Ex Parte McNally

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 31, 2014

11190633 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 31, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte KEITH R. MCNALLY
____________

Appeal 2012-001503
Application 11/190,6331
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, and
BART A. GERSTENBLITH, Administrative Patent Judges.

CRAWFORD, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s
final decision rejecting claims 77–85, 89, 91, 92, and 97–107. We have
jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 Appellant identifies Ameranth, Inc. as the real party in interest. Br. 1.
Appeal 2012-001503
Application 11/190,633

2

Claim 77 is illustrative:
77. An information management and real time
synchronous communications system for use with wireless
handheld computing devices and the internet comprising:
a. a master database containing at least one
hospitality application (s) and associated data,
b. application software enabled to configure
hospitality data for display on the ‘non pc standard’ display
sized screen of at least one wireless handheld computing device
in which the at least one hospitality application is stored,
c. at least one Web server enabled by application
software to interface with at least one hospitality application
and its associated data,
d. application software enabled to configure
hospitality data for display on at least one web page,
e. an applications programming software interface,
and
f. a real time application software communications
control module with a systemic communications relationship
comprising:
 A communications controller
 A communications set up
 A web Hub
 A wireless Hub
 Linked Databases
wherein the system is enabled to perform an automated
communications conversion via application software involving
the data associated with the at least one hospitality application,
wherein the system is enabled via application software to
synchronize the at least one hospitality application(s) and its
associated data with the data in a second and different
hospitality application in real time between the master database,
the at least one Web server, the at least one wireless computing
device and the at least one web page,
Appeal 2012-001503
Application 11/190,633

3

wherein the communications control module is enabled
via application software to act as an interface between the at
least one hospitality application (s) and any applicable
communications protocol.

Appellant appeals the following rejections:
A. Claims 77–79, 91, 92, 97–101, and 106 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 7,069,228
B1, issued June 27, 2006, (hereinafter “Rose”) in view of U.S. Patent No.
6,415,138 B2, issued July 2, 2002, (hereinafter “Sirola”) further in view of
U.S. Patent No. 6,356,543 B2, issued Mar. 12, 2002, (hereinafter “Hall”).
B. Claims 80–85 and 89 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Rose in view of Sirola in further view of U.S.
Patent No. 5,991,739, issued Nov. 23, 1999, (hereinafter “Cupps”) or U.S.
Patent No. 6,594,347 B1, issued July 15, 2003, (hereinafter “Calder”) or
U.S. Patent No. 6,366,650 B1, issued Apr. 2, 2002, (hereinafter “Rhie”).
C. Claims 102–105 and 107 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Rose in view of Sirola in further view of
Cupps.

ISSUE
Did the Examiner err in rejecting the claims because the Examiner has
not established that the cited references discloses “application software
enabled to configure hospitality data for display on the ‘non pc standard’
display sized screen of at least one wireless handheld computing device,” as
recited in claims 77?

Appeal 2012-001503
Application 11/190,633

4

ANALYSIS
Appellant argues that the references do not disclose application
software enabled to configure hospitality data for display on the non pc
standard display sized screen of a wireless handheld device. We agree. The
Examiner does not explain how this element of the claims is disclosed or
suggested in the prior art. The Examiner finds that Rose discloses
application software that is enabled to configure hospitality software for
display on at least one web page (Ans. 5). The Examiner also finds that
Sirola discloses a wireless device that is capable of displaying web data and
that Hall discloses a wireless device that is capable of downloading, storing,
and executing application software (Ans. 6). However, the Examiner does
not find that any of these references discloses or suggests application
software enabled to configure hospitality data for display on the non pc
standard display sized screen of a wireless handheld device. In this regard,
the Examiner does not find that the Sirola device is capable of displaying
hospitality data or that Hall discloses downloading, storing, and executing
application software that enables configuration of hospitality data on a
wireless device.
We find that Sirola discloses a mobile phone that enables connection
to the internet and includes a touch sensitive display wherein data such as
telephone numbers can be displayed (see Sirola, col. 2, ll. 1–22). Sirola does
not disclose application software that enables configuration of hospitality
data for display on the mobile phone.
We find that Hall discloses the ability to customize a mobile phone
with desired services through the downloading of applications (see Hall,
col. 2, ll. 25–29). However, the Examiner does not direct our attention to a
Appeal 2012-001503
Application 11/190,633

5

disclosure in Hall of application software that relates to hospitality much less
application software enabled for configuring hospitality data on a wireless
device. It is unclear from the Examiner’s rejection just how the teachings of
the prior art may be combined to arrive at the application software recited in
claims 77 and 97. Therefore, we hold that the Examiner has not established
the factual basis to support the conclusion of obviousness.
We note that in rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), the
Examiner bears the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case of
obviousness. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992). See also
In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1472 (Fed. Cir. 1984). It is incumbent upon
the Examiner to establish a factual basis to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1073 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
In view of the foregoing, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejections
of claim 77 and claims 78, 79, 91, and 92 dependent therefrom. We also do
not sustain the Examiner’s rejections of claim 97 and claims 98–101 and 106
dependent therefrom because claim 97 also recites the application software
enabled to configure hospitality data for display on a wireless device.
We will also not sustain the Examiner’s rejections of: claims 80–85
and 89 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Rose in view of
Sirola and Cupps, Calder or Rhie; and claims 102–105 and 107 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Rose in view of Sirola and
Cupps. These rejections lack the reliance on the Hall reference and the
Examiner has not explained in any way how the recitation in claims 77 and
97, from which each of these claims depend, of an application software,
much less an application software enabled to configure hospitality data for
Appeal 2012-001503
Application 11/190,633

6

display on a wireless device, is either disclosed or suggested in the prior art
relied on.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 7785, 89, 91, 92, and
97107 is reversed.

REVERSED

llw