Ex Parte Stoffelsma et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 24, 2016

11792008 (P.T.A.B. May. 24, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
111792,008 08/07/2007
27572 7590 05/26/2016
HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, PLC
P.O. BOX 828
BLOOMFIELD HILLS, MI 48303
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Bouke C. Stoffelsma
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.
6281-000049/US/NP 8131
EXAMINER
ORTIZ ROMAN, DENISSE Y
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3627
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/26/2016 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):
troymailroom@hdp.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte BOUKE C. STOFFELSMA and MANFRED FEITER
Appeal2013-007742
Application 11/792,008 1
Technology Center 3600
Before, JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, NINA L. MEDLOCK, and
KENNETH G. SCHOPPER, Administrative Patent Judges.
FISCHETTI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner's
final rejection of claims 1---6, 9, 10, 12, 13, 22, and 25-31. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
SUMMARY OF DECISION
We AFFIRM.
1 Appellants identify MCITY GmbH as the real party in interest. (Br. 3).
Appeal2013-007742
Application 11/792,008
THE INVENTION
Appellants' claims "relate[] to a method for automatically detecting
the use of chargeable means of transport conveying passengers." (Spec. 1 ).
Claim 1 reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on
appeal.
1. A method for automatic detection of a use with costs of a
transport means, the method comprising the steps of:
providing a transport means, wherein at least one
transmitter is located in the area of said transport means, the
transmitter establishing a unidirectional communication link;
providing data telegrams to be emitted by the transmitter,
the data telegrams containing information related to at least one
of fare, price, position data, or time data information;
sending out the data telegrams by said transmitter only
via said unidirectional communication link;
providing a user terminal of a user that does not transmit
to the transmitter, the user terminal having a memory unit to
store data;
storing an algorithm on the user terminal;
storing an electronic ticket in the memOf'f unit, the ticket
being a value representing a money value or a point card value;
receiving the data telegrams from the transmitter with
said user terminal via the unidirectional communication link;
processing the data telegrams by the user terminal,
wherein said processing includes interpreting the data telegrams
for the purpose of determining the fare, wherein said processing
is executed under consideration of only information of the data
telegrams and the algorithm of the user terminal; and
deducting the fare from the value stored in the memory
unit.
2
Appeal2013-007742
Application 11/792,008
THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence of
unpatentability:
Reece
Rebsamen
Ritter
Kimura
us 5,915,214
US 2004/0006512 Al
US 6,888,443 B2
US 7 ,577 ,452 B2
The following rejections are before us for review.
June 22, 1999
Jan. 8,2004
May 3, 2005
Aug. 18, 2009
Claims 1---6, 9, 10, 12, 13, 26, 29, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ritter in view of Reece.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Ritter in view of Reece, further in view of Rebsamen, and further in
view of the Official Notice.
Claims 25, 28, and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Ritter in view of Reece and further in view of Rebsamen.
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Ritter in view of Reece and further in view of Kimura.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. We adopt the Examiner's findings as set forth on pages 2--4 of the
Answer.
2. Ritter discloses
In addition, systems are known for checking
electronically the travel authorization of
passengers. Such a system has been described
among others in patent EP0465456. Trains are
equipped at the doors with appropriate readers in
3
Appeal2013-007742
Application 11/792,008
order to record the ingress and egress of
passengers who have been provided with a
contactless identification element. Travel data
comprising the time of ingress and egress of every
identified passenger are forwarded from the trains
to a central that bills the traveled distance to the
passengers on a monthly basis. The identification
element used has no controls, which greatly
restricts its possible uses. It is for example not
possible to book seats with this system.
(Col. 1, 11. 30-41).
3. Ritter discloses
A software program in the data processing means 2
records the passengers' time of ingress and egress
and determines with it the travel fee to be billed. If
the data processing means 2 are connected with a
location determining device, the users' place of
ingress and egress is preferably also used for
billing. The computed fee can then be billed with
a monthly fee of the transport company or, in a
variant embodiment, it can be debited directly over
said contactless interface from a pre-paid
electronic account in the users' identification
module 40.
(Col. 4., 11. 15-24).
4. Ritter discloses
When the passenger 3 6 is seated at his seat, he can
receive data over the transceivers 31 and have
them reproduced or processed on his personal
terminal 4. The data received can include for
example tourist information, advertising, music,
entertainment programs etc.
(Col. 4, 11. 61---65).
4
Appeal2013-007742
Application 11/792,008
5. Ritter discloses
When the passenger 36 enters the vehicle 35 with
his terminal 4, his identification parameters stored
in the identification module 40 are collected over
said contactless interface 41 and the
transceivers 32 near the doors and transmitted to
the data processing means 2. The passenger's
identification parameters comprise for example his
name, his user number and if necessary the
identification of his home provider.
(Col. 3, 11. 53---60).
6. Reece discloses
The bookings can be made by the passengers in
advance over any sales channel, for example by
telephone, over the Internet, at a counter or with
the method described in patent application
PCT /CH96/00464. The booking details are
preferably stored in a server 7 of the transport
company and are either downloaded in the
identification module 40 or transmitted over the
mentioned radio receiver 21 to the data processing
means 2. If the booking indications are available
in the identification module, the passenger can
read this booking, for example the seat number, on
the display 400 of his terminal 4.
(Col. 4, 11. 45-55).
ANALYSIS
Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because "Ritter generally discloses a bidirectional
information and communication information system for vehicles that
includes a plurality of contactless transceivers oriented in the direction of the
passengers inside of the vehicle" and "there is no teaching, suggestion or
5
Appeal2013-007742
Application 11/792,008
motivation to modify the system of Ritter to use only a unidirectional
communication link" (Appeal Br. 9-10).
We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments here. Appellants'
problem is the breadth of the claims. That is, claim 1 does not define the
user terminal as being outside the area of the transportation means. Thus,
we find no error with the Examiner's mapping (Final Act. 3) of Ritter's
vehicle user terminal to the central data processing means 2 having
receivers 32 which collect data telegrams from the personal terminals 40.
(FF. 3, 4, 6). That the claim recites that the user terminal is "of a user" does
not cause it not to be met by Ritter's computer means 2 because the user in
this case is the owner of the vehicle computer means 2.
Appellants argue,
proper consideration of the Ritter reference as a whole clearly
sets forth that Ritter requires a bidirectional communication
link for the system to operate, as does all of the cited art relating
to the transportation industry. Modifying the system to have
only a unidirectional communication link such that the terminal
does not transmit would at a minimum frustrate the purpose of
the bidirectional based system of Ritter and more particularly
render the system inoperable for its intended purpose. As such,
one of ordinary skill in the art would not look to modify Ritter
in such a manner.
(Appeal Br. 11 (emphasis omitted)).
The Examiner, however, found
Reece in at least column 3 lines 35--45 discloses "Use of one-
way transmission system". It would have been obvious to one
of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify
the transportation system of Ritter and apply the one way
wireless transmission system of Reece, because it would
"provide the advantage that an unlimited number of users may
access the information simultaneously without encountering the
capacity problems that plague two-way wireless
6
Appeal2013-007742
Application 11/792,008
communications" (Reece column 3 lines 35-45). It would also
improve the speed in entrance to the transportation system.
Unidirectional communication links are old and well known in
the communication industry.
(Final Act. 4).
We disagree with Appellants. Here, we find that although the
Examiner's proposal would eliminate certain transmissions from the central
data processing means 2 to the personal terminals 4, the unidirectional
communications link kept in place in the modified Ritter system would still
insure that the essential functions of determining the fare and deducting the
fare from the value stored in the memory unit are maintained. Although we
understand that less critical communications such as, tourist information,
advertising, music, entertainment programs, etc. (FF. 4) would be lost by the
Examiner's proposed combination, we nevertheless find this to be
acceptable given, as the Examiner found, that the resulting device would be
a less complicated device (Answer 4), and yet still perform the essential and
desirable function of fare collection. (See In re Urbanski, 809 F.3d 1237,
1244 (Fed. Cir. 2016)).
Appellants further argue that
[t]he Reece method uses the broadcast one-way communication
link only for providing additional information so that a user can
select a certain provider based upon this information (see
Reece, column 6, lines 35 to 37). It is essential according to the
teachings of Reece to provide the capability to use a set of user-
defined parameters (see Reece, column 3, lines 25 to 32).
Therefore, user manipulation is required.
(Appeal Br. 11 ).
We disagree with Appellants. We find that the Examiner relied on
Reece only for "Use of [a] one-way transmission system" (Final Act. 4
7
Appeal2013-007742
Application 11/792,008
(quoting Reece, col. 3, 1. 40)). We find no error with the Examiner's
reliance on Reece here. Although Reece does disclose using a CPF for
switching wireless communication service providers, it nevertheless
discloses another mode of operation where the "CPF ... analyzes, records,
and formats the service provider information intended for one-way broadcast
before relaying it to base station transmitters 12." (Reece, col. 5, 11. 42--44).
Reece even discloses the reason for such one-way transmission, as,
"allow[ing] the information to be consolidated and broadcast on one channel
using one standard format, thereby simplifying and improving the operation
of the mobile communications devices." (Id. at 45--48). Thus, even
assuming that the one-way transmission mode in Reece is user manipulated,
we find that one having ordinary skill in the art would still look to it for the
purpose of improving efficiency in transmissions.
In view of the foregoing, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of
claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). We also sustain the rejections of
claims 2-5, 9, 12, 22, and 25-27, which are not argued separately except
based on their dependence from claim 1 (Appeal Br. 15).
As to claim 6, Appellants argue that
the sections of Ritter identified by the Examiner in support of
the outstanding rejection are directed to the central processing
means 2 determining the billing requirements and merely
debiting an amount from the user's terminal 4. Ritter is
otherwise silent as to storing the distances covered in
dependence of fare provisions in the form of individual data
sets, as claimed.
(Appeal Br. 13).
We disagree with Appellants. We find that the central processing
means 2 of Ritter "records the passengers' time of ingress and egress and
8
Appeal2013-007742
Application 11/792,008
determines with it the travel fee to be billed." (FF. 1, 2). We thus find that
one having ordinary skill in the art would understand to correlate ingress and
egress data with corresponding distances.
As to claim 10, we are not persuaded that the central data processing
means 2 of Ritter does not store the information required to determine the
fare given that the central processing means 2 of Ritter "records the
passengers' time of ingress and egress and determines with it the travel fee
to be billed." (Id.).
As to claim 13 we are not persuaded that Ritter does not disclose the
claimed geographically limited validity information because Ritter explicitly
discloses booking information, which by definition is geographically based,
contained at the central processing means 2 and compared to the
identification data of the user terminal. (FF. 5, 6).
Appellants' arguments as to independent claims 28, 29, 30, and 31
(Appeal Br. 15, 16) assert nothing more than what was argued for in claim 1,
and thus are deemed unpersuasive for the same reasons set forth above for
claim 1.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
We conclude the Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1---6, 9, 10,
12, 13, 22, and 25-31under35 U.S.C. § 103.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejections of claims 1---6, 9, 10, 12, 13, 22, and 25-31
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) are affirmed.
9
Appeal2013-007742
Application 11/792,008
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). (See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv)).
AFFIRMED
10