PATENT OWNER
`
`PATENT OWNER
`EXHIBIT 2011
`
`EXHIBIT 201 1
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER
`EXHIBIT 2011
`
`EXHIBIT 201 1
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
`PO. Box 1450
`Alexandria1 Virginia 22313- 1450
`www.uspto.gov
`
`APPLICATION NO.
`
`
`
`
`
`F ING DATE
`
`FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
`
`ATTORNEY DOCKET NO.
`
`
`
`
`
`CONF {MATION NO.
`
`11/190,633
`
`07/26/2005
`
`Keith R. McNally
`
`1245.001
`
`5285
`
`11/04/2014
`
`7590
`24955
`ROGITMASSOCIATES
`750 B STREET
`SUITE 3 120
`SAN DIEGO, CA 92101
`
`CAMPBELL, SHANNON s
`
`ART UNIT
`
`3628
`
`PAPER NUMBER
`
`
`
`
`NOT *ICATION DATE
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`
`1 1/04/2014
`
`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):
`
`John @rogitz.com
`Jeanne @rogitz. com
`Noelle @ rogitzcom
`
`PTOL—90A (Rev. 04/07)
`
`
`
`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
`
`Claim 77 is illustrative:
`
`time
`and real
`information management
`An
`77.
`synchronous communications system for use with wireless
`handheld computing devices and the internet comprising:
`
`containing
`database
`a master
`a.
`hospitality application (s) and associated data,
`
`at
`
`least
`
`one
`
`configure
`to
`enabled
`software
`application
`b.
`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,
`
`least one Web server enabled by application
`at
`c.
`software to interface with at least one hospitality application
`and its associated data,
`
`to
`enabled
`software
`application
`d.
`hospitality data for display on at least one web page,
`
`configure
`
`e.
`
`an applications programming software interface,
`
`and
`
`a real time application software communications
`f.
`control module with a systemic communications relationship
`comprising:
`
`0
`
`0
`0
`
`0
`
`0
`
`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
`
`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 US. Patent No. 7,069,228
`
`B1, issued June 27, 2006, (hereinafter “Rose”) in View of US. Patent No.
`
`6,415,138 B2, issued July 2, 2002, (hereinafter “Sirola”) further in View of
`
`US. 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 US.
`
`Patent No. 5,991,739, issued Nov. 23, 1999, (hereinafter “Cupps”) or US.
`
`Patent No. 6,594,347 B1, issued July 15, 2003, (hereinafter “Calder”) or
`
`US. 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
`
`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, 11. 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, 11. 25—29). However, the Examiner does not direct our attention to a
`
`4
`
`
`
`Appeal 2012-001503
`Application 11/190,633
`
`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 Oeliker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992). See also
`
`In re Piaseeki, 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
`
`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
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
