Ex Parte Baranowski

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 28, 2014

11729610 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 28, 2014)

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.
11/729,610 03/28/2007 Robert Baranowski 40002-0014 6587
20480 7590 03/28/2014
STEVEN L. NICHOLS
Van Cott, Bagley, Cornwall & McCarthy
36 South State Street
SUITE 1900
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84111
EXAMINER
VANDERHORST, MARIA VICTORIA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3688
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/28/2014 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte ROBERT BARANOWSKI
____________

Appeal 2011-012575
Application 11/729,610
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, and
THOMAS F. SMEGAL, Administrative Patent Judges.

CRAWFORD, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-012575
Application 11/729,610

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s
final decision rejecting claims 1-23 and 25. We have jurisdiction over the
appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
BACKGROUND
Appellant’s invention is directed to a system and method for
enhancing user experience in a wide-area facility having a distributed
bounded environment.
Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A system for supporting customer use of a wide-area
facility, the system comprising:
a system controller;
wherein said wide-area facility is an amusement or theme
park;
wherein said system controller communicates through a
plurality of transceiver bases distributed throughout or around
said wide-area facility with at least one wireless phone carried
by a customer who is using said wide-area facility;
wherein said system controller transmits information to
said wireless phone about said wide-area facility or about
goods, services, attractions, exhibits or amenities within said
wide-area facility.

Appellant appeals the following rejections:
Claims 1-6, 16-18 and 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Hancock (US 6,202,023 B1; iss. Mar. 13, 2001) and Laval (US
6,173,209 B1; iss. Jan. 9, 2001).

Appeal 2011-012575
Application 11/729,610

3
Claims 7-15 and 19-23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Hancock, Laval, and Gershman (US 6,199,099 B1; iss. Mar. 6, 2001).

ISSUES
Did the Examiner err in rejecting claim 1 because Hancock and Laval
do not suggest a system for supporting a customer use of a wide-area facility
wherein the wide-area facility is an amusement or theme park, and because
there is no rational underpinning to combine Hancock and Laval?
Did the Examiner err in rejecting claim 1 because Hancock and Laval
do not teach or suggest transmitting information to the wireless phone about
a wide-area facility or about goods, services, attractions, exhibits, or
amenities within the wide-area facility?
Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 4 and 7 because Hancock and
Laval do not disclose a system controller that transmits to the wireless phone
the location of the wireless phone and displays the location on an interactive
map?
Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 5 and 18 because Hancock
does not disclose a controller that transmits a wireless phone location of one
or more other wireless phones or other portable devices within the wide-area
facility that are carried by members of a group?

FACTUAL FINDINGS
We adopt all the Examiner’s findings as our own. Ans. 3-7, 9-11.
Additional findings of fact may appear in the Analysis that follows.

Appeal 2011-012575
Application 11/729,610

4
ANALYSIS
We agree with the Examiner’s analysis of the references and
responses to the Appellant’s arguments found in the Answer, and adopt the
analysis and responses as our own. As such, we affirm all the rejections of
the Examiner. We add the following for emphasis only.
We are not persuaded of error on the part of the Examiner by rejecting
claim 1, because Hancock and Laval do not suggest a system for supporting
a customer use of a wide-area facility wherein the wide-area facility is an
amusement or theme park. The recitation that the wide-area facility is an
amusement or theme park is language of intended use because it relates to
the manner in which the system recited in claim 1 is used. The manner or
method in which a machine is to be utilized is not germane to the issue of
patentability of the machine itself. In re Casey, 370 F.2d 576, 580 (CCPA
1967). A statement of intended use does not qualify or distinguish the
structural apparatus claimed over the reference. In re Sinex, 309 F.2d 488,
492 (CCPA 1962). There is an extensive body of precedent on the question
of whether a statement in a claim of purpose or intended use constitutes a
limitation for purposes of patentability. See, generally, Kropa v. Robie, 187
F.2d 150, 155-59 (CCPA 1951) and the authority cited therein, and cases
compiled in 2D. Chisum, Patents § 8.06[1][d] (1991).
We are not persuaded of error on the part of the Examiner by
Appellant’s argument that there is no rational underpinning to combine the
teachings of Hancock and Laval. Laval teaches using a controller 200 that
communicates with a plurality of transceivers 204, 232 in the context of an
amusement park (col. 15, ll. 39-67), and Hancock teaches the use of
controllers and transceivers, the combination of these results would be no
Appeal 2011-012575
Application 11/729,610

5
more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their
established functions. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417
(2007).
More importantly, as we held above, the language of the claims
related to the use of the system in an amusement park is language of
intended use, and therefore does not patentably distinguish the claims. As
such, the reliance on Laval for teaching this subject matter is cumulative in
nature and not necessary for the establishment of obviousness.
We are not persuaded or error on the part of the Examiner by
rejecting claims 4 and 17 by Appellant’s argument that Hancock and Laval
do not disclose a system controller that transmits to the wireless phone the
location of the wireless phone, and displays the location on an interactive
map. Hancock discloses the use of wireless phones, and also discloses that
any wireless communication can be used to provide the wireless
communication feature (col. 24, ll. 60-67). Hancock also discloses that a
web site that provides geographical maps is implemented in connection with
the Hancock system (col. 3, ll. 34-36).
We are not persuaded of error on the part of the Examiner by
Appellant’s argument that Hancock and Laval do not teach or suggest
transmitting information to the wireless phone about a wide-area facility or
about goods, services, attractions, exhibits, or amenities within the wide-area
facility. Hancock discloses that the wireless feature includes a service of
providing the user with information about restaurants, banks, and other
points of interests within a specified distance from the user’s current location
(col. 3, ll. 55-60).
Appeal 2011-012575
Application 11/729,610

6
We are not persuaded of error on the part of the Examiner by rejecting
claims 5 and 18, because Hancock does not disclose a controller that
transmits to a wireless phone a location of one or more other wireless phones
or other portable devices within the wide-area facility that are carried by
members of a group. We agree with the Examiner that the disclosure in
Hancock that individuals on a team could set their navigation systems to
reference a custom grid and other team members could communicate with
each other and reference that communication to a specific location (col. 18,
ll. 7-21).

DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-23 and 25.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1) (2011).

AFFIRMED

hh