Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport Board

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 16, 2020

2020000684 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 16, 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.
14/491,496 09/19/2014 John M. Parrish DALL16-00009 7108
23990 7590 09/16/2020
DOCKET CLERK
P.O. DRAWER 800889
DALLAS, TX 75380
EXAMINER
CHEN, WENREN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3689
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/16/2020 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 JASON STAUTY
____________

Appeal 2020-000684
Application 14/491,496
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 2020-000684
Application 14/491,496

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
The application is directed to “supporting compliance with
customs/border requirements” (Spec. ¶ 4) using a “kiosk [that] includes a
camera [that] captures one or more images of a traveler” (Spec. ¶ 23).
Claims 1, 3–6, 12–17, 19–25, 27, and 28 are pending; claims 1, 12, and 20
are independent, and claims 2, 7–11, and 18 are canceled. Appeal Br. 20–
28. Claim 1 is reproduced below for reference (emphases added):
1. A system comprising:
a kiosk disposed at a first airport, the kiosk comprising a
passport scanner configured to retrieve passport information
from a passport of a traveler, a camera configured to capture a
first image of the traveler, and a touchscreen configured to obtain
second information associated with the traveler, the kiosk
configured to collect, from a mobile device associated with the
traveler over a wireless communication link, third information
associated with the traveler, wherein the third information
comprises customs declaration information previously input by
the traveler at the mobile device;
a second camera disposed at a customs or border
enforcement area of the first airport, the second camera
configured to obtain a second image of the traveler approaching
or within a specified portion of the customs or border
enforcement area; and
at least one computing device disposed at the first airport,
the at least one computing device configured to receive the
passport information, the first image, the second information,
and the third information from the kiosk, receive fourth
information associated with the traveler obtained from a second
kiosk located at a second airport, provide at least a portion of the
received information to an external customs related computer
system, and receive a disposition code from the external customs
related computer system, wherein the disposition code identifies
whether the traveler is allowed to pass the customs or border
enforcement area, wherein the external customs related computer
Appeal 2020-000684
Application 14/491,496

3
system is communicatively separated from the at least one
computing device by a firewall;
wherein the at least one computing device is also
configured to detect questionable or fraudulent information
among the received information and send an alert to an agent
associated with the customs or border enforcement area without
providing any information to the external customs related
computer system; and
wherein the at least one computing device is also
configured to receive the first or second image, perform facial
recognition to identify the traveler, and provide at least some of
the received information to the agent associated with the customs
or border enforcement area.

Rejections
Claims 1, 3–6, 12–16, 19–24, 27, and 28 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Molloy (US 2010/0051679 A1;
Mar. 4, 2010), Stefani (US 2013/0070974 A1; Mar. 21, 2013), Whitehouse
(US 2014/0279648 A1; Sept. 18, 2014), and Sampigethaya (US
2012/0210387 A1; Aug. 16, 2012). Final Act. 3.
Claims 17 and 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Molloy, Stefani, Sampigethaya, and Casey (US
2012/0203827 A1; Aug. 9, 2012). Final Act. 12.

ANALYSIS
Appellant argues that “none of the references teaches or suggests
information being shared between airports,” and “[a]s for the Examiner’s
assertion that ‘the only way to ensure safety is to screen passengers at
multiple airports and have data available at all of the airports,’ the Examiner
offers no support for this statement.” Reply Br. 2–3. Appellant contends the
Appeal 2020-000684
Application 14/491,496

4
Examiner errs in asserting that “Stefani discloses receiving information from
kiosks located at different airports,” because “Stefani does not contain a
teaching or suggestion that the “passenger tracking environment” can be
applied across travel facilities.” Reply Br. 3. Appellant further contends
that Stefani’s “stated purpose of the passenger tracking environment is to
determine queue time,” and that “[s]haring facial recognition information
between cameras at different airports (as proposed by the Examiner) would
be useless for determining queue time or dwell time at an airport.” Reply
Br. 4; citing Stefani ¶¶ 19–38.
We are persuaded by Appellant’s arguments. The Examiner finds that
“[t]he only way to ensure safety is to screen passengers at multiple airports
and have data available at all of the airports” (Ans. 3) and that Stefani
teaches “the disclosed embodiments may be applied to other travel
facilities” (Ans. 5, quoting Stefani ¶ 54), and that “the system and method
may be applied to other travel facilities is [a] suggestion [] the system and
method is applicable to one or more facilities (i.e. airports).” Ans. 5.
The Examiner further finds that
Molloy also teaches receiving information at kiosks at multiple
airports. In paragraph [0041] of Molloy, “In an alternative
embodiment, kiosks 100 could be placed in the jurisdiction
from which travelers are departing. In this embodiment, the
communications between server 101 and government computer
120 must cross the jurisdictional boundaries. A key advantage
to this embodiment is that if travelers are not permitted entry
into a jurisdiction to which they are attempting to travel to, they
will not be permitted to leave the departing jurisdiction, thereby
avoiding the inconvenience and expense of a later deportation.
Such an embodiment does require close cooperation between
jurisdictions.”
Ans. 5.
Appeal 2020-000684
Application 14/491,496

5
The Examiner’s statement that “the only way to ensure safety is to
screen passengers at multiple airports and have data available at all of the
airports” is not taught or suggested by the references, and the Examiner
provides no evidence to support the assertion. Stefani’s mention of “other
travel facilities” cited by the Examiner is part of a list of various types of
applicable places, such as train stations, bus depots, etc., rather than any sort
of suggestion of sharing safety information between facilities. Stefani ¶ 54.
Further, we agree with Appellant that the text of Stefani suggests
screening at many types of travel facilities, but only to determine
queueing/dwell times at a particular facility, as measuring queueing/dwell
times across multiple facilities does not make sense for Stefani’s intended
use. See Appeal Br. 15. Although the Examiner is correct that Molloy
suggests communication between a government computer and a kiosk
crossing jurisdictional boundaries (see Ans. 5), this arrangement does not
render communication of information obtained from a second kiosk located
at a second airport obvious, because the references do not teach or suggest
information sharing amongst kiosks across airports. See Molloy ¶ 41.
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 1, as well as
independent claims 12 and 20 commensurate in scope, and all dependent
claims.

Appeal 2020-000684
Application 14/491,496

6
DECISION SUMMARY

In summary:

REVERSED

Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 3–6, 12–
16, 19–24,
27, 28
103 Molloy, Stefani,
Whitehouse,
Sampigethaya
1, 3–6, 12–16,
19–24, 27, 28
17, 25 103 Molloy, Stefani,
Whitehouse,
Sampigethaya,
Casey
17, 25
Overall
Outcome
1, 3–6, 12–17,
19–25, 27, 28