Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport Board

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 15, 2020

2020000641 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 15, 2020)

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. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
15/339,532 10/31/2016 John M. Parrish DALL16-00020 1805
23990 7590 06/15/2020
DOCKET CLERK
P.O. DRAWER 800889
DALLAS, TX 75380
EXAMINER
CHEN, WENREN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3689
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/15/2020 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):
munckwilson@gmail.com
patents@munckwilson.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte JOHN M. PARRISH, KELLY C. TUGGLE,
and STEPHEN SHAFFER
____________

Appeal 2020-000641
Application 15/339,532
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before NORMAN H. BEAMER, ADAM J. PYONIN, and
GARTH D. BAER, Administrative Patent Judges.

PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s rejection. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies DALLAS/FORT WORTH
INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT BOARD as the real party in interest. Appeal
Br. 2.
Appeal 2020-000641
Application 15/339,532

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
The application is directed to “supporting compliance with
customs/border requirements” (Spec. ¶ 4) using a “portable device [that] . . .
indicates whether [a] traveler is allowed to pass a customs/border
enforcement area or is required to enter the customs/border enforcement area
for additional processing.” Spec. ¶ 5. Claims 1, 3–6, 8, 10–13, 15, 17–20,
and 22–30 are pending; claims 1, 8, 15, 22, 25, and 28 are independent.
Appeal Br. 24–37. Claim 15 is reproduced below for reference (emphasis
added):
15. A non-transitory computer readable medium containing
instructions that, when executed by at least one processor of a
portable device, cause the at least one processor to:
receive first information associated with a traveler at the
portable device, wherein the first information comprises
information from a passport of the traveler, a photograph of the
traveler, and travel-related information associated with the
traveler;
initiate wireless transmission of at least a portion of the
first information to an external system associated with a customs
or border enforcement agency;
receive, from the external system in response to the at least
portion of the first information, second information associated
with a first receipt and third information associated with a
second receipt, wherein the first receipt comprises a disposition
code that indicates whether the traveler is allowed to pass a
customs or border enforcement area or is required to enter the
customs or border enforcement area for additional processing,
and wherein the second receipt indicates whether the traveler is
allowed entry into a prioritized screening area at a security
checkpoint;
present the disposition code on a display of the portable
device when the traveler is located at a kiosk or egress point of
the customs or border enforcement area, wherein the presented
Appeal 2020-000641
Application 15/339,532

3
disposition code is machine-readable at the kiosk or egress point
of the customs or border enforcement area; and
present the second receipt on the display of the portable
device after the traveler leaves the customs or border
enforcement area and the traveler is located near the security
checkpoint, wherein the second receipt is machine readable at the
security checkpoint to enable entry into the prioritized screening
area at the security checkpoint.

Rejections
Claims 1, 4–6, 8, 11–13, 15, 18–20, and 22–30 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Molloy (US 2010/0051679 A1;
Mar. 4, 2010), Whitehouse (US 2014/0279648 A1; Sept. 18, 2014), Yepez
(US 2013/0027187 A1; Jan. 31, 2013), and “TSA Pre-Check FAQ,” Aug.
12, 2016 (available at https://web.archive.org/web/20160812155229/https://
www.tsa.gov/precheck/faq, Aug 12, 2016) (hereinafter “TSA”). Final
Act. 3.
Claims 3, 10, and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Molloy, Whitehouse, Yepez, TSA, and Ortiz (US
2014/0108263 A1; Apr. 17, 2014). Final Act. 15.

ANALYSIS
Appellant argues that “Molloy discloses a code for a single purpose
— indicating either secondary processing or direct entry. The code does
[not] provide any information regarding a traveler’s access to a prioritized
screening area” as required by the claims. Reply Br. 3 (emphasis omitted),
citing Molloy Abstract, ¶¶ 46–48. Appellant contends that, although
“Molloy generally discloses that ‘an optional further code for secondary
Appeal 2020-000641
Application 15/339,532

4
processing (e.g. agriculture, secondary or cash)’ is printed on the receipt,”
this “optional further code is simply related to secondary processing in the
customs or border enforcement area.” Reply Br. 3 (emphasis omitted),
citing Molloy ¶ 62.
Appellant also argues that TSA’s “Precheck indicator” is not the same
as the claimed “the second receipt received in response to the first
information,” because
the TSA Precheck indicator is information provided by the
airline itself and is thus not received from an external system
associated with a customs or border enforcement agency. TSA
only indicates that “participating airlines” print the TSA
Precheck indicator on the boarding pass.

Reply Br. 4, citing www.tsa.gov/precheck/faq (see “How do I use my known
traveler number?”) (emphasis omitted).
We agree. The Examiner finds that “[b]ased on the broadest
interpretation of the claim limitation,” the “first receipt and second receipt
can be interpreted to be two separate pieces of information received in
response to the information of the traveler and displayed on a single screen
or image, presentable to the user.” Ans. 5. The Examiner further finds that
the TSA Precheck indicator is representative of second receipt
received in response to traveler information provided from the
TSA and used by the airline. Transportation Security
Administration (TSA) is an external system of customs or
border enforcement agency. As shown in TSA under section
“How do I add my KTN [known traveler information] to
previous reservations?”[, t]he traveler receives TSA [P]recheck
indicator in response to the submitted traveler information
enrolled in a CBP trusted traveler program of the TSA. The
same received information associated with the traveler (e.g.
name, photo, passport, etc.) are used for a disposition code (i.e.
Appeal 2020-000641
Application 15/339,532

5
ticket) indicating whether the traveler is allowed to pass a
customs or border enforcement area, which is disclosed in
Molloy.”

Ans. 5–6 (emphasis omitted).
Although the Examiner’s finding indicates the TSA maintains a
database of ‘known traveler information’, the Examiner has not provided a
reason explaining why one skilled in the art would place “on an external
system associated with a customs or border enforcement agency” both the
claimed “second information associated with a first receipt and third
information associated with a second receipt.” See Final Act. 11; Ans. 5.
Further, the Examiner does not provide a rationale for the “external system”
containing both the “second information” and “third information” as recited.
See Final Act. 11. Therefore, we are persuaded the Examiner’s obviousness
rejection is in error. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418
(2007) (To reject a claim under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the obviousness “analysis
should be made explicit.”).
Accordingly, we are constrained by the record to reverse the
Examiner’s obviousness rejection of independent claim 15, as well as
independent claims 1, 8, 22, 25, and 28 commensurate in scope, and all
dependent claims.

Appeal 2020-000641
Application 15/339,532

6
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:

REVERSED

Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 4–6, 8,
11–13, 15,
18–20, 22–
30
103 Molloy,
Whitehouse, Yepez,
TSA
1, 4–6, 8, 11–13,
15, 18–20, 22–30
3, 10, 17 103 Molloy,
Whitehouse, Yepez,
TSA, Ortiz
3, 10, 17
Overall
Outcome
1, 3–6, 8, 10–13,
15, 17–20, 22–30