Ex parte Rosenblatt

FILING DATE: 05/09/2011

Before PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, BRUCE T. WIEDER, and KENNETH G. SCHOPFER, Administrative Patent Judges.

DECISION ON APPEAL

WIEDER, Administrative Patent Judge.

Appellant^[1] seeks review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner's final rejection of claims 1-7, 23, 24, 26-31, 38-42, 46, 50, 51, 53-56, and 58-61. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

We AFFIRM.

CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER

Appellant's invention "relates generally to incentives related to events and, more particularly, to providing event-related incentives." (Spec. ¶ 1.)

Claims 1, 23, and 50 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1 is illustrative. It recites:

1. A method comprising

storing an electronic ticket and supplemental data associated with the electronic ticket on a portable electronic device wherein the electronic ticket can be used to gain entry into an event

determining, by a ticket management application on the portable electronic device, that the portable electronic device is currently located at the event associated with the electronic ticket

determining, based on the supplemental data and independent from input, that a particular portion of the event is in [sic] currently in progress; and

in response to determining that the particular portion of the event is currently in progress, presenting, by the portable electronic device, an option to purchase a recording corresponding to the particular portion of the event currently in progress.

REJECTIONS^[2]

Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement.

Claims 1-7, 23, 24, 26-31, 38-42, 46, 50, 51, 53-56, and 58-61 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.

ANALYSIS

The § 112, first paragraph, rejection

The Examiner determines that "claim 1 recites 'determining, based on the supplemental data and independent from input, that a particular portion of the event is in currently in progress.' There is insufficient support for this limitation in the specification." (Final Action 6-7.) Specifically, the Examiner points out that "the claim does not recite 'independent from user input', which is a narrower limitation than 'independent from input'." (Answer 21.)

Appellant argues that "[t]he Examiner misreads the claim. Claim 1 'determin[es], based on the supplemental data and independent from input, that a particular portion of the event is in currently in progress,' where the 'supplemental data [is] associated with the electronic ticket on a portable electronic device.' Claim 1 (emphasis added)." (Reply Br. 6.) Appellant further argues:

The specification describes several example embodiments that use supplemental data stored on an electronic ticket to enable various options that may be available with the associated ticket, including determining that a particular portion of the event is currently in progress. While the options can be accessed by a user through user input, the options provided by the supplemental data, which doesn't rely on user input, can be based on "the starting and ending time of the event, GPS coordinates or other information denoting the location of the event or of certain sub-events at the event, whether a ringtone of the handheld device 40 should be quieted during the event, etc." Specification, [0278] [sic 276].

(Appeal Br. 23 (emphasis omitted).) Appellant also notes that the Specification discloses:

The user may be located, for example, within the GPS coordinates 904-910, indicating that the user is listening to the artist on the side stage 892. Accordingly, the handheld device 40 may display a screen 912, which may state that the concert is underway and may provide the name of the event. The screen 912 may indicate that the user is listening to an artist on a side stage. Further, a user may elect to buy the current song being played on the side stage, as indicated by a button 914labeled [sic] "Buy Current Song."[] Specification, [0329]-[0330] [sic 328].

(Id.)

Claims are construed in light of the specification. In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (quoting In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 833 (Fed. Cir. 1990) ("During examination, 'claims . . . are to be given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, and . . . claim language should be read in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.'")).

Here, the relevant claim language recites "determining, based on the supplemental data and independent from input, that a particular portion of the event is in [sic] currently in progress." Appellant points to no definition or use of the term "independent from input" in the Specification. Applying a broadest reasonable interpretation, we interpret this limitation to include determining, based on the supplemental data and no other input, that a particular portion of the event is currently in progress.

We next look to the term "supplemental data associated with the electronic ticket," as recited in claim 1. The portions of the Specification cited by Appellant disclose that supplemental ticket data, i.e., supplemental data associated with the electronic ticket, may include "starting and ending time of the event, GPS coordinates or other information denoting the location of the event or of certain sub-events at the event, whether a ringtone of the handheld device 40 should be quieted during the event, etc. . . . [T]he supplemental ticket data may additionally include the category of event, artist name, tour title, venue, seating information, and/or hash pertaining to an account . . . associated with the user, etc." (Spec. § 276; see also id. ¶ 327.) In other words, supplemental ticket information includes certain predetermined information about the event and a...