’s rejections of these dependent 6 Appeal 2014-006875 Application 13/679,854 claims do not cure the deficiency in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 36. Specifically, the rejection of claims 38 and 40 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) is not sustained and the rejection of claims 37 and 39 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is not sustained. DECISION We REVERSE the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 21, 24, 27, 28, 36, 38, and 40 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e). We REVERSE the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 22, 23, 25, 26, 29-35, 37, and 39 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). REVERSED 7 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation