Ex Parte CANORA et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 29, 2016

13092370 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 29, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/092,370 04/22/2011
63652 7590 03/31/2016
DISNEY ENTERPRISES, INC.
c/o Marsh Fischmann & Breyfogle LLP
8055 East Tufts A venue
Suite 450
Denver, CO 80237
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
DAVID J. CANORA
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.
10-DIS-251-PR-US-UTL 6421
EXAMINER
WU,YICUN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2158
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/31/2016 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):
PTOMail@mfblaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DAVID J. CANORA, CHRISTOPHER JAMES PURVIS,
and
BRIAN J. WILSON
Appeal2014-003623
Application 13/092,370
Technology Center 2100
Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, JOHN F. HORVATH, and
KEVIN C. TROCK, Administrative Patent Judges.
KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1, 3-16, and 18-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
Appeal2014-003623
Application 13/092,370
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' invention is directed to "managing distribution of
entitlements, such as personalized or enhanced experiences at a destination
such [as] a theme park" (Abstract) "to more effectively personalize each
person's visit to the destination" (Spec. i-f 1 ).
Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is exemplary of the subject
matter on appeal.
1. A computer program product including non-transitory
computer useable medium and computer readable code
embodied on the non-transitory computer useable medium for
managing distribution of entitlements, such as personalized or
enhanced experiences at a destination, the computer readable
code comprising:
computer readable program code adapted to cause a
computer to effect receiving a request for experience state
management services from an experience system, the request
defining an experience provided by the experience system and
an identifier for a visitor;
computer readable program code adapted to cause the
computer to effect accessing from memory an experience state,
associated with the identified visitor, including a set of eligible
experiences and a ranked order for receiving the eligible
experiences;
computer readable program code adapted to cause the
computer to effect generating a response to the experience
system indicating whether the visitor is eligible to receive the
defined experience based on the set of eligible experiences in
the experience state and the ranked order for receiving the
eligible experiences; and
computer readable program code adapted to cause the
computer to effect, in response to feedback relative to
distribution of the defined experience to the visitor, updating
the experience state to modify the ranked order,
wherein the modifying of the ranked order comprises
lowering a ranking of the defined experience relative to other
2
Appeal2014-003623
Application 13/092,370
experiences in the set of eligible experiences when the feedback
indicates the defined experience was distributed to the visitor.
REFERENCES and REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 3-16, and 18-20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as anticipated by Redmann (US 7,212,983 B2, May 1, 2007) (Final
Act. 4).
ANALYSIS
Appellants contend Redmann does not show or suggest generating a
response to the experience system indicating whether a visitor is eligible to
receive the defined experience based on a set of eligible experiences in an
experience state and a ranked order for receiving the eligible experiences
and modifying the ranked order by lowering a ranking of the defined
experience relative to other experiences in the set of eligible experiences
when the feedback indicates the defined experience was distributed to the
visitor, as claimed (App. Br. 8).
The Examiner finds Redmann teaches changing the user access level,
thus meeting Appellants' claim limitation of modifying an experience
ranking (Final Act. 3). Appellants argue Redmann does not teach such
modifying; rather, in Redmann, "a visitor's preferences that were provided
to build an itinerary are not changed after the visitor goes to each listed
attraction, and the itinerary is not modified after an attraction is visited"
(App. Br. 12). That is, in Redmann, the user access level can be changed
without modifying the experience ranking (id.). The Examiner makes no
finding that the user access level is a component of Redmann' s experience
ranking, or that it would have been obvious to a person of skill in the art to
3
Appeal2014-003623
Application 13/092,370
include the user access level as a component of Redmann' s experience
ranking, so that changing the former would necessarily modify the latter.
Therefore, on the record before us, we do not sustain the Examiner's
rejection of independent claims 1 and 14, and dependent claims 3-8, 15, 16,
and 18-20, as anticipated by Redmann. 1
Separately argued independent claim 9 recites "providing a response
to the experience-generating system based on the combined prioritized list of
experiences, whereby an order of the visitors in the group is defined for
receiving the experience provided by the experience generating system."
Appellants contend "Redmann fails to teach that an order is ever
determined in which members of a group will receive an experience" as the
party profile in Redmann is not used to order visitors "(let alone 'based on
the combined prioritized list of experiences' as called for in claim 9)" (App.
Br. 1 7). That is, in Redmann, the entire party is treated as a single entity and
not a combined prioritized ordered list indicating who in the party gets the
experience (App. Br. 18).
The Examiner finds Redmann discloses an "order of visitors could be
between VIP and regular visitors group" (Final Act. 3; Redmann, col. 27,
lines 5-20 and col. 7, lines 55---67) and "within the party, members can take
1 The Examiner may wish to consider whether claim 1 is directed to
non-statutory subject matter as software per se under 35 U.S.C. § 101, as
claim 1 merely recites computer readable program code. The most recent
Office guidance on § 101 is found in "2014 Interim Guidance on Patent
Subject Matter Eligibility," 79 Fed. Reg. 74618 (Dec. 16, 2014), which
supplements the "Preliminary Examination Instructions in view of the
Supreme Court Decision in Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank
International, et al.," Memorandum to the Examining Corps, June 25, 2014.
4
Appeal2014-003623
Application 13/092,370
turns, and thus this maybe [sic] considered as order" (Ans. 6; Redmann, col.
6, lines 39--40).
As Appellants contend, claim 9 requires the order of the visitors in the
group be determined based on the prioritized list of user experiences.
Moreover, as noted above, the Examiner makes no finding that the user's
experience access level (i.e., the distinction between VIP and regular
visitors) is a component of Redmann's ranking or prioritizing of user
experiences, or that it would have been obvious to a person of skill in the art
to include the user access level as a component of Redmann' s ranking or
prioritizing of user experiences. Thus, on the record before us, we do not
sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claim 9, and dependent
claims 10-13, as anticipated by Redmann.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 3-16, and 18-20 is
reversed.
REVERSED
5