Ex Parte Mazzara

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 29, 2012

10736491 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 29, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
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.
10/736,491 12/15/2003 William E. Mazzara JR. GP-304240-OST-ALS 3801
74829 7590 03/29/2012
Julia Church Dierker
Dierker & Associates, P.C.
3331 W. Big Beaver Road
Suite 109
Troy, MI 48084-2813
EXAMINER
IWARERE, OLUSEYE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3687
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/29/2012 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte WILLIAM E. MAZZARA, JR.
____________________

Appeal 2010-006310
Application 10/736,491
Technology Center 3600
____________________

Before: MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, ANTON W. FETTING, and
JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, Administrative Patent Judges.

FISCHETTI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-006310
Application 10/736,491

2
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the
Examiner’s final rejection of claims 22-30. We affirm.

THE CLAIMED INVENTION
Appellant claims a method and system for managing promotional
telematics services within a telematics equipped vehicle (Specification 1:9-
10). Claim 22 is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:

22. A system for providing a telematics service to a mobile
vehicle, the system comprising:
a communications unit in the mobile vehicle for
connecting to a remote location;
a response system at the remote location providing at
least one promotional service as a choice to a user in the mobile
vehicle;
a timing unit associated with the communications unit,
responsive to the response system, wherein the timing unit is
configured to monitor a period of free use of the at least one
promotional service by the user in the mobile vehicle; and
means for charging the user a fee for use, occurring after
the period of free use expires, of the at least one promotional
service.

REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Muratani
Kolls
US 6,119,109
US 6,615,186 B1
Sep. 12, 2000
Sep. 2, 2003
REJECTION
The following rejection is before us for review: the Examiner rejected
claims 22 - 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Kolls and Muratani.
Appeal 2010-006310
Application 10/736,491

3

ISSUE
At issue is whether Muratani’s disclosure of an initial free period of
viewing content before a period for which a user is charged is a period of
free use of a promotional service.

FINDINGS OF FACT
We find the following facts by a preponderance of the evidence.
1. The ordinary and customary definition of the term "promotion," as
defined by Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary (10th ed.), is: "the
furtherance of the acceptance and sale of merchandise through
advertising, publicity, or discounting."
2. Muratani discloses a promotional service involving a period of free use
which is monitored, at the initial free period of use before a charge
begins in the distribution of media content to a user, by utilizing “a step
function billing in which ‘charge free for one minute from beginning,
one dollar/cents/minute for the following period’.” (Col. 19 ll. 1-7).
3. Muratani discloses a timing unit that is configured to monitor a period
of free use of a promotional service, in that the “selected billing
processor 24 obtains time for which data is utilized in accordance with
data utilization start timing and utilization completion timing supplied
from the data processor 22.” (Col. 8 ll. 5-9).
4. Muratani discloses a combination of billing methods, in that the “basic
charging methods may include a time charge, a collective charge (a fee
is irrespective of time and quantity of utilization of information), a
Appeal 2010-006310
Application 10/736,491

4
quantity charge (a fee is based on the quantity of utilization of
information) and a free charge.” (Col. 21 ll. 16-20).

ANALYSIS
The rejection is affirmed as to claim 22. Appellant does not provide a
substantive argument as to the separate patentability of claims 23-30 that
depend from claim 22, which is the sole independent claim among those
claims. Therefore, we address only claim 22, and claims 23-30 fall with
claim 22. See, 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
Appellant argues “Kolls does not disclose or even suggest that the
COM devices 100 that interconnect to the other devices in the various
physical locations provide at least one promotional service to a user of the
vehicle.” (Appeal Br. 11, Reply Br. 5).
We are not persuaded by Appellant's argument because we find the
disputed limitation is explicitly disclosed by Muratani.
Accordingly, we find that the term “promotional service” is not
explicitly defined in the Specification, so we rely on the ordinary and
customary meaning of “promotion,” which is “the furtherance of the
acceptance and sale of merchandise through advertising, publicity, or
discounting” (FF 1). Based on this meaning, we find Muratani discloses a
promotional service at its initial period of free use of a stream of content (FF
2), which one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize as a method to use
the first portion of free use of streamed content as a form of advertising or a
discount for that content. This is because the user has the option to continue
to stream the content for a fee after watching the initial period at no charge.
Appeal 2010-006310
Application 10/736,491

5
Therefore, we find that Muratani meets the claim requirements as to a
promotional service that utilizes a period of free use.
Appellant next argues “that Kolls does not disclose or even suggest
that the COM devices 100 provide at least one promotional service (or any
service for that matter) as a choice to the user of the vehicle.” (Appeal Br.
11, Reply Br. 5-6).
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument, because here again
we find that in Muratani, the user has the choice to continue to stream the
content for a fee after watching the initial period at no charge. Therefore,
we find that Muratani meets the claim requirements as to providing at least
one promotional service as a choice.
Appellant argues “that Kolls fails to teach a timing unit associated
with the communications unit, responsive to the response system, where the
timing unit is configured to monitor a period of free use of the at least one
promotional service by the user of the vehicle.” (Appeal Br. 13, Reply Br.
7).
We are not persuaded by Appellant's argument because again we find
that Muratani discloses a timing unit in its billing processor 24 which uses
timing information from processor 22 (FF 2) to determine charges based on
combined billing methods (FF 3).
Appellant argues that Muratani’s period of free use “is not associated
with a promotional service.” (Appeal Br. 13-14, Reply Br. 6).
We are not persuaded by Appellant's argument, because, as set forth
above, we find Muratani discloses a promotional service at its initial period
of free use of a stream of content (FF 1). We find that one of ordinary skill
in the art would recognize this as a method to use the first portion of free use
Appeal 2010-006310
Application 10/736,491

6
of streamed content as a form of advertising or a discount for that content,
because the user has the option to continue to stream the content for a fee
after watching the initial period at no charge. Therefore, we find that
Muratani meets the claim requirements as to a promotional service that
utilizes a period of free use.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 22-30 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) over Kolls and Muratani.

DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejection of claims 22-30 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)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

MP