`
`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
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, 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
`
`24955
`7590
`ROGITZ&ASSOCIATES
`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 @r0gitz.c0m
`Jeanne @r0gitz. com
`Noelle @ r0gitz.c0m
`
`PTOL—90A (Rev. 04/07)
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`Ex parte KEITH R. MCNALLY
`
`Appeal 2012-001 503
`Application 11/19O,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 U.S. Patent No. 7,069,228
`
`B1, issued June 27, 2006, (hereinafter “Rose”) in View of U.S. Patent No.
`
`6,415,138 B2, issued July 2, 2002, (hereinafter “Sirola”) further in View of
`
`U.S. 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 U.S.
`
`Patent No. 5,991,739, issued Nov. 23, 1999, (hereinafter “Cupps”) or U.S.
`
`Patent No. 6,594,347 B1, issued July 15, 2003, (hereinafter “Calder”) or
`
`U.S. 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 Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992). See also
`
`In re Piasecki, 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