Ex Parte Mateer

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 10, 2015

12397822 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 10, 2015)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte CRAIG C. MATEER
____________________

Appeal 2012-0057451
Application 12/397,8222
Technology Center 3600
____________________

Before ANTON W. FETTING, NINA L. MEDLOCK, and
BRADLEY B. BAYAT, Administrative Patent Judges.

MEDLOCK, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1–18. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 Our decision references Appellant’s Appeal Brief (“Br.,” filed
November 9, 2011) and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed
November 23, 2011).
2 Appellant identifies the inventor, Craig C. Mateer, as the real party in
interest. Br. 3.
Appeal 2012-005745
Application 12/397,822

2
CLAIMED INVENTION
Appellant’s disclosure “relates generally to common carrier baggage
processing. More particularly, the present specification relates to a system
and method for remote baggage check-in” (Spec. ¶ 2).
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on
appeal:
1. A method for managing the transportation of
baggage for passengers of a common carrier, the method
comprising:
receiving at a computer workstation at a remote property
travel identification including departure information for
baggage of a passenger, the remote property being remote from
a transportation center, the baggage to be transported to the
transportation center; and
printing a baggage tag having information for
transporting the baggage to the transportation center via a
vehicle operated by an employee at the remote property that
performs both a first service associated with the baggage
transportation service and a second service associated with an
operation at the remote property, the second service being
distinct from the first service.

REJECTIONS
Claims 1–5, 7, 9, 10, 12–15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Ananda (US 6,845,293 B1, iss. Jan. 18, 2005),
Universal Express Subsidiary, The Virtual Bellhop, Business Wire, July 31,
2002 (hereinafter “Bellhop”), and Quackenbush (US 6,512,964 B1,
iss. Jan. 28, 2003).
Claims 6, 8, 11, 16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Ananda, Bellhop, Quackenbush, and Official Notice.
Appeal 2012-005745
Application 12/397,822

3
ANALYSIS
Appellant argues claims 1–18 as a group. We select independent
claim 1 as representative. The remaining claims stand or fall with claim 1.
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2011).
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that none of Ananda,
Bellhop, and Quackenbush, alone or in combination, discloses or suggests
“an employee at the remote property that performs both a first service
associated with the baggage transportation service and a second service
associated with an operation at the remote property, the second service being
distinct from the first service,” as recited in claim 1, at least because
Appellant argues the references individually (Br. 12–17). Claim 1 stands
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the combination of Ananda,
Bellhop, and Quackenbush, not over any one of them alone. The argument
that a single reference alone does not disclose all the recited claim
limitations is not persuasive because nonobviousness cannot be established
by attacking the references individually when the rejection is based on the
teachings of a combination of references. See In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d
1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Ananda discloses a baggage transport system in which passengers
deposit their baggage at convenient baggage collection centers located away
from the departure and arrival facilities, e.g., the airports. The baggage is
transported separately from the passengers, and may travel by a different
mode of transport. Each passenger designates an address to which his or her
baggage should be delivered. And after the passenger arrives at his or her
destination, the baggage is delivered to the designated address (see, e.g.,
Ananda, col. 2, l. 59–col. 3, l. 44). Bellhop discloses a substantially similar
Appeal 2012-005745
Application 12/397,822

4
system in which U.S. residents traveling to one of 11 select Fairmont Hotel
properties in the United States have discounted access to Universal Express,
Inc.’s luggage delivery service based on a partnership agreement between
Fairmont and Universal Express. Using the United Express system, these
travelers may have their luggage couriered from their homes to their hotel
rooms, allowing them to travel essentially luggage-free (Bellhop 2).
The Supreme Court has made clear that, when considering
obviousness, “the analysis need not seek out precise teachings directed to the
specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account
of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art
would employ.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007).
Here, we agree with the Examiner that “only routine skill in the art would be
necessary to employ one employee as opposed to two employees to perform
multiple tasks for a service provider” (Ans. 16). Thus, “in Bellhop’s
example, one employee associated with both the hotel and the courier could
perform the function of transporting the luggage to a hotel [i.e., a first
service] and another function of delivering the luggage to the client’s hotel
door [i.e., a second service, distinct from the first service]” (id. at 17).
In view of the foregoing, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). We also sustain the Examiner’s rejection
of claims 2–18, which fall with claim 1.
Appeal 2012-005745
Application 12/397,822

5
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1–18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
are 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)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

Klh