Ex Parte LarsenDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardOct 31, 201311786572 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 31, 2013) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte STEVEN J. LARSEN ____________ Appeal 2011-012352 Application 11/786,572 Technology Center 3600 ____________ Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, MEREDITH C. PETRAVICK, and MICHELLE R. OSINSKI, Administrative Patent Judges. CRAWFORD, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2011-012352 Application 11/786,572 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s final decision rejecting claims 1 to 18 and 21 to 37. We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. Claim 1 is illustrative: 1. A method for helping a client check in for a scheduled activity wherein at least first and second subsets of activities occur proximate first and second locations, respectively, the method comprising the steps of: providing a check in resource at the second location for checking clients in for the second subset of activities; associating at least a first electronic kiosk with the first subset activities; positioning the first kiosk at the first location for use by clients to check in for first subset activities; via the first kiosk, receiving identifying information from a first client; identifying at least a first currently scheduled activity for the first client; determining that the first currently scheduled activity is one of the second subset activities; and via the first kiosk, indicating that the first client cannot check in for the first currently scheduled activity via the first kiosk. Appellant appeals the following rejection: Claims 1 to 18 and 21 to 37 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Blom (U.S. 2006/0111941 Al; pub. May 25, 2006). Appeal 2011-012352 Application 11/786,572 3 ANALYSIS The Appellant argues that Blom does not disclose determining that the first currently scheduled activity is one of the second subset of activities as recited in claim 1. We agree. Appellant’s claim 1 recites a method for helping a client check in for a scheduled activity wherein first and second subsets of activities occur proximate first and second locations respectively. Appellant’s Specification states that kiosks are utilized for checking in users and that each kiosk is located proximate to and is associated with locations at which a user can check in for an appointment or activity (para. [0068]; Fig. 1). A user can only check in at a kiosk that is located proximate to the scheduled activity. When a user attempts to check in at a kiosk, the kiosk determines whether the user can check in at the kiosk. Because the kiosks are associated with different locations, the determination of whether the user can check in at a particular kiosk is a determination of whether the user is in the correct location for the appointment or activity (para. [0072]). We find that Blom discloses an automated patient management system. The Examiner relies on paragraphs [0005]-[0006] for teaching the disputed subject matter. We find that these paragraphs of Blom disclose that patients can check in for several services via kiosks. The Blom system established a process for managing waiting lines in any given area. After a user has completed the check in process, the system automatically places the user in the queue that has the shortest wait time. For instance, if a patient comes in for a physical examination and radiological services, the system Appeal 2011-012352 Application 11/786,572 4 determines which queue (physical examination or radiological services) has the shortest wait time and places the patient in that queue. We find that the portion of Blom relied on by the Examiner does not disclose determining if a user can check in according to the location of the kiosk. In fact, the patients in Blom check in before the system makes any determinations. In addition, the determination that is made in the Blom system is not whether the patient is checking into the kiosk at the location associated with the service desired, but rather which queue for services, no matter the location, has the shortest wait for the patient. In view of the foregoing, we will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1. We will also not sustain the rejection as it is directed to the remaining claims because each of the remaining claims requires the step of determining whether the user can check in to a kiosk based on the location of the kiosk. DECISION The decision of the Examiner is reversed. REVERSED hh Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation