Ex Parte Ford et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 7, 2013

10064962 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 7, 2013)

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.
10/064,962 09/04/2002 David John Ford 201-1431 7006
28395 7590 03/07/2013
BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C./FGTL
1000 TOWN CENTER
22ND FLOOR
SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238
EXAMINER
ARAQUE JR, GERARDO
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3689
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/07/2013 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 DAVID JOHN FORD, JOHN GARFIELD GRAHAM,
JOSEPH RETZBACH, KENNETH JAMES MCCAFFREY, and
NADINE ANN MOONEY
____________________

Appeal 2011-006277
Application 10/064,962
Technology Center 3600
____________________

Before HUBERT C. LORIN, JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI and
NINA L. MEDLOCK, Administrative Patent Judges.

MEDLOCK, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2011-006277
Application 10/064,962

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

STATEMENT OF THE DECISION
We AFFIRM.1

BACKGROUND
Appellants’ invention relates generally to an online method and
system for advising customers on service needs, facilitating the scheduling
of vehicle service appointments, and checking vehicle service status (Spec.,
para. [0002]).
Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on
appeal:
1. An computer-implemented online vehicle
service method comprising:
receiving, at a DMS or vehicle service
provider computer, a service inquiry wherein the
service inquiry is selected from the group
consisting of: a service request, a scheduled
maintenance request, and a recall request;
receiving, at the DMS or vehicle service
provider computer, input information regarding
potential servicing of the vehicle wherein if the
service inquiry is a service request, the input
information includes information defining vehicle
symptoms pertinent to the service request or if the

1 Our decision will make reference to the Appellant’s Appeal Brief (“App.
Br.,” filed October 25, 2010) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed
February 22, 2011) and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed
December 22, 2010).
Appeal 2011-006277
Application 10/064,962

3
service inquiry is the scheduled maintenance
request or the recall request, the input information
includes a vehicle identification number or the
vehicle make, vehicle model year, and vehicle
model wherein the input information is used to
determine whether service is advised for the
vehicle;
transmitting, from the DMS or vehicle
service provider computer, a plurality of open
appointments, wherein each of the plurality of
open appointments is comprised of a preselected
date and time based on available appointment
dates and times for a vehicle service provider;
instructing display of a plurality of
selectable dates having available times associated
therewith, wherein selection of a selectable date
causes further display of all the available
appointment times on that date in which an
appointment can still be scheduled, in accordance
with instructions received from the DMS or
vehicle service provider computer;
receiving, at a DMS or vehicle service
provider computer, an appointment request relating
to one of the plurality of open appointments; and
storing the requested appointment in a
memory associated with the DMS or in a vehicle
service provider database.

THE REJECTIONS
The following rejections are before us for review:
Claims 1-2, 6-10, 14-15, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Bill Wink Chevrolet
(http://web.archive.org/web/20010408092103/billwinkchevy.com/
index.htm) (hereinafter referred to as “Wink”) in view of Last
(US 2001/0037225 A1, pub. Nov. 1, 2001).
Appeal 2011-006277
Application 10/064,962

4
Claim 9 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Wink in view of Last and further in view of Jim Mateja,
“Monroney Label a Window of Opportunity for Sellers” (hereinafter
referred to as “Mateja”).
Claims 3-5, 16, 17, 19, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Wink in view of Last and further in view of
Blasingame (US 2002/0022975 A1, pub. Feb. 21, 2002).

ANALYSIS
Independent claims 1, 11, and 14

Appellants argue claims 1, 11, and 14 as a group (App. Br. 10-12).
We select claim 1 as representative. The remaining claims stand or fall with
claim 1. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 because neither Wink nor Last discloses or suggests
“instructing display of a plurality of selectable dates having available times
associated therewith, wherein selection of a selectable date causes further
display of all the available appointment times on that date in which an
appointment can still be scheduled, in accordance with instructions received
from the DMS or vehicle service provider computer,” as recited in claim 1
(App. Br. 10-12 and Reply Br. 1-2). The Examiner maintains that the
rejection is proper and cites Figures 2 and 3, paragraph 31, and claim 7 of
Last, as disclosing this limitation (Ans. 7). We agree with the Examiner.
Last discloses a browser-based tee time posting system for use by golf
courses to post available tee times to a tee time reservations hub for
reservation by golfers accessing the hub (Last, Abstract). Last describes in
Appeal 2011-006277
Application 10/064,962

5
paragraph [0031], on which the Examiner relies, a “Time Posting” interface
(shown in Figure 2) that is presented to a golf course user, e.g., a pro shop
employee, for use in identifying and updating available tee times for posting
on the reservation hub. As shown in Figure 2, seven columns of time
representing the seven days of the week are presented. Each column
displays times that are currently posted on the tee time reservations hub, and
indicates whether those times are already reserved; each column also
displays times that may be added to the reservation hub. Next to each tee
time is a checkbox; the course user selects available tee times for posting on
the reservation hub by checking/unchecking the respective boxes (Last,
para. [0032]). A drop-down box also is presented that allows the course user
to switch between different seven-day periods (Last, para. [0031]). Once the
course user is satisfied with the updated posting configuration for the seven-
day period, the changes are posted to the reservation hub (Last,
para. [0033]), and made available to the hub’s golfing users (see, e.g., Last,
para. [0025]).
Appellants argue, with reference to paragraph [0034], that Last
teaches away from displaying all the available appointment times, i.e.,
“wherein selection of a selectable date causes further display of all the
available appointment times on that date in which an appointment can still
be scheduled. . . ,” as recited in claim 1 (App. Br. 10-12 and Reply Br. 1-2).
However, the embodiment described in paragraphs [0034] and [0035] is an
alternative embodiment in which tee times from several golf courses are
displayed on a single screen. That only a subset of available tee times may
be displayed in this embodiment in no way detracts from the disclosure in
paragraph [0031] in which the course user posts all available times for a
Appeal 2011-006277
Application 10/064,962

6
particular date to the reservation hub for reservation by golfers accessing the
hub.
In view of the foregoing, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). We also will sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 11 and 14, which stand or fall with claim 1.

Dependent claims 2-10, 12, 13, and 15-20

Each of claims 2-10, 12, 13, and 15-20 depends from one of
independent claims 1, 11, and 14. Appellants argue the patentability of
dependent claims 2-10, 12, 13, and 15-20 with reference to the arguments set
forth with respect to independent claims 1, 11, and 14. Because we found
those arguments unpersuasive with respect to the independent claims, we
find them equally unpersuasive with respect to the dependent claims.
Therefore, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejections of dependent
claims 2-10, 12, 13, and 15-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-20 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)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

Klh