Ex Parte King et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 11, 201512182465 (P.T.A.B. May. 11, 2015) 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. 12/182,465 07/30/2008 Steven Morris King 230081-1 (UNIV:0019) 3817 12421 7590 05/12/2015 Universal City Studios LLC c/o Fletcher Yoder, PC P.O. Box 692289 Houston, TX 77269-2289 EXAMINER NWUGO, OJIAKO K ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2685 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/12/2015 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 STEVEN MORRIS KING, JUSTIN MICHAEL SCHWARTZ, and STEVEN C. BLUM ____________ Appeal 2013-001899 Application 12/182,465 Technology Center 2600 ____________ Before JEAN R. HOMERE, CATHERINE SHIANG, and CHARLES J. BOUDREAU, Administrative Patent Judges. BOUDREAU, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of claims 1–15, 18, and 23–30. Claims 16, 17, and 19–22 have been canceled. Apr. 11, 2011 Amend. & Resp. 12. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM-IN-PART. 1 Appellants identify Universal City Studios LLC as the real party in interest. App. Br. 2. Appeal 2013-001899 Application 12/182,465 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants’ Invention The invention relates to a system for confirming authorization of an operator for controlling a vehicle on fixed paths, the system having at least one ride vehicle with an onboard control system being configured to confirm operator authorization prior to allowing operator control thereof and an electronic device dimensioned and configured to be supported by an operator, the electronic device being further configured to remotely authorize operator control of the onboard control system. Abst. A method for confirming authorization of an operator for controlling a vehicle on fixed paths is also provided. Id. Illustrative Claim Claim 1, reproduced below, is exemplary of the subject matter on appeal. 1. A system comprising: at least one vehicle, comprising: an onboard control system configured to control attributes of the vehicle; an operator authorization and identification device configured to receive an authentication signal, determine whether the authentication signal corresponds to authorized access, and control access to configuration of the onboard control system based on whether the authentication signal is determined to correspond to authorized access; and an electronic device dimensioned and configured to be supported by an operator, the electronic device being further configured to remotely provide the authentication signal to the operator authorization and identification device. Appeal 2013-001899 Application 12/182,465 3 Rejections on Appeal Claims 1–6, 8–11, 13–15, 18, 23, 25, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Sinclair (US 2009/0108989 A1; published Apr. 30, 2009 (filed Feb. 10, 2006)). Ans. 4–8. Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Marshall (US 2006/0157563 A1; published July 20, 2006). Ans. 8. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Sinclair and Allen (US 2002/0179703 A1; published Dec. 5, 2002). Ans. 9. Claims 12 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Sinclair and Marshall. Ans. 9–10. Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Sinclair and Dix (US 2004/0017281 A1; published Jan. 29, 2004). Ans. 10–11. Claims 27 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Sinclair. Ans. 11–12. ISSUES ON APPEAL Based upon our review of the administrative record, Appellants’ contentions, and the Examiner’s findings and conclusions, the pivotal issues before us are: Did the Examiner err in finding that Sinclair discloses “an operator authorization and identification device configured to . . . control access to configuration of [an] onboard control system based on whether [an] authentication signal is determined to correspond to authorized access,” as recited in claim 1 (emphasis added)? See App. Br. 6–9; Reply Br. 2–3. Appeal 2013-001899 Application 12/182,465 4 Did the Examiner err in finding that Sinclair discloses “determining an operator identity or class of the operator based upon [an] authorization signal” and “providing identity-specific or class-specific configuration access to the onboard control system based upon the confirmed authorization,” as recited in claim 13? See App. Br. 9–13; Reply Br. 3–5. Did the Examiner err in finding that Sinclair discloses the onboard control system is configured to control the attributes of the vehicle including at least one of dispatching of the vehicle, slowing of the vehicle, stopping of the vehicle, loading of the vehicle, unloading of the vehicle, tuning seats of the vehicle, tuning a safety harness of the vehicle, and enabling access to maintenance of the vehicle, as recited in claim 2? See App. Br. 13–14; Reply Br. 6–7. Did the Examiner err in finding that Sinclair discloses “an onboard control panel,” as recited in claims 3 and 25? See App. Br. 14–15; Reply Br. 7. Did the Examiner err in finding that Sinclair discloses “sensors attached to the vehicle to sense the proper functioning of safety features and configured to communicate with the onboard control system to control attributes of the vehicle,” as recited in claim 11? See App. Br. 15–16; Reply Br. 8. Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Sinclair and Marshall teaches or suggests “the onboard control system is . . . configured to store operator input and communicate the input to [an] off-board control system,” as recited in claim 12, and similar limitations in claim 24? See App. Br. 20–21; Reply Br. 8. Appeal 2013-001899 Application 12/182,465 5 Did the Examiner err in finding that Marshall discloses “an operator authorization and identification device configured to receive an authentication signal, determine whether the authentication signal corresponds to authorized access, and enable the onboard control system to initiate an action by the off-board control system when the authentication signal is determined to correspond to authorized access,” as recited in claim 30? See App. Br. 16–19; Reply Br. 5–6. ANALYSIS Rather than reiterate the Examiner’s findings and Appellants’ arguments, we refer to the Appeal Brief filed February 14, 2012 (“App. Br.”), Examiner’s Answer mailed August 27, 2012 (“Ans.”), and Reply Brief filed October 29, 2012 (“Reply Br.”) for the respective details. We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’ arguments that the Examiner has erred. We have considered in this Decision only those arguments Appellants actually raised in the Briefs. Any other arguments that Appellants could have made but chose not to make in the Briefs, or that are made in a conclusory fashion, are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2011). Except as provided below, we disagree with Appellants’ conclusions and adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth in the Examiner’s Answer and concur with the Examiner’s conclusions. We highlight and address specific findings and arguments for emphasis as follows. Claims 1, 5–10, 13–15, 18, 23, and 26–29 Appellants argue “Sinclair does not relate to a system including features that ‘control access to configuration of the onboard control system,’ Appeal 2013-001899 Application 12/182,465 6 as recited in independent claim 1. . . . Merely providing immobilizer outputs and controlling door locks is not the same as controlling access to configuration of an onboard control system.” App. Br. 8. According to Appellants, the cited portions of Sinclair simply do not disclose controlling access to configuration of the onboard control system, but instead merely disclose the use of a proximity device 322 in conjunction with a proximity detector 310 to obtain a unique number encoded on the proximity device 332 . . . and cannot properly be relied upon as disclosing the features of claims 1 and 13 related to controlling access to configuration of an onboard control system. Id. at 9. With respect to claim 13, Appellants further argue: Sinclair merely appears to detect the presence of a proximity tag to provide unlocking of a vehicle. . . . Sinclair does not even appear to disclose “determining an operator identity or class of the operator based upon the authorization signal,” and, thus, certainly does not disclose “providing identity-specific or class-specific configuration access to the onboard control system,” as recited in claim 13. Id. at 10–11. Appellants’ arguments are not persuasive. During examination, “claims . . . are to be given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, and . . . claim language should be read in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art,” but without importing limitations from the specification. In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted); SuperGuide Corp. v. DirecTV Enters., Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Here, the claim phrases “control access to configuration,” “operator identity,” and “class of . . . operator” are used very broadly in the claims. Appeal 2013-001899 Application 12/182,465 7 In the rejection of claim 13, the Examiner cites paragraphs 71–73 of Sinclair, which disclose a registration process for a new tag in which a master tag is used first, the new tag is held proximate to the detector unit, and then the master tag is again used. Ans. 6–7. Appellants argue that “allowing the registration of new tags to the controller 500 via a master tag, is not the same as providing ‘configuration access to the onboard control system.’” App. Br. 11. According to Appellants, “as discussed in the specification, the onboard control system may be configured to ‘control such ride attributes as dispatch, ride speed, stopping, loading, unloading, seat tuning, safety harness tuning, operator identification, maintenance states (e.g., inspection complete) or destination request.’” Id. (citing Spec. ¶ 24). Appellants argue further: [P]roviding “configuration access to the onboard control system” includes providing access to configure how the onboard control system controls attributes of the vehicle. In contrast, the learning mode, at best, provides additional tags to enable operation of the lock and immobilization systems, but does not relate in any manner of configuration of how the onboard control system will control the elements of the vehicle. Id. at 11–12. We disagree. The term “class of operator” reasonably includes the class of those possessing a master tag, and the phrase “control[] configuration access to the onboard control system” includes registration of a new tag. Appellants’ stated examples of “ride attributes” are not recited in claims 1 and 13. And even if they were, “operator identification” is one of the stated examples. Accordingly, on this record, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 1and 13 and dependent claims 5–10, 14, 15, 18, 23, and Appeal 2013-001899 Application 12/182,465 8 26–29, for which no additional substantive arguments are presented. See App. Br. 19–22; Reply Br. 8. Claim 2 Appellants argue “the examiner suggested that the immobilization of Sinclair was analogous to the ‘stopping’ element recited in claim 2. However, such analogy is erroneous.” App. Br. 14. According to Appellants, immobilization relates to disabling an ability of a vehicle to be operated. In contrast, ‘stopping of the vehicle’ relates to removing speed from a moving vehicle until it is no longer moving. Immobilization and stopping of a vehicle are not analogous, and thus may not be relied upon in rejecting dependent claim 2. Id. We disagree. Appellants cite only one of numerous definitions of the word “stop.” The broadest reasonable interpretation of that term, consistent with Appellants’ Specification, includes immobilization. As explained by the Examiner, “[t]he stopping of the vehicle, in plan reading also includes stopping the vehicle from initial movement hence immobilization.” Ans. 15. We also agree with the Examiner that “locking/ unlocking of [a] vehicle,” as disclosed by Sinclair, “reads on ‘enabling access to maintenance of the vehicle.’” Id. (citing Sinclair ¶ 49). The broadest reasonable interpretation of “enabling access to maintenance” clearly includes unlocking. Accordingly, on this record, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 2. Appeal 2013-001899 Application 12/182,465 9 Claims 3, 4, and 25 Appellants argue “Sinclair . . . does not appear to disclose an onboard control panel that provides an interface for configuration of an onboard control system” as recited in claim 3 and similarly in claim 25. App. Br. 15. We agree with Appellants. Although Sinclair discloses a “user interface 400,” that user interface is disclosed only to include “a light emitting diode (LED) 334 and a buzzer 336 for providing visual and audible feedback to a user regarding operation of the system 300” (Sinclair ¶ 49), not an interface “for configuration of the onboard control system,” as recited in claim 3, or a control panel for providing “configuration access” as in claim 25. Accordingly, on this record, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 3 and 25 or of claim 4, which depends from claim 3. Claim 11 Appellants argue, “[i]n rejecting claim 11, the examiner relied on FIGS. 3-5 and paragraphs [0048]-[0050] of Sinclair. It is unclear which elements the examiner is analogizing to sensors that sense the proper functioning of safety features.” App. Br. 16. Appellants further argue that, “[i]n the advisory action, the examiner . . . stated ‘vehicle doors inherently read on safety features.’” Id. According to Appellants, “[e]ven if vehicle doors could be interpreted as ‘safety features,’ as recited by claim 11, . . . the examiner has still failed to provide any such disclosure of sensors useful to ‘sense the proper function’ of such a safety feature.” Id. We agree with Appellants. Although the claim term “safety features” can reasonably be interpreted to include vehicle doors, we find no disclosure Appeal 2013-001899 Application 12/182,465 10 in Sinclair of “sensors . . . to sense the proper functioning of [the doors],” as recited in claim 11. Accordingly, on this record, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 11. Claims 12 and 24 Appellants argue: Claims 12 and 24 recite, in generally similar language, “an off- board control system in communication with the onboard control system of the vehicle, wherein the onboard control system is further configured to store operator input and communicate the input to the off-board control system.” (Emphasis added). . . . Marshall discloses, at best, that the off- board control system provides information to the on-board control system. Marshall does not disclose that an input from the onboard control system is communicated to the off-board control system, as recited by claims 12 and 24. App. Br. at 20 We disagree. Paragraphs 151–157 of Marshall, cited by the Examiner (see Ans. 9–10), and more specifically paragraph 155, disclose that operator input (namely, repeated authentication) is communicated from the onboard control system (telematics device) to the off-board control system (central network authority). We agree with the Examiner that “[i]t would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include the off-board system of Marshall in[] Sinclair for monitoring vehicle activity and use as taught by Marshall.” Ans. 10 (boldface omitted). Accordingly, on this record, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 12 and 24. Appeal 2013-001899 Application 12/182,465 11 Claim 30 Appellants argue: In contrast to independent claim 30, which initiates an action by the off-board control system via the on-board control system, Marshall discloses, at best, an off-board system (e.g., the central network authority) that provides information that enables an action by an onboard system (e.g., the telematic device). Indeed, Marshall is clear that the telematic device is on-board. See id. at ¶ [0145] (describing that the telematic device is vehicle-specific). Further, Marshall discloses that the telematic device completes the authorization action. See, e.g., id. at ¶ [0153]. App. Br. 18. We disagree. The claim phrase “enable the onboard control system to initiate an action by the off-board control system when the authentication signal is determined to correspond to authorized access” (App. Br. 27) is broadly but reasonably interpreted to encompass at least two different possibilities, one in which the onboard control system causes the off-board control system subsequently to take some action, assuming the authentication signal checks out, and another in which onboard control system carries out an action already ordained by the off-board control system, again assuming the authentication signal checks out. Appellants argue the former interpretation, but the latter is also reasonable and corresponds to Marshall’s disclosure. Accordingly, on this record, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 30. Appeal 2013-001899 Application 12/182,465 12 DECISION The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 8–10, 13–15, 18, 23, and 28 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e); claim 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b); and claims 7, 12, 24, 26, 27, and 29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) are affirmed. The Examiner’s rejection of claims 3, 4, 11, and 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) is reversed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED-IN-PART rwk Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation