Ex Parte Shepherd et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJan 15, 201411517943 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 15, 2014) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte ANN ELIZABETH SHEPHERD, THOMAS H. LAYTON, MICHAEL WILLIAM XENAKIS, CHARLES NORMAN MCCULLOUGH, JOCELYN COLLINS MORNEAU, and SCOTT MCCARTHY ____________________ Appeal 2011-012460 Application 11/517,943 Technology Center 3600 ____________________ Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, HYUN J. JUNG, and NINA L. MEDLOCK, Administrative Patent Judges. PER CURIAM. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2011-012460 Application 11/517,943 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 1, 3-6, and 18-30.1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). The claimed invention relates to a method for verifying that a user had purchased or used a good or service when accepting the user’s evaluation of that good or service (Spec., para. [0001]). Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A method of verifying a transaction evaluation comprising: providing a user with rating information based at least in part on one or more verified evaluations for a plurality of restaurants; receiving a transaction request from the user, wherein the transaction comprises a restaurant reservation for one of the plurality of restaurants; receiving a verification of the user’s utilization of a good or service from a restaurant corresponding to the restaurant reservation, wherein the verification of use is received from the restaurant, wherein the verification of the user’s utilization comprises a confirmation that the user was seated at the restaurant associated with the restaurant reservation; determining that the user is qualified to provide an evaluation based at least in part on the verification; receiving the evaluation from the qualified user; and determining updated rating information based at least in part on the received evaluation from the qualified user, wherein the qualified user is only allowed to provide an evaluation once for the verification of use. 1 Our decision will refer to the Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“App. Br.,” filed March 11, 2011) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed July 25, 2011), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed May 26, 2011). Appeal 2011-012460 Application 11/517,943 3 Claims 1, 4-6, 18, 19, and 21-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Ragsdale-Elliott (US 2002/0147647 A1, pub. Oct. 10, 2002), Chen (US 6,741,969 B1, iss. May 25, 2004), and Official Notice. Claims 3 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Ragsdale-Elliott, Chen, and Visconti (US 6,876,973 B1, iss. Apr. 5, 2005). We AFFIRM. ANALYSIS We are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in finding claim 1 obvious in view of a combination of Ragsdale-Elliot, Chen, and Official Notice (App. Br. 4-7 and Reply Br. 4-10). After carefully considering Appellants’ arguments, we agree with, and adopt the Examiner’s fully responsive findings and rationales, as set forth at pages 4-7 and 14-21 of the Answer. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). We also sustain the rejection of claims 18 and 19, which stand or fall with claim 1.2 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii). Claims 3-6 and claims 20-30 ultimately depend from claims 1 and 19, respectively. Appellants do not present any arguments for the separate patentability of these dependent claims. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s rejections of claims 3-6 and 20-30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). 2 Appellants argue independent claims 1, 18, and 19 as a group (App. Br. 4-7). Appeal 2011-012460 Application 11/517,943 4 DECISION The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1, 3-6, and 18-30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) are affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1). AFFIRMED llw Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation