Ex Parte King et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 29, 2017

12355734 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 29, 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.
12/355,734 01/16/2009 David William King 42178-709.501 7325
21971 7590 10/03/2017
WILSON, SONSINI, GOODRICH & ROSATI
650 PAGE MILL ROAD
PALO ALTO, CA 94304-1050
EXAMINER
ALLEN, AKIBA KANELLE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3628
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/03/2017 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):
patentdocket @ wsgr.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DAVID WILLIAM KING,
ALEXANDER SCHWARZ, and STEPHEN JOHN HUNTER
Appeal 2016-002592
Application 12/355,734
Technology Center 3600
Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, CAROLYN D. THOMAS, and
JEFFREY S. SMITH, Administrative Patent Judges.
KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 29—51 and 58—60. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Appeal 2016-002592
Application 12/355,734
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention is directed to “to location-specific operation of
a removable meter unit for vehicle parking” (Spec. 13).
Independent claim 29, reproduced below, is exemplary of the subject
matter on appeal.
29. A method of operating a parking meter, the method
comprising:
a. establishing a network communication session with a
parking meter, the meter having an electronic display, the meter
being uniquely associated with a physical location;
b. transmitting configuration information toward the
meter over the network during the established network
communication session, the configuration information
associated with operation of the meter and uniquely associated
with the physical location of the meter, the configuration
information comprising one or more of: coin validation criteria
updates, firmware updates, and operating software updates;
c. receiving meter operating data from the meter, the
meter operating data comprising an acknowledgement of
receipt of the configuration information;
d. providing a web-based administrative user interface
comprising a meter revenue summary, wherein the meter
revenue summary comprises cash amounts, credit amounts, and
total revenue collected by the meter; and
e. providing a web-based administrative user interface
comprising a tool for remotely configuring the meter display
message on the display of the meter.
2
Appeal 2016-002592
Application 12/355,734
REFERENCES and REJECTION
The Examiner rejected claims 29—51 and 58—60 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) based upon the teachings of McMillin (US 7,027,773 Bl; Apr. 11,
2006), Ratnakar (US 2006/0152349 Al; July 13, 2006), Manion (US
6,037,880; Mar. 14, 2000), and Walker (US 2013/0005445 Al; Jan. 3,
2013).
ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds McMillin discloses the step of “establishing a
network communication session with a parking meter” (step a.) (Final Act.
3), “transmitting configuration information toward the meter over the
network . . .” (step b.) {id.), and “receiving meter operating data from the
meter, . . . comprising an acknowledgement of receipt of the configuration
information” (step c.) {id.). The Examiner finds Ratnakar discloses “the
meter having an electronic display” and “being uniquely associated with a
physical location” (step a.) (Final Act. 4). The Examiner then finds Manion
discloses “a meter revenue summary, . . . comprises cash amounts, credit
amounts and total revenue collected by the meter” (step d.) (Final Act. 6)
and “providing a web-based administrative user interface comprising a tool
for remotely configuring the meter display message on the display of the
meter” (step e.) (Final Act. 7). Finally, the Examiner finds Walker also
discloses “a meter revenue summary, . . . comprises cash amounts, credit
amounts and total revenue collected by the meter” (step d.) (Final Act. 8).
Appellants main contentions are: 1) Walker and McMillin are not
analogous art (App. Br. 9, 13); 2) Walker does not teach or suggest a “meter
revenue summary comprises cash amounts, credit amounts, and total
3
Appeal 2016-002592
Application 12/355,734
revenue” (App. Br. 10-11); and 3) Manion does not disclose a web-based
interface “comprising a tool for remotely configuring the meter display
message on the display of the meter” {id. at 11—12). We do not agree.
We agree with and adopt the Examiner’s findings as our own (Final
Act. 3—10; Ans. 2—5). Particularly, we find Walker and McMillin are
analogous art. Appellants’ invention is directed “to location-specific
operation of a removable meter unit for vehicle parking” (Spec. 13) and
“more efficient and reliable automated reporting and monitoring of meter
operations and transactions” (Spec. 19). As the Examiner finds, Walker’s
gaming devices have meters that interact with a remote server computer to
communicate usage information (Final Act. 8; Walker 1489). We also note
Walker is directed to the same problem addressed by Appellants—keeping
track of revenue (Spec. Tflf 8, 11), and was cited as disclosing a meter
revenue summary including cash amounts, credit amounts, and total revenue
collected (see Walker || 490—501), as claimed. Thus, we agree, Walker is
pertinent to the problem which Appellants’ invention is directed (Ans. 2).
McMillin is also analogous art because, as the Examiner finds, “McMillan
describes the use of parking meters where minion devices are installed for
the communication of messages from and to the Internet, which Examiner
interprets as the network communication session of the present invention”
(Ans. 4—5). Appellants’ arguments in the Reply Brief do not persuade us of
Examiner error because McMillin does disclose parking meters (Final Act.
2-4; McMillin, col. 40,11. 7-24).
We also do not agree with Appellants that Walker does not disclose a
meter revenue summary. We note Manion was cited as disclosing the meter
revenue summary (Final Act. 6; Manion col. 5,1. 32—the report generation
4
Appeal 2016-002592
Application 12/355,734
module sorts according to revenue statistics) and Walker was cited for
commutatively disclosing the meter revenue summary can include cash
amounts, credit amounts and total revenue collected by a device/meter (Final
Act. 8; Ans. 3^4; Walker || 495, 501,1234 (displaying payouts and credit
meter balances), Fig. 11 (payout amounts are displayed)). Thus, we agree
Walker teaches or suggests the meter revenue summary, also taught by
Manion, could include cash credit amounts and total revenue collected.
Appellants’ argument that “Manion merely discloses ‘the capability to
remotely change the rate structure of any of [sic] all electronic parking
meters’” and does not disclose “changing, updating, or configuring the meter
display message” (App. Br. 11—12); Manion, col. 2,11. 1—5) is in error.
Manion’s Figure 11 shows a parking meter having an interface with a port to
accept rate changes, at least suggesting a display (Manion col. 8,11. 44—62).
Also, as the Examiner finds, Manion’s Abstract teaches a display (“[t]he
meter may also set the time remaining on the meter to zero . . .”), illustrating
that the meter has a display. We further agree with the Examiner that “[i]t is
old and well known to use a display for the output of information” (Ans. 4).
Changing the rate of Manion’s electronic parking meter, and showing the
changed rate on the meter’s display, is the combination of familiar elements
according to known methods that does no more than yield the predictable
result of changing the meter’s display message. See KSR Int’l Co. v.
Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007). Appellants’ response in the Reply
Brief that “[njowhere in Manion can one find the disclosure that the meter
operator reads messages of meter diagnostic features from a parking meter,
or any meter,” (Reply. Br. 9) is not persuasive as the claim does not recite a
meter operator reads messages of meter diagnostic features; rather claim 29
5
Appeal 2016-002592
Application 12/355,734
recites “remotely configuring the meter display message on the display of
the meter,” as Manion’s Abstract teaches.
Thus, Appellants have not persuaded us the Examiner erred in
rejecting independent claim 29 as obvious over the collective teachings of
the cited references, and claims 30-51 and 58—60, not separately argued
(App. Br. 9).
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 29—51 and 58—60 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