Ex Parte Ben-Ari et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 15, 2016

13057766 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 15, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/057,766 02/07/2011
44696 7590 06/17/2016
DR MARK M, FRIEDMAN
Moshe Aviv Tower, 54th Floor, 7 J abotinsky St.
Ramat Gan, 5252007
ISRAEL
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Ronen Ben-Ari
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.
2736/5 5365
EXAMINER
GARCIA-GUERRA, DARLENE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3683
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/17/2016 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):
patents@friedpat.com
friedpat.uspto@gmail.com
rivka_f@friedpat.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte RONEN BEN-ARI and AMNON LEVY
Appeal2014-003606
Application 13/057,766
Technology Center 3600
Before EDWARD A. BROWN, GEORGE R. HOSKINS, and
AMANDA F. WIEKER, Administrative Patent Judges.
WIEKER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Ronen Ben-Ari and Anmon Levy ("Appellants") appeal under 35
U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's final rejection of claims 1-3, 6-8, 10-
17, 19, and 22. 1 We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
1 Claims 4, 5, 9, 18, 20, and 21 have been cancelled. Br. 5.
Appeal2014-003606
Application 13/057,766
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The invention concerns a service center for assigning a cab request to
a service provider. Spec., Abstract, 1:22-25. Claims, 1, 15, and 22 are
independent. Claim 1 is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal, and
recites:
1. A super territorial service center for allocating a payable
back travel order to one or more location-related service
providers traveling outside respective local territories, the
service center being a computer server, the service center
compnsmg:
(a) an order interface for receiving at least one service order
including at least one service time related to said service
order, a pick-up location, and a destination location in a
local territory different from said pick-up location;
(b) a service provider interface for receiving data associated with
location and availability of service providers traveling
outside respective local territories, whereas
(i) at least a portion of said data being received from the
ser\rice provider using location and communication
means associated with said service provider
interface; and
(ii) said location and communication means has a status
indicator indicating the availability of the service
provider, whereby the status indicator is frequently
transferred to the service center;
( c) an allocating module for allocating one of said at least one
service order to one of said one or more service providers
in accordance with at least said pick-up location, at least
one service time, and said data associated with location
and availability of service providers traveling outside
respective local territories, said allocating using stepwise
searching of a service provider in a gradually increasing
zone around said pick-up location for; and
( d) said allocating module being configured for stepwise
searching appropriate service provider having a
2
Appeal2014-003606
Application 13/057,766
respective local territory in a gradually increasing zone
around said destination location.
Br. 19, Claims App. (emphases added).
REJECTION
Claims 1-3, 6-8, 10-17, 19, and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Roche (US 2009/0037194 Al, pub. Feb. 5,
2009), Mashinsky (US 2006/0059023 Al, pub. Mar. 16, 2006), Lecouturier
(US 2004/0158483 Al, pub. Aug. 12, 2004), and Smith (US 2008/0228562
Al, pub. Sept. 18, 2008).
ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds that Roche discloses substantially the invention
recited in claim 1. Final Act. 6-9. The Examiner finds that Roche teaches,
inter alia, a service center comprising a service provider interface for
receiving data associated with service provider location and availability. Id.
at 7-8 (citing Roche i-fi-124, 27, 28, claim 21 ). The Examiner finds that
Roche does not teach specifically that the service center receives data from
"service providers traveling outside [their] respective local territories." Id.
at 9 (emphasis omitted). The Examiner finds that Mashinsky teaches a taxi
reservation system that receives location and availability data for service
providers traveling outside their respective local territories. Id. at 10-11
(citing Mashinsky i-fi-121, 24, 33, 39, 55). The Examiner concludes that it
would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify
Roche in view of Mashinsky, which "is merely a combination of old
elements" that perform predictably the same functions they did separately, to
3
Appeal2014-003606
Application 13/057,766
realize "the benefit of allowing car service companies to most efficiently use
the driver's time and fuel and minimize wear on the vehicle ... thereby
increasing profits for the taxi drivers and car service companies." Id. at 12
(citing Mashinsky i-f 33).
The Examiner finds that Roche discloses an allocating module
configured for stepwise searching appropriate service providers having a
respective local territory in a gradually increasing zone. Id. at 9 (citing
Roche i-fi-124, 25, 28). The Examiner finds that Roche does not teach
specifically that the allocating module searches "around said destination
location." Id. at 9-10 (emphasis omitted). The Examiner finds that
Lecouturier discloses a vehicle reservation system having an allocating
module configured for stepwise searching for an appropriate service
provider having a respective local territory in a gradually increasing zone
around a destination location. Id. at 13 (citing Lecouturier i-fi-1 131, 13 5);2
Ans. 42--44 (citing Lecouturier i-fi-1 135, 136). The Examiner concludes that
it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify
the combination of Roche and Mashinsky in view of Lecouturier, which "is
merely a combination of old elements" that perform predictably the same
functions they did separately, to realize "the benefit of allowing car service
companies to most efficiently use the driver's time and fuel and minimize
wear on the vehicle. The combination provides a more comprehensive
method and system by providing the capability of finding the most suitable
service provider to respond to a request." Final Act. 13-14.
2 In their Brief, Appellants note the Examiner's citation to paragraph 35
appears to be a typographical error, and paragraph 135 was intended. Br. 15.
4
Appeal2014-003606
Application 13/057,766
The Examiner finds that Roche discloses that service provider data is
received via location and communication means. Id. at 8 (citing Roche i-fi-19,
18, 21, 25, 27). The Examiner finds that Roche does not teach specifically
that the location and communication means has the claimed "status
indicator." Id. at 9-10. The Examiner finds that Mashinsky discloses
location and communication means having a status indicating the availability
of the service provider, whereby the status is frequently transferred to the
service center (id. at 11 (citing Mashinsky i-fi-121, 24, 39, 55)), and that Smith
discloses a vehicle allocation system teaching a status indicator. Id. at 14--
15 (citing Smith i-fi-14, 7, 19, 34, 37, 74, 76, 121); Ans. 39--42 (citing Smith
i-f 139). The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to a
person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the combination of Roche,
Mashinsky, and Lecouturier in view of Smith, which "is merely a
combination of old elements" that perform predictably the same functions
they did separately, to allow "dispatchers to optimize the service and fleet
utilization as the collection of information on current vehicle status can be
used to provide continual status management to determine and predict future
needs for transportation services and compare the future needs to expected
availability of transportation services." Final Act. 15.
Claim 1
Appellants argue that the preamble of claim 1 is limiting because it is
necessary to give life, meaning, and vitality to the claim; that the terms
"local territory and super territory in the preamble should be construed in
accordance with the specification[];" and that "Roche fails to disclose a
super-territorial service center." Br. 11-12.
5
Appeal2014-003606
Application 13/057,766
Generally, a preamble is not construed as a limitation. Allen Eng 'g
Corp. v. Bartell Indus., Inc., 299 F.3d 1336, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2002). A
preamble is limiting, however, when "it is 'necessary to give life, meaning,
and vitality' to the claim."' Catalina Mktg. Int 'l, Inc. v. Coolsavings. com,
Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 809 (Fed. Cir. 2002). Additionally, "[w]hen limitations
in the body of the claim rely upon and derive antecedent basis from the
preamble, then the preamble may act as a necessary component of the
claimed invention." Eaton Corp. v. Rockwell Int'! Corp., 323 F.3d 1332,
1339 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
Here, Appellants provide no persuasive reasoning as to how the
preamble breathes life, meaning, or vitality to the claim. Appellants merely
make the assertion without substantive discussion. See Br. 11. We note,
however, that the body of claim 1 relies upon the preamble for antecedent
basis support for the term "local territory" or "local territories." See id. at
19, Claims App. Therefore, we conclude that the preamble limits claim 1 to
the extent it requires a service center capable of allocating travel to service
providers travelling outside their respective local territories.
The Examiner finds that the combination of Roche and Mashinsky
renders obvious a service center that allocates orders to a service provider
travelling outside their respective local territory, as claimed. Appellants do
not demonstrate persuasively why the cited prior art fails to satisfy the claim
limitation. Specifically, the Examiner finds that Roche teaches a service
center and that Mashinsky teaches an analogous system for allocating
service orders to service providers travelling outside their respective local
territories. Final Act. 6-12. These findings are supported by a
6
Appeal2014-003606
Application 13/057,766
preponderance of evidence. See Mashinsky i-f 33 ("[S]ystem 100 assists
drivers 120 with the generation of additional income when they travel one-
way over a long distance .... [D]river 120 can indicate their availability
[and if] there is any available passenger 110, the controller communicates
this information to the driver 120 and a paid ride is scheduled for the
driver's return trip.") (emphasis omitted).
Appellants argue that "the service provider's vehicle [requires] a
status indicator of the service provider's [availability] and that indication is
transferred from the service provider to the service center." Br. 12
(emphasis added). Appellants contend that Smith discloses a "status
indicator [that] is created in the service center, and reflects analysis of the
service provider activity made in the service center." Id. (emphasis added).
We are unpersuaded by Appellants' argument. Claim 1 recites, "said
location and communication means has a status indicator indicating the
availability of the service provider, whereby the status indicator is frequently
transferred to the service center." Br. 19, Claims App. Notably, claim 1
does not recite what entity transfers the status indicator to the service center;
the claim requires simply that it be "frequently transferred." Ans. 41--42.
As such, Appellants' argument is not commensurate in scope with claim 1.
Further, Appellants have not shown persuasively that the Examiner
erred in finding that Smith discloses the claimed status indicator. See Final
Act. 14--15. Specifically, Smith discloses an Automatic Vehicle Locator
system (A VL), which includes data fields in which a dispatcher may store
vehicle status information. Smith i-fi-1 7, 7 6. Smith discloses that "[ u ]pdated
status information may be received from vehicles unilaterally at many points
7
Appeal2014-003606
Application 13/057,766
during their performance of assigned duties." Id. i-f 139. Therefore, we
agree with the Examiner's finding that Smith discloses the claimed status
indicator.
Finally, Appellants argue that Lecouturier fails to disclose stepwise
searching appropriate service providers having a respective local territory in
a gradually increasing zone around said destination location. Br. 15-16.
We are unpersuaded by Appellants' argument. The Examiner relies
on Roche, not Lecouturier, as disclosing the claimed stepwise searching in a
gradually increasing zone. See Final Act. 9-10 (explaining that Roche
paragraphs 24, 25, and 28 teach an allocating module configured for
stepwise searching in a gradually increasing zone, but does not teach
searching around a destination location); Ans. 42--44. The Examiner relies
on Lecouturier as teaching a system that searches in a zone around a
destination location. Final Act. 13 (finding that Lecouturier paragraphs 131
and 13 5 teach an allocating module configured for stepwise searching in a
gradually increasing zone around a destination location); Ans. 42--44 ("The
only part of the limitation that was not taught by Roche was that the zone
was around the destination location."). Therefore, Appellants' arguments
are not responsive to the Examiner's rejection.
Furthermore, Appellants do not argue that Roche fails to disclose
stepwise searching in a gradually increasing zone and, accordingly,
Appellants fail to apprise us of error in that regard. See Br. 15-16; see also
Final Act. 9; Ans. 42--43 (explaining that Roche's dispatch center "identifies
one or more taxicabs at or near a vicinity of the communication device,"
such that "the system searches for taxis located at the location of the
8
Appeal2014-003606
Application 13/057,766
communication device ... and then searches for taxis located near a vicinity
of the communication device") (emphases added).
Additionally, Appellants do not argue that Lecouturier fails to teach
searching in a zone around a destination location and, accordingly,
Appellants fail to apprise us of error in that regard. See Br. 15-16; see also
Final Act. 13 (citing Lecouturier i-fi-f 131, 135); Lecouturier i-f 131
("Computer searches for all vehicles heading near passenger destination.").
We also note the Examiner's finding in the Answer, which Appellants have
not disputed, that Lecouturier further discloses stepwise searching in a
gradually increasing zone, as claimed. Ans. 44 (explaining that in
Lecouturier's system, "[i]f no appropriate driver is found in the zone, a
driver is located further away, giving three to five minutes for [the] driver to
reach [the] passenger's location. The system disclosed by Lecouturier starts
off with one driver, then expands the search to include drivers in zones
further away") (citing Lecouturier i-fi-f 135-136).
Accordingly, Appellants fail to apprise us of error in the Examiner's
rejection of claim 1.
Claim 15
For the reasons discussed above with respect to claim 1, we are
unpersuaded by Appellants' argument that Lecouturier fails to disclose
stepwise searching appropriate service providers having a respective local
territory in a gradually increasing zone around said destination location, as
required by claim 15. Br. 16-17. Appellants make no other arguments with
respect to claim 15.
9
Appeal2014-003606
Application 13/057,766
Accordingly, Appellants fail to apprise us of error in the Examiner's
rejection of claim 15.
Claim 22
For the reasons discussed above with respect to claim 1, we are
unpersuaded by Appellants' general argument that the rejection of claim 22
should be withdrawn. Br. 17. Appellants make no other arguments with
respect to claim 22.
Accordingly, Appellants fail to apprise us of error in the Examiner's
rejection of claim 22.
Dependent Claims 2, 3, 6--8, 10--14, 16, 17, and 19
Appellants present no separate argument with respect to dependent
claims 2, 3, 6-8, 10-14, 16, 17, and 19. Accordingly, we affirm the
Examiner's rejection of those claims.
DECISION
The rejection of claims 1-3, 6-8, 10-17, 19, and 22 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) is 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).
AFFIRMED
10