Ex Parte Harman

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 6, 2017

13467966 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 6, 2017)

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. 13/467,966 05/09/2012 Brett Harman 118425-001UTL 3711 27189 7590 03/08/2017 PROCOPIO, CORY, HARGREAVES & SAVITCH LLP 525 B STREET SUITE 2200 SAN DIEGO, CA 92101 EXAMINER BUCHANAN, CHRISTOPHER R ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3627 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/08/2017 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): docketing @ procopio .com PTONotifications @procopio.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte BRETT HARMAN Appeal 2014-0099961 Application 13/467,9662 Technology Center 3600 Before PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, BRUCE T. WIEDER, and TARA L. HUTCHINGS, Administrative Patent Judges. HUTCHINGS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1—26. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 Our decision references Appellant’s Appeal Brief (“App. Br.,” filed May 6, 2014) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed Sept. 8, 2014), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed July 7, 2014) and Final Office Action (“Final Act.,” mailed Dec. 30, 2013). 2 Appellant identifies Restaurant Revolution Technologies, Inc. as the real party in interest. App. Br. 2. Appeal 2014-009996 Application 13/467,966 CLAIMED INVENTION Appellant’s claimed invention “relate[s] generally to take-out ordering management, and particularly, to systems and methods for improved management and profitability of take-out ordering.” Spec. 12. Claims 1 and 11 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A system for automated take-out ordering, the system comprising: at least one hardware processor; and at least one executable software module that, when executed by the at least one hardware processor, imports menu data from a restaurant Point-of-Sale (POS) system over at least one network, wherein the menu data comprises a plurality of menu items, generates a menu user interface based on the imported menu data, wherein the menu user interface comprises one or more menu screens, and wherein the one or more menu screens comprise a subset of one or more of the plurality of menu items, receives a selection of at least one menu item from the subset of menu items from a user, determines one or more up-sell options, provides the one or more up-sell options to the user, and sends an order to the restaurant POS system over the at least one network, wherein the order comprises the selected at least one menu item and any of the one or more up-sell options selected by the user. REJECTIONS Claims 1—20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Dev (US 2004/0158499 Al, pub. Aug. 12, 2004). Claims 21—26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Dev and Official Notice. 2 Appeal 2014-009996 Application 13/467,966 ANALYSIS Anticipation Independent Claims 1 and 11, and Dependent Claims 2—10 and 12—20 We are persuaded by Appellant’s argument that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) because Dev does not disclose importing] menu data from a restaurant Point-of-Sale (POS) system over at least one network, wherein the menu data comprises a plurality of menu items, [and] generating] a menu user interface based on the imported menu data, wherein the menu user interface comprises one or more menu screens, and wherein the one or more menu screens comprise a subset of one or more of the plurality of menu items, as recited in claim 1, and similarly recited in claim 11. App. Br. 4—7; see also Reply Br. \—A. The Examiner cites Dev at Figures 10A—10C and 17, and at paragraphs 52, 57, 78, 90, and 92, as disclosing the argued limitations. Final Act. 2. We have reviewed each of the cited portions of Dev. Yet, we find no explicit disclosure regarding importing menu data from a restaurant POS system, as recited in claim 1, and similarly recited in claim 11. Dev relates to automating the ordering and payment process in the quick-serve restaurant industry. Dev. 12. A transaction manager provides an interface between customer touch points (e.g., data-entry terminals) and the point-of-sale (POS) system. Id. ]ff[ 51—52. Menus are defined manually using a unit back office service suite (uBOSS) and/or a regional back office service suite (rBOSS). Id. 1 55 (the uBOSS provides “menu definition and maintenance”), 1 57 (the rBOSS provides “the ability to create and maintain adaptive menus”), 160 (the uBOSS and the rBOSS for defining menus). The transaction manager handles the order processing, including mapping 3 Appeal 2014-009996 Application 13/467,966 order content to POS implementation specific identifiers. Id. 1 69; see also id. at Fig. 7 (depicting one-way communication from the transaction manager 114 to POS system 706, rBOSS and uBOSS providing synchronization data for remote order entry at customer touch points, and POS system 706 sending information to credit authorization service bureau 729). Thus, the cited portions of Dev describe providing information from the transaction manager to the point-of-sale system, and generating menus based on data from the uBOSS and rBOSS. But the Examiner does not adequately support the finding that Dev describes importing menu data from the point-of-sale system, and generating menus from the imported menu data, as required by claims 1 and 11. In view of the foregoing, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) of independent claims 1 and 11. We also do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2—10 and 12—20, which depend therefrom. Obviousness Dependent Claims 21—26 Claims 21—26 each depend from one of claims 1 and 11. In rejecting claims 21—26, the Examiner takes Official Notice that “it is well-known to import data at various intervals and by different means,” and that “[t]he particular details of these features would be matters of design choice.” Final Act. 4. Nonetheless, the rejection still fails to adequately explain how the combination of Dev and Official Notice discloses or suggests importing menu from a restaurant POS system, as recited in claims 1 and 11. Therefore, the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claims 21—26 does not 4 Appeal 2014-009996 Application 13/467,966 cure the deficiency in the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 1 and 11. As such, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of claims 21—26 for the same reasons set forth with respect to the independent claims. DECISION The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is reversed. The Examiner’s rejection of claims 21—26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is reversed. REVERSED 5