Brian Linzie et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Feb 23, 2021

2020004587 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 23, 2021)

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.
13/188,070 07/21/2011 Brian L. Linzie 67471US002 7442
32692 7590 02/23/2021
3M INNOVATIVE PROPERTIES COMPANY
PO BOX 33427
ST. PAUL, MN 55133-3427
EXAMINER
ANSARI, AZAM A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3682
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/23/2021 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):
LegalUSDocketing@mmm.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte BRIAN L. LINZIE and BRIAN E. BROOKS
Appeal 2020-004587
Application 13/188,070
Technology Center 3600
Before JILL D. HILL, LEE L. STEPINA, and ARTHUR M. PESLAK,
Administrative Patent Judges.
HILL, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 3, 4, 7, 8, 10, and 13–15. See Final
Act. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as the assignee, 3M
Innovative Properties Company, which is a wholly owned subsidiary of 3M
Company. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2020-004587
Application 13/188,070

2
BACKGROUND
Appellant’s invention relates to a system and method for transactions-
based content management on a digital signage network. Claims 1, 8, and
13 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below with certain limitations
italicized, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method of determining how effective content of interest
is in influencing viewer behavior using a computer system
having one or more processors and memories, comprising:
displaying, by digital signage, the content of interest
according to a playlist at a location by a content controller
implemented on one of the one or more processors;
receiving as an input a carryover confounding duration
related to how long viewers spend at the location;
recording a data collection start time, by the content
controller, wherein the data collection start time begins after the
content of interest has been displayed for at least the carryover
confounding duration;
after the data collection start time, measuring transaction
data;
wherein in some of the transaction data is indicative of one
or more specified transactions at the location on one of the one
or more processors;
wherein a specified transaction is a transaction related to a
viewer behavior that the content of interest is designed to
influence;
when the one or more specified transactions are at or
above a predetermined level, generating, by the transaction
monitor, a transaction occurrence signal;
sending the transaction occurrence signal to the content
controller;
recording a data collection end time and ceasing to
measure transaction data when the transaction occurrence
signal is received;
changing content displayed on the display according to the
playlist in response to the transaction occurrence signal, by the
content controller; and
Appeal 2020-004587
Application 13/188,070

3
determining an indication of an effectiveness of the
content of interest to influence viewer behavior using the
measured data related to specified transactions collected between
the data collection start time and data collection end time,
wherein the indication of the relative effectiveness of the content
of interest is determined based on a duration between the data
collection start time and data collection end time.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Allan US 7,356,477 B1 Apr. 8, 2008
Brooks US 2009/0012847 A1 Jan. 8, 2009
Opdycke US 2011/0016006 A1 Jan. 20, 2011
REJECTION
Claims 1, 3, 4, 7, 8, 10, and 13–15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Brooks, Allan, and Opdycke.
OPINION
The Examiner finds that Brooks discloses many of the claimed
limitations including “recording a data collection end time and ceasing to
measure transaction data, when the transaction occurrence signal is
received.” Final Act. 6 (emphasis omitted). The Examiner finds that Brooks
teaches this particular limitation in disclosing “recording room upgrades
according to time-slot samples and stopping at 864 time-slot samples in
order to meet accuracy of 99%,” meets this limitation. Id. (citing Brooks
¶ 196). The Examiner finds that Brooks does not specifically disclose
“when the one or more specified transactions are at or above a
predetermined level, generating, by the transaction monitor, a transaction
occurrence signal;” and “changing content displayed on the display
Appeal 2020-004587
Application 13/188,070

4
according to the playlist in response to the transaction occurrence signal.”
Id. at 8. The Examiner finds, however, that Allan generates these limitations
in disclosing a position system recognizing busy time based on the number
of transactions crossing a predetermined threshold for a given time period,
and selecting different advertisements upon detection of a busy time. Final
Act. 8–9 (citing Allan 17:18–30). The Examiner concludes that it would
have been obvious to add Allan’s threshold determination to Brooks’
method, because “it is desirable to use criteria of a transaction to determine
what advertisement is displayed at the transacting POS location.” Id. at 10
(citing Allan, 1:41–43).
The Examiner also finds that Opdycke relates to a “specified
transaction,” and concludes that it would have been obvious to add
Opdycke’s specified transaction to Brooks’ method to provide marketers
with “an ability to systematically and quantitatively test content, media
scheduling parameters, measure audience behavior, and optimize messaging
efficacy with respect to digital signage networks.” Final Act. 11 (citing
Opdycke ¶ 8).
Appellant argues, inter alia, that the independent claims each require
that a data collection end time is recorded when a signal is received (claims
1 and 8) or when a predetermined level is reached (claim 13). Appeal Br.
10. According to Appellant, because Brooks predetermines when data
collection will end, neither Brooks, nor the other asserted references, suggest
recording a data collection end time “when the transaction occurrence signal
is received,” as recited in claims 1 and 8, or “when a predetermined level of
one or more specified activities is reached at the location,” as recited in
claim 13. Id. at 11.
Appeal 2020-004587
Application 13/188,070

5
The Examiner responds that Appellant appears to misrepresent
Brooks, and that Brooks discloses “that there are time-slot samples (i.e. TI)
which is a number of transactions logged/bucketed during predetermined
pockets of time (e.g. 25 or 30 min),” and determines how many time slot
samples are needed to conduct a statistically reliable experiment. Ans. 6.
According to the Examiner, in Brooks, “the experiment recorded a data
collection end time of 864 time-slot samples or in other words, it is
determined that 864 time-slot samples are needed to record a statistically
reliable amount of transactions.” Id. (citing Brooks ¶ 198).
Appellant has the better position. Claim 1 recites, inter alia,
“recording a data collection end time and ceasing to measure transaction
data when the transaction occurrence signal is received.” Appeal Br. 15
(Claims App.). Claim 1 recites that the transaction occurrence signal is
generated, “when the one or more specified transactions are at or above a
predetermined level.” Id. Thus, once the threshold is reached, the
transaction occurrence signal is generated, which causes no more data to be
collected, and also provides a time when data collection stopped. The
Specification provides an example, wherein “the data acquisition and
transaction monitor unit 320 notifies the content controller 330 of the
occurrence of a predetermined level of transactions” (generates a transaction
occurrence signal). Spec. 16:7–8. The Specification discloses, for example,
that “[a] predetermined level of transactions is defined as selling 50 chicken
sandwiches.” Id. at 16:14–15. Thus in this example, once 50 chicken
sandwiches are sold, the transaction occurrence signal is generated, which
stops further data collection, and a time at which the data collection stopped
is recorded as the data collection end time. As such, one of ordinary skill in
Appeal 2020-004587
Application 13/188,070

6
the art would understand that there is no set end time; rather, the data
collection end time is determined when the signal is generated, which
happens once a predetermined number of transactions occurs. See Appeal
Br. 11.
In contrast, Brooks discloses that an 18-day period is sampled “to find
a statistically reliable effect” for data relating to room upgrades. Brooks
¶ 198 (30 min time-slot samples times 24 hours per day for 18 days =
2x24x18=864 time-slot samples). Thus, Brooks ends data collection after
864 time-slot samples, regardless of whether 50 or 500 room upgrades are
recorded. Brooks does not end data collection when a predetermined
number of transactions occurs. Although Allan discloses a “predetermined
threshold,” Allan determines whether a “number of transactions per time
period, for example, may cross a predetermined threshold” to establish
“busyness.” Allan, 17:18–22. Allan’s system adjusts the advertising display
“to prevent the display from slowing down transactions at the POS location
and causing customers to wait unacceptably long.” Id. at 17:14–17. Thus,
whereas Allan might determine that 100 customers per hour is a busy hour,
Allan does not distinguish whether 10 customers in 5 minutes would trigger
Allan’s adjustment, or whether 100 customers in the full hour is required.
Allan does not disclose a predetermined amount of customers that trigger
adjustment. Accordingly, the combination of Brooks and Allan does not
suggest recording a data collection end time and ceasing to measure
transaction data when one or more transactions are at or above a
predetermined level, as required by the independent claims. The Examiner
does not rely on the disclosure of Opdycke in any manner that would address
this deficiency.
Appeal 2020-004587
Application 13/188,070

7
For these reasons, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 1, 8, and
13, and claims 3, 4, 7, 10, 14, and 15 depending therefrom, as unpatentable
over Brooks, Allan, and Opdycke.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejection is reversed.
More specifically,
DECISION SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 3, 4, 7, 8,
10, 13–15
103(a) Brooks, Allan,
Opdycke
1, 3, 4, 7, 8,
10, 13–15
Overall
Outcome
1, 3, 4, 7, 8,
10, 13–15
REVERSED