Ex Parte WursterDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJan 15, 201311670680 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 15, 2013) Copy Citation 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. 11/670,680 02/02/2007 Charles Wurster 7577 7590 01/16/2013 Cars To Go, LLC 166 South 222nd Avenue Buckeye, AZ 85326 EXAMINER JUNG, ALLEN J ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3628 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/16/2013 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 CHARLES WURSTER ____________ Appeal 2010-009201 Application 11/670,680 Technology Center 3600 ____________ Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, HUBERT C. LORIN, and BIBHU R. MOHANTY, Administrative Patent Judges. MOHANTY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2010-009201 Application 11/670,680 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE The Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 (2002) of the final rejection of claims 1-7 and 30-48 which are all the claims pending in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2002). SUMMARY OF THE DECISION We REVERSE. THE INVENTION The Appellant’s claimed invention is directed to a system for calculating rates for use of transportation services (Spec. [0002]). Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on appeal. 1. A method of utilizing an electronic transportation service system, comprising: providing an electronic communication link between a transportation resource service provider, transportation resource vendor, and transportation resource user through the electronic transportation service system, the transportation resource user utilizing the electronic communication link to make an inquiry in the electronic transportation service system for a transportation resource having a plurality of attributes, the electronic transportation service system responding with a match for the transportation resource having the plurality of attributes and, [1] if no match is found for the transportation resource having the plurality of attributes, the electronic transportation service system responding with an alternative transportation resource aligned with the plurality of attributes, the transportation resource user selecting a transportation resource to travel from an origin to a destination, the transportation resource being controlled by the transportation resource vendor; [2] selecting a route that the transportation resource must Appeal 2010-009201 Application 11/670,680 3 travel from the origin to a the destination, the transportation resource service provider using the electronic transportation service system to select the route by, (a) measuring a distance that the transportation resource must travel from the origin to the destination (b) estimating time to travel the route based on weather, distance, traffic and road conditions, and (c) accounting for safety factors that adversely influence the travel experience for the transportation resource user over the route; estimating fuel consumption of the transportation resource based on distance and terrain over the route; determining driver compensation in operating the transportation resource to travel the route; and calculating a rate for use of the transportation resource based on travel time, fuel consumption, and driver compensation; wherein transportation resource service provider communicates with the transportation resource vendor via the electronic communication link to authorize dispatch of the transportation resource to the transportation resource user at the origin and travel the route to the destination if the rate is approved by the transportation resource user, the transportation resource service provider coordinating an agreement between first and second transportation resource vendors so that an authorized dispatch to the first transportation resource vendor is transferrable to the second transportation resource vendor and revenue generated from the authorized dispatch is shared between the first and second transportation resource vendors and transportation resource service provider according to the agreement. THE REJECTIONS The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence in support of the rejections: Hileman US 2003/0040944 A1 Feb. 27, 2003 Appeal 2010-009201 Application 11/670,680 4 Manning US 6,604,081 B1 Aug. 5, 2003 McCullough US 6,932,419 B1 Aug. 23, 2005 Greyhound.com, Greyhound Company, found at: http://web.archive.org/web/20051103071732/greyound.com/company (hereafter “Greyhound”). The following rejections are before us for review: 1. Claims 1-7, 30-39, and 41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph. 2. Claims 1-6 and 30-48 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Hileman, Manning, and Greyhound. 3. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Hileman, Manning, and McCullough. FINDINGS OF FACT We find that the findings of fact used in the Analysis section below are supported at least by a preponderance of the evidence:1 ANALYSIS Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph The Examiner has determined that claim 1 is indefinite because while a conditional statement “if no match is found…” is given, the alternative condition, which would be “if a match is found…” is missing from the claim (Ans. 3). In contrast, the Appellant has argued that the claims are not 1 See Ethicon, Inc. v. Quigg, 849 F.2d 1422, 1427 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (explaining the general evidentiary standard for proceedings before the Patent Office). Appeal 2010-009201 Application 11/670,680 5 indefinite and Section 112, second paragraph, does not require the recitation of every operating condition that may be encountered (Br. 13). We agree with the Appellant. The test for definiteness under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, is whether “those skilled in the art would understand what is claimed when the claim is read in light of the specification.” Orthokinetics, Inc. v. Safety Travel Chairs, Inc., 806 F.2d 1565, 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (citations omitted). Here, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand what is being claimed in reference to the limitation “if no match is found…..” and the claim is merely broad and not indefinite. For this reason this rejection is not sustained. Claims 31 and 41 have been rejected for the same reasons and the rejection of these claims is not sustained as well. Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) The Examiner has determined that claim 1 is improper because the prior art cited fails to disclose elements of the following claim limitation from claim 1 (see Brief at 14-17 for arguments): responding with a match for the transportation resource having the plurality of attributes and, [1] if no match is found for the transportation resource having the plurality of attributes, the electronic transportation service system responding with an alternative transportation resource aligned with the plurality of attributes, the transportation resource user selecting a transportation resource to travel from an origin to a destination, the transportation resource being controlled by the transportation resource vendor (claim 1, emphasis added). Here, the cited claim limitation requires that a system first respond with a match for the transportation resource, and if no match is found the system responds with an alternative resource aligned with the plurality of Appeal 2010-009201 Application 11/670,680 6 attributes in some manner. The Examiner has asserted that this is shown in Hileman at paragraph [0032] and Figure 3 (Ans. 4). We disagree with this finding by the Examiner. Hileman at paragraph [0032] does disclose calculating the optimal route for a mode of transportation but it is not specifically disclosed here that this was done because no initial match was found as required by the claim. Figure 3 fails to disclose this cited claim limitation as well. For these reasons, the rejection of claim 1 and its dependent claims is not sustained. Claim 31 contains a similar limitation and the rejection of this claim and its dependent claims is not sustained as well. With regards to claim 41 the Appellant argues that the prior art does not teach or suggest the following claim limitation (see Brief at 27-28): wherein the transportation resource service provider coordinates an agreement between first and second transportation resource vendors so that an authorized dispatch to the first transportation resource vendor is transferrable to the second transportation resource vendor and revenue generated from the authorized dispatch is shared between the first and second transportation resource vendors and transportation resource service provider according to the agreement. (Claim 1). The claim here requires in part that “revenue generated from the authorized dispatch is shared between the first and second transportation resource vendors and transportation resource service provider according to the agreement.” The Examiner has cited to the Greyhound document which shows that the Greyhound Company has four subsidiaries as well as partnerships with companies such as Amtrak (Ans. 7). While we agree with the Examiner’s particular finding that revenue sharing is well known, we do not find the combination of references here to be obvious as asserted at page Appeal 2010-009201 Application 11/670,680 7 7 of the Answer. Here, there is no articulated reasoning with rational underpinnings for the cited combination of Hileman, Manning, and Greyhound and then to further use revenue sharing in the manner claimed without impermissible hindsight. For these reasons the rejection of claim 41 and its dependent claims is not sustained. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW We conclude that Appellant has shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting the claims as listed in the Rejections section above. DECISION The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-7 and 30-48 is reversed. REVERSED mls Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation