Philippe ROY et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardNov 19, 2020

2020000847 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 19, 2020)

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. 11/557,507 11/08/2006 Philippe ROY 13695-22us PTN/df 1641 20988 7590 11/19/2020 NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT CANADA LLP 1, PLACE VILLE MARIE SUITE 2500 MONTREAL, QUEBEC H3B 1R1 CANADA EXAMINER MINCARELLI, JAN P ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3627 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 11/19/2020 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): NRFCUSPTOMAIL@nortonrosefulbright.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte PHILIPPE ROY and BRUNO PAILLARD ____________ Appeal 2020-000847 Application 11/557,507 Technology Center 3600 ____________ Before HUBERT C. LORIN, ANTON W. FETTING, and ROBERT J. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges. LORIN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant1 seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Final Rejection of claims 1, 3, 4, 12, 15–23, and 26–30. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2002). We REVERSE. 1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies D-Box Technologies Inc., as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 3. Appeal 2020-000847 Application 11/557,507 2 THE INVENTION The claimed subject matter “relates to movie theater entertainment and, more particularly, to a method for selling seats in movie theaters combined with the use of actuated seats” (Spec. para. 1). Claim 1 is illustrative, and is reproduced below: 1. A method for operating seats in a movie theater, the seats being actuatable to provide movement in synchronization with a motion picture having a feature-length presentation, comprising the steps of: operating a control interface centrally controlling a plurality of the actuated seats individually; centrally receiving access data confirming that access is sold for a portion of said seats in said first screening room at a base price per seat added to an actuated-seat premium; selectively actuating only said portion of said seats in said first screening room from said access data with centrally-sent motion signals while said motion picture is projected in the first screening room, the centrally-sent motion signals causing only said actuated portion of said seats to be individually actuated by electrically-operated linear actuators connected directly to the actuated seats to provide movement in synchronization with the motion picture; selectively non-actuating a remainder of said seats with said centrally-sent motion signals while said motion picture is projected based on said centrally received access data; and centrally receiving management signals from any individual one of the actuated seats on the control interface to confirm actuation of said portion of said seats, the management signals including fault information data issued by the individual one of the actuated seat. (Claims App. 16). Appeal 2020-000847 Application 11/557,507 3 REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date Watkins US 5,015,933 May 14, 1991 Tewksbury US 2003/0113094 A1 June 19, 2003 Cabebe US 2004/0004376 A1 Jan. 08, 2004 Hammonds US 2009/0205908 A1 Aug. 20, 2009 Gurule US 8,827,709 B1 Sept. 09, 2014 Harrington, J., “Proposal for $1 theater wins teen a Scholarship,” Knight Ridder Tribune Business News. Washington: April 25, 2006, pg. 1; ProQuest ID: 1028026911. (“Harrington”) Business Wire, “Ultimate Game Chair Introduces The Most Luxurious and Exciting Gaming Experience at E3 Expo in Los Angeles; Ultimate Chair To Revolutionize Video–Gaming Experience,” New York, May 12, 2004, pg. 1; ProQuest ID: 635945161. (“Business Wire’) THE REJECTIONS The following rejections are before us for review: 1. Claims 1, 3, 4, 12, 15–20, 23, and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Watkins, Cabebe, and Hammonds. 2. Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Watkins, Cabebe, Hammonds, and Harrington. 3. Claims 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Watkins, Cabebe, Hammonds, and Business Wire. 4. Claims 26–28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Watkins, Cabebe, Hammonds, and Gurule. 5. Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Watkins, Cabebe, Hammonds, Tewksbury. Appeal 2020-000847 Application 11/557,507 4 ANALYSIS The rejection of claims 1, 3, 4, 12, 15–20, 23, and 29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Watkins, Cabebe, and Hammonds. Claims 1, 15, and 23 are the independent claims. Claim 1 recites selectively actuating only said portion of said seats [i.e., “seats in a movie theater, the seats being actuatable to provide movement in synchronization with a motion picture having a feature-length presentation to move in synchronization with a motion picture” (claim 1, preamble)] in said first screening room from said access data [access data confirming that access is sold for a portion of said seats in said first screening room at a base price per seat added to an actuated-seat premium” (claim 1)] with centrally-sent motion signals while said motion picture is projected in the first screening room, the centrally- sent motion signals causing only said actuated portion of said seats to be individually actuated by electrically-operated linear actuators connected directly to the actuated seats to provide movement in synchronization with the motion picture. Claims 15 and 23 contain similar limitations. As the Appellant points out, said limitation calls for “sending centrally-sent motion signals causing only the portion of the seats to move in synchronization with a motion picture.” App. Br. 9. At issue is whether the combination of Watkins and Cabebe renders obvious said claim limitation. The Examiner’s position is that Watkins “teaches operating a control interface centrally controlling a plurality of the actuated seats.” Ans. 5 (citing Watkins, 3:1–4). Regarding the “centrally-sent motion signals causing only said actuated portion of said seats to be individually actuated” (claim 1), the Examiner contends that Watkins further teaches selectively actuating the seats in the first screening room from the access data with centrally sent motion signals while said motion picture is projected in the first screening room, the Appeal 2020-000847 Application 11/557,507 5 seats individually actuated by actuators connected directly to the actuated seats to provide movement in synchronization with the motion picture. … Regarding that the seats can be "selectively actuated," see Watkins column 3, lines 20 - 30, stating that "Active local control of each motion base by the motion base controller allows local deactivation of a motion base without affecting the other motion bases," showing selective actuation of only a portion of the seats during the presentation. Id. 5–6. However, according to Appellant, Watkins does not disclose centrally-sent signals actuating individual seats as claimed. See App. Br. 9 (“While a patron may be able to locally disable an individual motion base in case of an emergency ([Watkins] Col. 5, ln. 19-23), this local control is not based on centrally received access data and is not controlled by a central controller.”) The Examiner appears to concede that Watkins fails to disclose centrally-sent signals actuating individual seats. While Watkins teaches centrally-sent motion signals that actuate the seats to move in synchronization with the movie, Watkins fails to expressly teach centrally receiving access data confirming that access is sold for a portion of said seats in said first screening room at a base price per seat added to an actuated-seat premium and then sending centrally-sent motion signals causing only said actuated portion of said seats to be actuated as well as that the remainder of the seats are selectively non-actuated with said centrally-sent motion signals while said motion picture is presented based on said centrally received access data. In other words, Watkins fails to expressly teach that there is a portion of the seats in the theater that will move with the movie because a seat premium was paid and a portion of the seats that will not move because a premium was not paid. Ans. 6. In that regard, the Examiner relies on Cabebe. As the Examiner correctly states: Appeal 2020-000847 Application 11/557,507 6 Cabebe [ ] discloses that a controller centrally receives the access data confirming that access to a seat was sold, and selectively non- actuates the unassigned chairs with centrally sent motion signals based on centrally received access data (See Cabebe paragraph 0013, stating that "[a]n activation brought about by central control can activate only a particular massage chair as it is assigned or chosen by the premium patron, as the case may be," showing centrally receiving access data confirming payment of the premium, i.e., based on centrally received access data regarding whether the premium for moving was paid/selected). Further, Cabebe discloses the actuation only of those seats for which the premium is paid (See Cabebe paragraph 0020, stating that "Only premium patrons should be able to sit at the massage chairs ... Restriction without the need of additional manpower can be realized by a well managed activation process."). Finally, Cabebe discloses the ability to actuate seats individually, i.e., the centrally-sent motion signals causing only said actuated portion of said seats to be actuated (See Cabebe paragraph 0022, stating that "Activation may be brought about by ... a central control which activates a seat as the particular seat number is taken by a premium patron."). Ans. 7. It is not disputed that Cabebe discloses centrally-sent signals actuating individual seats; that is, “a central control [ ] activates a seat as the particular seat number is taken by a premium patron” Cabebe, para. 22. The question is whether one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to modify Watkins so as to include Cabebe’s centrally-sent signals actuating individual seats and thereby reach “centrally-sent motion signals causing only said actuated portion of said seats to be individually actuated” (claim 1) as claimed. According to the Examiner, “it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the Watkins Appeal 2020-000847 Application 11/557,507 7 system to include the central payment verification and individual seat actuation features from Cabebe, such that each motion base controls a single seat, activated when the premium is paid (or not actuated, as the case may be).” Ans. 8. In support of said modification, the Examiner reasons that it would yield an "[e]fficiency of operation of the actuation and control system to provide minimum cost to the operator is required" (Watkins column 2, lines 28 - 31), and central control of individual seat actuation will greatly reduce the amount of operator effort needed since the combination will enable a single controller to uniquely instruct every connected seat. Furthermore, this combination will "ensure that only premium paying patrons, patrons that pay a higher entrance fee, can sit and use the ... chairs" (Cabebe paragraph 0011). Id. The Examiner also adds that Watkins “teaches centrally receiving data regarding whether individual seats can be actuated” (citing Watkins, 4:65– 67 and 3:9–16) and “Cabebe teaches providing seats in a movie theater that can be individually actuated or not based on signals sent from a central controller as well as that the signals can actuate only the seats for which the premium has been paid”. Id. Appellant disagrees, arguing that Cabebe discloses a central controller is limited to turning on and off select massage chairs and patrons controls the massage operation of the massage chairs with a control device. For example, Cabebe states that: "Activation by central control requires an operator who will activate a massage chair as it is assigned or chosen by a premium patron depending upon the process implemented by the theater owner or operator. [ ... ] During the entire period of activation, the massage chair can be turned off or on at will at any time interval desired, resumed anytime during the duration of activation, and the type of chosen massage functionality and enhancement can likewise be changed at the discretion of the premium patron." [emphasis added] (para. [0022]) Appeal 2020-000847 Application 11/557,507 8 In other words, the actuating of a massage chair by the central controller does not include any signals conveying information for the movement of the chair, let alone to control movement of only a portion of the chairs in synchronization with the motion picture. Cabebe thus does not teach “(iii) sending centrally-sent motion signals causing only the portion of the seats to move in synchronization with a motion picture”. App. Br. 9–10. Appellant also points out that “Watkins is directed to an entertainment theater for amusement parks where all of the seats move to provide an amusement park ride type experience (e.g., see Background, Abstract and Col. 14, In. 9-17 of Watkins). A skilled person would not consider modifying the control signals to the seats in Watkins to control only a portion of the seats centrally because the purpose of the entertainment theater in Watkins is to move all of the seats.” Id. at 10. Thus, the skilled person would find no reason to arrive at the subject matter of selectively actuating only a portion of seats, based on centrally received access data, with centrally-sent motion signals that cause only the portion of said seats to move in synchronization with the motion picture from Watkins and Cabebe. Id. We have reviewed the prior art and find that Appellant has the better argument. It is not disputed that Watkins fails to expressly disclose centrally-sent signals actuating individual seats as claimed. And it is not disputed that Cabebe expressly discloses centrally-sent signals actuating individual seats. It would have been obvious to actuate individual seats of Watkins via centrally-sent signals given Cabebe. Appeal 2020-000847 Application 11/557,507 9 But the claimed process does not simply send centrally-located signals in order to actuate individual chairs. Claim 1 requires that the centrally-sent signals actuate the individual seats so as “to provide movement in synchronization with a motion picture having a feature-length presentation to move in synchronization with a motion picture.” Modifying Watkins to include Cabebe’s centrally-sent signals would not lead one to provide such a movement to the individual seats. This is so because, as Appellant points out, Cabebe’s centrally-sent signals simply turn the massage chairs on and off. See Cabebe, para 22. Watkins already provides centrally-sent motion signals – but to actuate a plurality of seats so as to move them in synchronization with a movie. Cabebe would be lead one use centrally-sent signals only to turn the individual Watkins seats on or off. Cabebe’s centrally-sent signals would not cause the individual Watkins seats “to move in synchronization with a motion picture” (claim 1). The combination of Watkins and Cabebe would yield a system whereby (a) a centrally-sent signal actuates a plurality of seats so as to move them in synchronization with a movie and (b) another centrally-sent signal actuates individual seats so as to turn them on or off. The combination of Watkins and Cabebe is insufficient to reach the claimed use of centrally-sent signals to actuate an individual seat of a plurality of seats in order to move it in synchronization with a movie. The Examiner provides reasons why one of ordinary skill in the art would use centrally-sent signals to actuate an individual seat of Watkins plurality of seats in order to move it in synchronization with a movie. For example, the Examiner contends that “it will ‘ensure that only premium paying patrons, patrons that pay a higher entrance fee, can sit and use the ... Appeal 2020-000847 Application 11/557,507 10 chairs’ (Cabebe paragraph 0011).” Ans. 8. While this would motivate one of ordinary skill in the art to use Cabebe’s centrally-sent signals to actuate an individual seat in Watkins, it does not address the additional requirement that that the centrally-sent signals actuate the individual seat to move it in synchronization with a movie. Only Watkins provides the ability to synchronize movement of a seat with a movie, but only together with other seats. Cabebe does not change that. Although incorporating Cabebe would provide an additional ability to turn an individual seat on and off, Watkin’s process of employing centrally-sent motion signals to synchronize movement of a plurality of seats with a movie remains unchanged. For the foregoing reasons, we find that the combination of Watkins and Cabebe would not have led a person of ordinary skill in the art to the claimed subject matter. For the foregoing reasons, the rejection of claims 1, 15 and 23 and claims 3, 4, 6, 12, 16–20, and 29 depending therefrom is not sustained. The rejection of claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Watkins, Cabebe, Hammonds, and Harrington. The rejection of claims 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Watkins, Cabebe, Hammonds, and Business Wire. The rejection of claims 26–28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Watkins, Cabebe, Hammonds, and Gurule. The rejection of claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Watkins, Cabebe, Hammonds, Tewksbury. With regard to these rejections, the Examiner does not rely on the additional references (Harrington, Business Wire, Gurule, Tewksbury) to cure the deficiency discussed above. Thus, the rejections of claims 6, 21, 22, Appeal 2020-000847 Application 11/557,507 11 26–28, and 30 are not sustained for the reasons given above for not sustaining the rejection of independent claims 1, 15 and 23 from which they depend. CONCLUSION In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 3, 4, 12, 15–20, 23, 29 103(a) Watkins, Cabebe, Hammonds 1, 3, 4, 12, 15–20, 23, 29 6 103(a) Watkins, Cabebe, Hammonds, Harrington 6 21, 22 103(a) Watkins, Cabebe, Hammonds, Business Wire 21, 22 26–28 103(a) Watkins, Cabebe, Hammonds, Gurule 26–28 30 103(a) Watkins, Cabebe, Hammonds, Tewksbury 30 Overall Outcome 1, 3, 4, 12, 15–23, 26– 30 REVERSED