Ex Parte Adelberg et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Nov 1, 2018

12603809 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Nov. 1, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/603,809 10/22/2009
22434 7590 11/05/2018
Weaver Austin Villeneuve & Sampson LLP
P.O. BOX 70250
OAKLAND, CA 94612-0250
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Bradley Scott Adelberg
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
ZOOMP003 7253
EXAMINER
COLLINS, MICHAEL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3651
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/05/2018 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):
USPTO@wavsip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte BRADLEY SCOTT ADELBERG, WALTER DAVID
GOWER SMITH, JAMES HENRY HATTON,
SABARIVASAN VISWANATHAN, and
STEVEN CRAIG LUSARDI
Appeal2017---009830
Application 12/603,809
Technology Center 3600
Before BENJAMIN D. M. WOOD, JILL D. HILL, and JEREMY M.
PLENZLER, Administrative Patent Judges.
HILL, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Bradley Scott Adelberg et al. ("Appellants") 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C.
§ 134(a) from the Examiner's non-final decision rejecting claims 1-18, 20,
and 31-35. 2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
1 The real party in interest is MIHI LLC according to the Appellants.
Appeal Br. 3.
2 Claims 21-30 have been withdrawn from consideration. Appeal Br. 19-
21 (Claims App.).
Appeal2017---009830
Application 12/603,809
We REVERSE.
BACKGROUND
Independent claim 1, the sole independent claim on appeal, is
reproduced below, with certain limitations italicized.
1. A data center supporting a network system for
vending products to customers from a plurality of vending
stores each comprising a computer system and an interface for
communicating with the data center over the network system,
the data center comprising:
one or more data stores for storing inventory information
corresponding to inventory in the plurality of vending stores,
wherein the inventory is owned by one or more brand owners,
one or more modules for receiving the inventory
information from the plurality of vending stores and processing
the inventory information to control inventory in the plurality of
vending stores, the one or more modules configured to provide
a first brand owner access to the inventory information
associated with the inventory owned by the first brand owner,
wherein the one or more modules are configured to be operated
by a vending store operator, and wherein the vending store
operator is not the first brand owner, and
a network interface for connecting to the network system,
wherein the data center is configured to connect to
network interfaces of the plurality of vending stores over a
network,
wherein the data center is configured to deliver inventory
management information to each of the plurality of vending
stores for displaying on user interfaces of the plurality of
vending stores, and
wherein the data center is configured to provide the one
or more brand owners an application to remotely configure a
plurality of product presentations for a plurality of products
located within the plurality of vending stores, the data center
being configured to provide the plurality of product
presentations to the plurality of vending stores for display at the
2
Appeal2017---009830
Application 12/603,809
plurality of vending stores, wherein a product presentation for
a product is provided for display at a vending store responsive
to a request to display a product information page for the
product, the request being received via the user interface of the
vending store.
REJECTION
I. Claims 1-18, 20, and 31-35 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ I02(b) as anticipated by Feeney (US 2002/0032582 Al, published March
14, 2002). Non-Final Act. 3.
ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds that Feeney discloses the claimed subject matter
including, inter alia, a data center supporting a network system for vending
products to customers from a plurality of vending stores (medical office
system 10), the data center comprising: one or more data stores ( central
servers 30) for storing vendor store inventory information, the inventory
being "owned by one or more brand owners (see paragraph [0195])", and
the data center being "configured to provide the one or more brand owners
an application (see paragraphs [0282]) to remotely configure a plurality of
product presentations ( eCOUPONS) for a plurality of products located
within the plurality of vending stores ( see 'the specific medication being
dispensed' in paragraph [0285])," and being configured to provide the
product presentations (i.e., eCoupons) to the vending stores 10 for display
thereat, in response to "a request to display a product information page for
the product (2114)," that is "received via the user interface of the vending
store (see Figure 21)." Non-Final Act. 4--5.
3
Appeal2017---009830
Application 12/603,809
According to the Examiner, when Feeney's user sends a command to
dispense medication that has an associated eCoupon at step 2106 of Figure
21, a drug utilization review is conducted and, if there are only minor/rare
interactions, a highly conspicuous warning (i.e., a product information page)
is displayed with the eCoupon (i.e., a product presentation). Non-Final
Act. 3. The Examiner thus finds that Feeney's eCoupon meets the claimed
"product presentation" limitation, and Feeney's highly conspicuous warning
meets the claimed "product information page" limitation. See id.
Appellants argue that, even if the Examiner is correct that Feeney's
highly conspicuous warning is a product information page, and Feeney's
eCoupon is a product presentation, the relationship between Feeney's
eCoupon and its highly conspicuous warning is not the same as the claimed
relationship between the "product presentation" and the requested "product
information page." Appeal Br. 13. Independent claim 1 recites the product
presentation being provided for display responsive to a request for a product
information page, and Feeney's eCoupon is not provided in response to a
request for a highly conspicuous warning. Id. at 12. Instead, Appellants
contend, when a medication is about to be dispensed at a physician office,
the front office server 12 ofFeeney's medical office system 10 sends a
request to the central server 30 to check for the appropriate eCoupons to
provide when dispensing the patient's medication. Id. (citing Feeney
,r,r 284--285).
Feeney discloses eCoupons being "pushed to the care provider at the
time of dispensing a patient's product." Feeney ,r 284. Further, in the
example of targeted eCoupon delivery in Feeney, before medication is
dispensed, the central server "receives a request to check the database for
4
Appeal2017---009830
Application 12/603,809
any appropriate eCoupons" for the medication being dispensed. Id. at ,r 285
( emphasis added). The origin of this request is not specified.
The Examiner responds that Feeney's eCoupon (the product
presentation) is "'provided for display' (printed) 'responsive to a request to
display a product information page,"' and appears to be finding that
Feeney's request is met by its decision at step 2110 of Figure 21 of "whether
to issue eCOUPON with warning or not issue eCOUPON." Ans. 9.
Step 2110 ofFeeney's Figure 21 is described as follows:
If there are no severe interactions, the subsystem determines
whether there are possible minor or rare interactions 2110.
When there are possible minor or rare interactions, the
marketing subsystem can issue an eCoupon with highly
conspicuous warnings 2114 for the doctor and patient. If there
are no minor or rare interactions, then the eCoupon can be
simply issued 2112 to the doctor and patient.
Feeney ,r 288.
Thus, in Feeney's targeted eCoupon delivery, a request for eCoupons
is sent to the central server. The Examiner finds that Feeney's eCoupon is a
"product presentation," and that Feeney's central server is a data store for
storing vendor store inventory information. Independent claim 1 recites the
product presentation being provided for display is responsive to a request for
a product information page. What is missing from the Examiner's findings
is the request for a product information page. We agree with Appellants'
argument that Feeney's eCoupon is not a product information page. The
Examiner appears to agree, finding that the claimed "product information
page" is met instead by Feeney's highly conspicuous warning. Because
Feeney never sends a request for a highly conspicuous warning, anticipation
has not been established.
5
Appeal2017---009830
Application 12/603,809
To the extent that the Examiner is contending that Feeney's request
for an eCoupon and subsequent printing of an eCoupon with a highly
conspicuous warning in some way teaches or suggests the claim limitation,
such a contention is not sufficiently explained by the Examiner. For these
reasons, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1 as anticipated by Feeney.
Claims 2-18, 20, and 31-35 depend directly or indirectly from claim 1,
containing all of the limitations thereof. We do not sustain the rejection of
the dependent claims for the same reasons.
DECISION
We REVERSE the rejection of claims 1-18, 20, and 31-35 as
anticipated by Feeney.
REVERSED
6