Ex Parte Ong et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 30, 2016

13611069 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 30, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/611,069 09/12/2012
110076 7590 09/01/2016
A TMAC Patent Services Ltd.
Attn: Andrew T. MacMillan
7015 Macleod Trail SW, Suite 400
Calgary, AB T2H 2K6
CANADA
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
David T. Ong
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.
GTK0037USAOO 3157
EXAMINER
MURPHY, JOSEPH B
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2435
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/01/2016 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):
atmacmillan@atmac.ca
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DAVID T. ONG and JOSHUA M. WOOKEY
Appeal 2015-003 681
Application 13/611,069
Technology Center 2400
Before KRISTEN L. DROESCH, LARRY J. HUME, and SCOTT E. BAIN,
Administrative Patent Judges.
BAIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
final rejection of claims 1-9 and 11-20. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The disclosed and claimed invention relates to provisioning network
access to guest devices in a hospitality environment, such as a hotel.
1 Appellants identify Guest Tek Interactive Entertainment Ltd. as the real
party in interest. App. Br. 3.
Appeal 2015-003681
Application 13/611,069
Abstract; Spec. il 5. Claims 1, 17, and 20 are independent. Claim 1,
reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed invention:
1. A method of controlling access to
provided over a computer network
establishment, the method comprising:
a network service
of a hospitality
receiving network traffic from a guest device on the
computer network, wherein the guest device is operated by a
guest of the hospitality establishment and is not already
authorized to access the network service;
identifying, according to the network traffic, a guest area
of the hospitality establishment with which the guest device is
associated, wherein the guest area is one of a plurality of
physically separate areas provided by the hospitality
establishment, and assignment of the guest area for guest usage
is managed by a property management system of the hospitality
establishment;
querying a login database to find an unexpired login for
the guest area, the unexpired login indicating that another guest
device associated with the guest area has previously been
granted access to the network service and that an allowed
access duration for the other guest device has not yet expired,
the unexpired login specifying a stored guest identifier
corresponding to information retrieved from the property
management system of the hospitality establishment regarding
a guest of the guest area at a time when the unexpired login
was created;
comparing the stored guest identifier of the unexpired
login with a current guest identifier of the guest area, wherein
the current guest identifier corresponds to information retrieved
from the property management system regarding a current guest
of the guest area; and
automatically allowing the guest device to access the
network service for a remaining portion of the allowed access
2
Appeal 2015-003681
Application 13/611,069
duration of the unexpired login when the stored guest identifier
matches the current guest identifier.
App. Br. 46 (emphasis added).
THE REJECTIONS ON APPEAL
Claims 1-5, 11, 13-17, 19, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Sakata et al. (US 2006/0031436 Al; pub.
Feb. 9, 2006) ("Sakata"), Wang et al. (US 2005/0091539 Al; pub.
Apr. 28, 2005) ("Wang"), and Richardson (US 2009/0138975 Al; pub.
May 28, 2009). Final Act. 11-28.
Claims 6-9 and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Sakata, Wang, Richardson, and Ache et al. (US
2008/0134312 Al; pub. June 5, 2008). Final Act. 29-31.
Claims 12 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Sakata, Wang, Richardson, and Hayashi et al. (US 2013/0074106 Al;
pub. Mar. 21; 2013). Final Act. 31-32.2
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
arguments presented in this appeal. Any other arguments which Appellants
could have made but did not make in the Briefs are deemed to be waived.
See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). On this record, we are not persuaded the
Examiner erred. We adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth in
2 The Examiner also objected to claim 10 as being dependent upon rejected
base claims, but otherwise allowable if rewritten in independent form
including the limitations of the base claims and any intervening claims.
Final Act. 32.
3
Appeal 2015-003681
Application 13/611,069
the rejections from which this appeal is taken and in the Examiner's Answer,
and highlight the following for emphasis.
Appellants argue claim 1 as "representative of [all] the rejected
claims," App. Br. 13, and contend the Examiner erred by finding the prior
art discloses a "stored guest identifier" and "current guest identifier" as
recited in claim 1. Id. Specifically, Appellants contend the surrounding
claim language and Specification indicate these terms correspond to
"information retrieved from the property management system regarding the
guest of an identified guest area," but (contrary to the prior art) at different
times. Id. at 14--15. The Examiner finds the disputed limitations in the
combination of Sakata and Wang. Final Act. 12-13. On the record before
us, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred.
Sakata is directed to systems for provisioning network access to guest
devices in a hospitality environment. Sakata i-fi-19, 20. The Examiner finds
Sakata alone lacks any teaching of comparing a "stored guest identifier"
with a "current guest identifier," Final Act. 12, but finds this teaching by
combining Wang with Sakata. Id. at 12-13. Wang discloses a login method
in which registration information about a user's identity is stored during the
process of registering an initial device. Id. at 13 (citing Wang i-f 47). This
"stored" identifier is compared with a "current" identifier corresponding to a
device attempting access at a later time. Id. (citing Wang i-fi-144, 46);
Ans. 26. The Examiner finds one of ordinary skill in the art would modify
the system of Sakata using the teachings of Wang, in the same field of
endeavor, in order to provide a more efficient authentication system in a
hotel environment. Ans. 13.
4
Appeal 2015-003681
Application 13/611,069
Appellants do not address the foregoing combined teachings, but
rather explain (at length) what each individual reference purportedly lacks.
See, e.g., App. Br. 17-20; 24--28; see also Ans. 5. 3 Because "one cannot
show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where ... the
rejections are based on combinations of references," In re Keller, 642 F.2d
413, 426 (CCPA 1981), Appellants' arguments do not persuade us of error.
Similarly, Appellants argue none of the individual references teach the
limitation "allowing the guest device to access the network service for a
remaining portion of the allowed access." App. Br. 24. The Examiner finds
this limitation by applying the teaching of Richardson to the combination of
Sakata and Wang. Final Act. 14. Richardson teaches an authorization
system in which "reauthorization" for a digital product (including but not
limited to software) permits a user to utilize the product for the remainder of
the license term. Final Act. 14 (citing Richardson i-fi-131, 43). Richardson
further teaches (at i1 45) the system may be "used for security applications"
or "other valuable or important item[ s] as a result of a successful
authorization." Appellants' arguments do not demonstrate error in the
Examiner's finding of the disputed limitation in the combination of
Richardson with Sakata and Wang. See supra (citing In re Keller, 642 F.2d
at 426).
3 For example, Appellants assert "neither Wang nor Richardson even
mentions property management systems [of a hospitality establishment]."
App. Br. 20. The Examiner, however, relies on the combination of these
references with Sakata, which does teach property management systems
(and specifically, provisioning network access to guests in a hospitality
environment). See supra.
5
Appeal 2015-003681
Application 13/611,069
Finally, Appellants summarily contest (with little explanation) the
Examiner's rationale in combining the references. App. Br. 30. We,
however, find the record supports the rationale stated by the Examiner. See
Richardson i-f 45; Final Act. 12-14 (explaining rationale); Ans. 16-18 (again
explaining rationale, and observing "Appellant provides no separate
rebuttals as to [the] Examiner's explicitly cited rationale"). 4
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-5, 11,
13-17, 19, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Sakata,
Wang, and Richardson. We also sustain the rejection of claims 6-9 and 18
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Sakata, Wang, Richardson,
and Ache, and the rejection of claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Sakata, Wang, Richardson, and Hayashi, as neither
rejection is argued separately.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's rejections of claims 1-9 and 11-20.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended. See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
4 Appellants did not reply to the Examiner's Answer.
6