Ex Parte Mougin et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 21, 2016

11628676 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 21, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
111628,676 0210612007
466 7590
YOUNG & THOMPSON
209 Madison Street
Suite 500
Alexandria, VA 22314
09/23/2016
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Thierry Mougin
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.
0512-1366 5518
EXAMINER
ALLEN, AKIBA KANELLE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3628
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/23/2016 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):
DocketingDept@young-thompson.com
yandtpair@firs ttofile. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte THIERRY MOUGIN and DAVID PERREARD
Appeal2014-005402
Application 11/628,6761
Technology Center 3600
Before ANTON W. PETTING, JAMES A. WORTH, and
BRUCE T. WIEDER, Administrative Patent Judges.
WIEDER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the
Examiner's rejection of claims 18-34. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellants' claimed "invention relates to a method for managing
renewals of subscriptions for the parking of vehicles in a geographical area
where parking is charged for." (Spec. 1.)
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Parkeon. (Appeal
Br. 1.)
Appeal2014-005402
Application 11/628,676
Claims 18 is the sole independent claim on appeal. Claim 18 is
reproduced below (emphasis added):
18. A method for managing the renewal of subscriptions for
the parking of vehicles in a geographical area where parking is
controlled through paystations installed in the street within the
geographical area, the method comprising steps of:
- providing said paystations installed in the street, which
are constructed and arranged to allow selecting a parking period
and paying parking fees corresponding to the parking period
selected,
- allowing a user to subscribe to a subscription contract
with a parking management operator to permit parking of at least
one vehicle for a first specified period within the geographical
area without requiring a paystation in order to obtain a parking
ticket when parking in that geographical area,
- storing identification data for the subscriber and the at
least one vehicle in a central server,
- determining a means for identifying the subscription
contract for renewal purposes and recording the means for
identifying the subscription contract for renewal purposes in the
central server's database, for renewal of the subscription for a
further parking period, the method also comprising the following
steps:
- using the identification means, identifying the subscriber
at one of the paystations installed in the street,
- renewing the subscription parking period by updating
the central server's database via the paystation installed in the
street communicating with the server using the identification
means.
2
Appeal2014-005402
Application 11/628,676
REJECTIONS
Claims 18, 23, 25, 26, 31, 32, and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Chatterjee (US 2004/0068433 Al, pub.
Apr. 8, 2004) and Dee (US 2002/0008639 Al, pub. Jan. 24, 2002).2
Claims 19-22 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Chatterjee, Dee, and Bashan (US 5,339,000, iss.
Aug. 16, 1994).
Claims 27-30 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Chatterjee, Dee, and Goodman (US 2002/0087395 Al,
pub. July 4, 2002).
ANALYSIS
Claim 18
Appellants argue that neither Chatterjee nor Dee "nor any proper
combination thereof discloses or suggests a method in which a user
subscribes to a subscription contract to permit parking for a specified period
without requiring a pay station, and renews the subscription parking period
by updating the central server's database via the pay station." (Appeal
Br. 7 .) Moreover, Appellants argue, "Chatterjee cites among its purported
advantages that it is not necessary to provide street side pay stations as
recited by claim 18." (Id.)
2 In view of the rejections made in the Office Action at pages 3-13, we treat
the statement that only claims "18, 25, 26, 31, 32 are rejected" under
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Chatterjee and Dee (see Office Action 3) as a
typographical error.
3
Appeal2014-005402
Application 11/628,676
Chatterjee discloses "[a] parking system for enabling centralized
parking reservation, payment and enforcement, comprises a central
computer communicating with user terminals and service terminals over a
data network." (Chatterjee, Abstract.) Chatterjee discloses registering with
the system as well as paying "using a variety of web-enabled user
terminals." (See Chatterjee i-fi-144, 51-52.) Chatterjee also discloses
accessing the system using a phone through voice portal 21. (Id. i154.)
The "examiner interprets the customer's access terminal [of
Chatterjee] which allows the user to remotely process a parking payment
transaction as the paystation of the present invention[]." (Non-final
Action 4.) But, the Examiner also finds that "Chatterjee does not
specifically disclose a paystation installed in the street." (Id. at 7.) The
Examiner then looks to Dee.
Dee discloses "[a] parking payment system with each user having a
communications device to communicate with a central processing center. A
reference identifier is located on or within the vehicle to be parked." (Dee,
Abstract.)
The Examiner finds that
"[t]he user communications means can communicate with the
central processing means or the parking meter to provide the time
to the relevant parking meter monitoring its corresponding
vehicle in said parking space. The user communication means
can add extra time with respect to the parking meter by updating
the central processing means or the parking meter during the
time period of the activation of time of the parking meter." ...
It therefore would be obvious to replace the voice terminal in
Chatterjee (unit 21) with the user communications means of Dee
to teach a paystation installed in the street since the user
communications means of Dee teaches remote processing and
updating of a parking transaction with a street parking meter.[]
4
Appeal2014-005402
Application 11/628,676
(Non-final Action 9, citing Dee i-f 120, emphasis added; see also id. at 7-8,
citing Dee i-f 3.)
Chatterjee discloses that multiple types of communication devices can
be used to access its parking system, e.g., a personal computer, notebook,
laptop, wireless phone (with web browser), and standard phone through
voice portal 21. (See Chatterjee i-fi-1 52, 54.) Dee also discloses that multiple
types of communication devices can be used to access its parking system,
e.g., a computer terminal, a mobile phone, and a landline phone. (See Dee
i-f 96.) Dee further discloses that one can communicate with the parking
system by communicating with the parking meter. (See, e.g., id. i-f 120.) In
further support of the Examiner's finding that Dee discloses communication
with the parking meter, we note that Dee specifically discloses that the
parking meter may "credit the parking location accounting system with
payment received by the parking meter from the reference identifier" and
may also "credit the parking meter \'l1ith credit from the user communication
means." (Id. i-f 33.)
If a person of ordinary skill can implement a predictable
variation,§ 103 likelybars its patentability. For the same reason,
if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person
of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve
similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious
unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill.
KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007). Including the
parking meter of Dee in the types of communication devices that can
communicate with the parking system of Chatterjee is a predictable variation
whether replacing one of Chatterjee's communication devices, i.e., voice
portal 21, or adding it as an additional device.
5
Appeal2014-005402
Application 11/628,676
Appellants also argue that even if one replaced "the voice terminal of
Chatterjee with the 'user communication means' of Dee," it would not result
in the "method as recited in claim 18 on appeal in which a user subscribes to
a subscription contract to permit parking for a specified period without
requiring a pay station, and renews the subscription parking period by
updating the central server's database via the pay station." (Reply Br. 2.)
However, Appellants do not persuasively argue why the Examiner
erred in finding that Chatterjee discloses the allowing step of claim 18. (See
Non-final Action 4--5.) And, in view of the above, we are not persuaded that
the Examiner erred in finding that the renewing step of claim 18 would have
been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in view of the combination of
Chatterjee and Dee.
Therefore, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 18.
Claims 19-22 and 24
Appellants argue that claims 19-22 are rejected in the same rejection
as claim 18 and that the Examiner "gives no reason as to why the rejection is
considered to apply to" claims 19-22. (Appeal Br. 7-8.) We disagree. The
Examiner only rejects claims 23, 25, 26, 31, 32, and 34 in the same rejection
as claim 18. (See Non-final Action 3-13.)
Claims 19-22 and 24 are rejected under§ 103(a) in view of
Chatterjee, Dee and Bashan. (Non-final Action 13-16.) Although
Appellants address claims 19-22 and 24 under a separate topic heading in
the appeal brief, Appellants do not present separate arguments for the
patentability of claims 19-22 and 24, except as to their dependence on
6
Appeal2014-005402
Application 11/628,676
claim 18. (Appeal Br. 8.) Therefore, for the reasons discussed above, we
are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 19-22 and 24.
Claims 27-30 and 33
Appellants argue "that Goodman discloses a prepaid parking system
using a multi-part ticket 100 including at least an admittance portion 110 and
a prepaid parking portion 150 (paragraph [0034]; figure 1). Therefore,
Goodman does not disclose or suggest a method for managing the renewal
of subscriptions for the parking of vehicles." (Appeal Br. 8.)
Appellants' argue Goodman by itself, i.e., not in combination with the
other cited prior art references. However, the test for obviousness is not
what any one reference would have suggested, but rather what the combined
teachings would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re
Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981). The Examiner relies on Goodman
in combination with Chatterjee and Dee. (See Non-final Action 16-18.)
Therefore, Appellants' argument is not persuasive of error.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejections of claims 18-34 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)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
7