Ex Parte Mohler et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 4, 2016

12337904 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 4, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/337,904 12/18/2008
93379 7590
Setter Roche LLP
14694 Orchard Parkway
Building A, Suite 200
Westminster, CO 80023
02/08/2016
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
David Mohler
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
648.0075 4516
EXAMINER
INTAVONG, JIRAPON
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2652
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/08/2016 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):
sarah@setterroche.com
pair_avaya@firsttofile.com
uspto@setterroche.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DAVID MOHLER and GREG WEBER
Appeal2014-002650 1
Application 12/337,904
Technology Center 2600
Before JEAN R. HOMERE, DANIEL J. GALLIGAN,
and JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOMERE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's final rejection of claims 1-36. Br. 2. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Appellants' Invention
Appellants invented a hospitality telephony system for allowing
registered guests to utilize their personal telephone (104) thereby facilitating
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Avaya Inc. Br. 2.
Appeal2014-002650
Application 12/337,904
guests' requests for available services from any location during the course of
their stay at a hotel. Spec. 1 :29-2:6, Fig. I.
Exemplary Claim
Independent claim 1 is exemplary, and reads as follows:
1. A system for controlling access to services comprising:
a. a controller configured to associate a room telephone number with a
guest telephone number, receive a call from a calling telephone number,
and enable the call to connect to one or more services that one can order
from a room as if the calling telephone number were the room telephone
number, responsive to the calling telephone number matching the guest
telephone number and the call being within a predetermined time period;
and
b. a property management system configured to associate the
predetermined time period with the guest telephone number, verify that
the guest telephone number matches the calling telephone number, and
verify that the call is within the predetermined time period.
Polcyn et al.
Cyr
Forte
Veitch
Prior Art Relied Upon
us 6,061,443
US 6,223,055 Bl
US 7,162,020 Bl
US 2008/0215385 Al
2
May 9, 2000
Apr. 24, 2001
Jan.9,2007
Sept. 4, 2008
Appeal2014-002650
Application 12/337,904
Rejections on Appeal
Appellants request review of the following Examiner's rejections:
1. Claims 1, 2, 10-17, 25-33, 35, and 36 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 102 (b) as being anticipated by Forte.
2. Claims 3 and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Forte.
3. Claims 34 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Forte and Polcyn.
4. Claims 4--8 and 19-23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over the combination of Forte and Cyr.
5. Claims 9 and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Forte, Cyr, and Veitch.
ANALYSIS
We consider Appellants' arguments seriatim as they are presented in
the Appeal Brief, pages 9-12. 2
Anticipation Rejection
Issue: Under 35 U.S.C. § 102, did the Examiner err in finding Forte
describes
a controller configured to associate a room telephone number
with a guest telephone number, receive a call from a calling
2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner, we
refer to the Appeal Brief (filed September 10, 2013), and the Answer
(mailed October 1, 2013) for the respective details. We have considered in
this decision only those arguments Appellants actually raised in the Brief.
Any other arguments Appellants could have made but chose not to make in
the Brief are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(vii).
3
Appeal2014-002650
Application 12/337,904
telephone number, and enable the call to connect to one or more
services that one can order from a room as if the calling
telephone number were the room telephone number, responsive
to the calling telephone number matching the guest telephone
number and the call being within a predetermined time period,
, as recited in independent claim 1?
Appellants argue Forte does not describe the disputed limitations cited
above. Br. 9-10. In particular, Appellants argue Forte discloses a hotel
PBX for enabling a call from a guest's personal phone to connect to
telephony services (e.g., taxi service, ordering delivery) and amenities
(accessing voicemail) from a remote location. Id. (citing Forte 6:64---65).
Appellants argue, however, the disclosed services are not services one can
order from a room. Id. This argument is not persuasive.
As correctly noted by the Examiner, Forte discloses, upon validation,
the remote phone call placed from a remote location by a registered guest is
connected to the hotel guest room extension as if the guest were using the
assigned hotel room phone number to thereby order available services.
Ans.2-3 (citing Forte 10:31--44); see also Forte 7:5-8 ("Upon validation, the
remote phone call is connected to the hotel guest's appropriate room
extension as if the guest were using hotel telephones 12a, 12b."). Because
the call placed by the registered guest operates identically to a call received
from the phone number assigned to the guest's hotel room to order special
services, front desk services, the disclosed services by Forte describe the
types of services that one can order from a hotel room. Consequently,
4
Appeal2014-002650
Application 12/337,904
Appellants have not shown error in the Examiner's rejection of claim 1 as
being anticipated by Forte.
Regarding claims 2, 10-17, 25-33, 35, and 36, because Appellants
reiterate substantially the same arguments as those previously discussed for
patentability of claim 1, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 2, 10-
17, 25-33, 35, and 36 for the foregoing reasons. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
Obviousness Rejections
Regarding the rejection of claims 3 and 18, Appellants argue Forte
does not teach or suggest associating one or more additional room phone
numbers with the guest phone number. Br. 11. According to Appellants,
although "a guest may book multiple rooms for a large group, it would not
be obvious that they would need to order services for each of the rooms.
Each room occupant would normally request services for themselves and not
rely on the guest booking the rooms to order all services." Id. We do not
agree with Appellants. We echo the Examiner's conclusion it would have
been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the head of a household
would register multiple rooms under his/her own number as a way to order
services for each of the rooms. Ans. 3. Accordingly, we sustain this
rejection.
Regarding the rejection of claims 5 and 20, Appellants argue Forte
does not teach or suggest associating a second predetermined time period
with at least one of the additional guest phone numbers. Br. 11-12. This
argument is not persuasive. It would have been obvious to the ordinarily
5
Appeal2014-002650
Application 12/337,904
skilled artisan that the head of the household may register a first party under
a first telephone number for a first predetermined period, and is then joined
at a later date by a spouse who subsequently registers a second party under
another phone number for another period of time. See Ans. 3--4.
Accordingly, we sustain this rejection.
Regarding the rejection of claims 4, 6-9, 19, 21-24, and 34, because
Appellants reiterate substantially the same arguments as those previously
discussed for patentability of claims 1, 3, 5, 18, and 20 above, we sustain the
Examiner's rejection of claims 4, 6-9, 19, 21-24, and 34 forthe foregoing
reasons.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's rejections of claims 1-36 as set forth
above.
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