Ex Parte Prorock

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 15, 2011

10407558 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 15, 2011)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
TJnited States Patent and Trademark Office
Add,&: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P 0 Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www uspto go"
101407,558 0410412003 Thomas Joseph Prorock RPS9-2002-0163US 1 1895
APPLICATION NO.
45219 7590 03/17/2011
Kunzler Needham Massey & Thorpe
8 EAST BROADWAY
SUITE 600
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84 1 1 1
FILING DATE
EXAMINER
OBEID, FAHD A
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
I ARTUNIT I PAPERNUMBER I
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO.
Please find below andlor attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
CONFIRMATION NO.
NOTIFICATION DATE
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
DELIVERY MODE
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
docket @ kunzlerip.com
031171201 1 ELECTRONIC
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04107)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
Ex parte THOMAS JOSEPH PROROCK
Appeal 2010-003048
Application 101407,558
Technology Center 3600
Before ANTON W. FETTING, JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, and
BIBHU R. MOHANTY, Administrative Patent Judges.
FETTING, Administrative Patent Judge.
The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. 5 1.304, or for filing a request for rehearing,
as recited in 37 C.F.R. 5 41.52, begins to run from the "MAIL DATE"
(paper delivery mode) or the "NOTIFICATION DATE" (electronic delivery
mode) shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision.
Appeal 2010-003048
Application 10/407,55 8
Thomas Joseph Prorock (Appellant) seeks review under 35 U.S.C. 5 134
(2002) of a final rejection of claims 1-3, 6, 13, 14, 29, and 30, which along
with claims 4, 5, 7-12, and 15-28 withdrawn from consideration, are the only
claims pending in the application on appeal. We have jurisdiction over the
appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 5 6(b) (2002).
The Appellant invented a way of requesting and providing information
regarding services available within retail establishments (Specification 1:6-
8).
An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of
exemplary claim 1, which is reproduced below [bracketed matter and some
paragraphing added].
1. An apparatus for providing information relating to customer
service, the apparatus comprising:
[I] a plurality of customer service nodes
that have a physical location and
provide a customer with one or more services at the
physical location, and
about which the customer seeks status information;
2 Our decision will make reference to the Appellant's Appeal Brief ("App.
Br.," filed May 28, 2009) and Reply Brief ("Reply Br.," filed October 5,
2009), and the Examiner's Answer ("Ans.," mailed August 4, 2009).
Appeal 2010-003048
Application 10/407,55 8
[2] one or more service finding nodes
configured
to receive status information
about one or more of the plurality of
customer service nodes
from an information source and
to communicate the status information
received from the information source
to the customer,
the service finding nodes
having a fixed physical location and
being operable to request information
pertaining to a service
of a customer service node
of the plurality of customer service
nodes
from the information source,
wherein the service finding node is
fixed relative to each of the plurality of
customer service nodes and
remote from each of the plurality of
customer service nodes; and
[3] the information source
configured
to provide the requested status information
pertaining to the service
of the customer service node
of the plurality of customer service
nodes
to one or more service finding nodes
Appeal 2010-003048
Application 10/407,55 8
requesting the status information
for communication to the
customer,
wherein the information source is configured
to directly receive status information
from at least one customer service
node.
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art:
Ogasawara US 6,123,259 Sep. 26,2000
Per sky US 6,497,362 B2 Dec. 24, 2002
Claims 1-3, 6, 13, 14, 29, and 30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 5 103(a)
as unpatentable over Persky and Ogasawara.
ISSUES
The issue of obviousness turns on whether the art describes service
finding nodes at fixed locations.
FACTS PERTINENT TO THE ISSUES
The following enumerated Findings of Fact (FF) are believed to be
supported by a preponderance of the evidence.
Facts Related to the Prior Art
01. Persky is directed to a wireless handheld terminal for wireless
assistance and maintenance for a self service check-out system.
Persky 1 :8- 11.
Appeal 2010-003048
Application 10/407,55 8
02. Persky controls several checkout service lanes having
processors linked to a local area network (LAN), which is also
linked with a BOSS controller, a Point-Of-Sale (POS) Controller,
and a wireless terminal. The BOSS controller manages database
information for the lanes, i.e., all the information relating to the
security aspects of the products: volume, weight, dimensions, and
the like. Supervisory personnel can update this database either at
the BOSS controller or they can update a copy of the database at a
particular lane. The POS controller manages the point of sale
functions of the lanes, and also manages the pricing database for
products. Persky 3:57 - 4:47.
03. A client application, resident in the wireless terminal and run on
the terminal's processor/controller, performs monitoring and
reporting functions of the lanes. Accordingly, the client
application includes threads of execution for each lane. The client
application also includes multiple threads of execution for
supervisory functions associated with messages received and
displayed on the wireless terminal. The wireless terminal display
screen communicates messages regarding functions requiring
intervention as each occurs at a specific lane. Persky 5:64 - 6: 17.
04. The messages that may be sent to the wireless terminal from the
lanes processors include those messages requiring immediate
shopper assistance, those relaying the status of the lane, and those
reporting conditions of the lane. Shopper assistance messages can
be further broken down into those which require supervisory
personnel presence, and those that may be remotely address. For
Appeal 2010-003048
Application 10/407,55 8
example, messages may be sent to the wireless terminals by the
self-checkout system notifying supervisory personnel that the rear
arch of the security area needs clearing, cash errors in the
dispenser and acceptors including cash full/low conditions,
coupon acceptor is full, shopper in need of assistance for other
reasons, lane is down, lane reset, item not on file, shopper request
for credit/debit/EBT transaction failed before sending, and the
like. Persky 6 5 9 - 7 5 .
05. The wireless terminal may be fixed in position relative to the
lane processors. Persky 6 3 - 5 6 .
Ogasawara
06. Ogasawara is directed to a computer system for locating a
customer's position within a store and displaying product and
location information on a customer operated mobile terminal.
Ogasawara 1 :6- 1 1.
07. Ogasawara describes sending customer status information,
received directly from a customer scanning device, to a POS or
store clerk terminal. Ogasawara 16: 36-47.
ANALYSIS
We are unpersuaded by the Appellant's argument that the art fails to
describe a customer service node about which a customer seeks status
information. As the Examiner found (Ans. 3), Persky's check-out terminals
are such nodes. FF 02. The Appellant contends it is management rather than
customers that use such terminals. Appeal Br. 10. Claim 1 is an apparatus
Appeal 2010-003048
Application 10/407,55 8
claim, and Persky clearly has POS check out terminals that are nodes on a
network about which a party may seek status information. Whether the
party is a customer or a manager is not pertinent to the structure of the
device, and accordingly the party is given no patentable weight. It is the
device structure, not the method of using a device that defines an apparatus.
But even if the party was given patentable weight, the manager is clearly a
customer of the supplier of the terminals. The claim does not specify the
nature of the customer relationship.
We are unpersuaded by the Appellant's argument that the art fails to
describe a service finding node with a fixed location. As the Examiner
found (Ans. 4), Persky's wireless terminals are such nodes, which may be
fixed in position. FF 04 and 05. The Appellant contends this terminal
communicates with management rather than customers. Appeal Br. 10. This
is simply a variation on the argument supra regarding the customer service
nodes and is similarly unpersuasive.
We are unpersuaded by the Appellant's argument that one of ordinary
skill would not have modified Persky to directly receive status information
from a POS terminal. Appeal Br. 11. The Examiner found such direct
reception would offer better customer service and satisfaction. Ans. 5. This
is simply the result obtained by Ogasawara for sending such status
information to a store clerk terminal. FF 07. In knowing the status of who
is using such a terminal, that party using the terminal can be better serviced.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Rejecting claims 1-3, 6, 13, 14, 29, and 30 under 35 U.S.C. 5 103(a) as
unpatentable over Persky and Ogasawara is not in error.
Appeal 2010-003048
Application 10/407,55 8
DECISION
The rejection of claims 1-3, 6, 13, 14, 29, and 30 under 35 U.S.C.
5 103(a) as unpatentable over Persky and Ogasawara is sustained.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this
appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. 5 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
5 1.136(a)(l)(iv) (2007).
AFFIRMED
mev
Address
Kunzler Needham Massey & Thorpe
8 EAST BROADWAY, SUITE 600
SALT LAKE CITY UT 841 1 1