Ex Parte Almen et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 25, 201612250974 (P.T.A.B. May. 25, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 12/250,974 10/14/2008 22879 7590 05/27/2016 HP Inc. 3390 E. Harmony Road Mail Stop 35 FORT COLLINS, CO 80528-9544 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Kevin D. Almen 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. 82237931 4765 EXAMINER YOUNG, ASHLEY YA-SHEH ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3623 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/27/2016 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): ipa.mail@hp.com barbl@hp.com yvonne.bailey@hp.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte KEVIN D. ALMEN, RONALD TIPPETTS, PHILLIPS. BURKUM, and DAVID P. MARKEL Appeal2014-002974 Application 12/250,9741 Technology Center 3600 Before HUBERT C. LORIN, BIBHU R. MOHANTY, and BRADLEY B. BAY AT, Administrative Patent Judges. LORIN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE The Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the final rejection of claims 1-21. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2002). SUMMARY OF DECISION We REVERSE. 1 The Appellants identify Hewlett-Packard Development Company, LP, a wholly owned affiliate of Hewlett-Packard Company, as the real party in interest (App. Br. 3). Appeal2014-002974 Application 12/250,974 THE INVENTION Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal. 1. A method for electronically assisting a customer, compnsmg: [ 1] sensing an amount of time a customer is proximate to a display oriented toward products; [2] determining, by a processor, the customer's stage in a product buying cycle based on the amount of time the customer is interested in the display; [3] displaying a level of product detail on the display based on the customer's stage in the product buying cycle; [ 4] changing the display to a subsequent stage in the product buying cycle having increased time and interaction between the customer and the display; and [5] continuing to display, in response to sensing that the customer is no longer proximate to the display and further sensing that another customer is proximate to the display, a level of product detail on the display based on the customer's current stage in the product buying cycle, [ 6] wherein displaying a level of product detail includes integrating spatial indicators into display information on the display, the spatial indicators indicating location of products described in the display. THE REJECTIONS The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence of unpatentability: Collins Looney Sharma US 2005/0198661 Al US 2006/007 4 7 69 A 1 US 7,225,414 Bl 2 Sept. 8, 2005 Apr. 6, 2006 May 29, 2007 Appeal2014-002974 Application 12/250,974 Julien Angell US 2008/0091497 Al US 2008/0249870 Al Apr. 17, 2008 Oct. 9, 2008 Claims 1-3, 6-7, and 12-21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Collins, Julien, and Angell. Claim 4 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Collins, Julien, Angell, and Sharma. Claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Collins, Julien, Angell, and Looney. Claim 8 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Collins, Julien, Angell, and Official Notice. Claims 9-11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Collins, Julien, Angell, Sharma, and Official Notice. ISSUES Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 1-3, 6-7, and 12-21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Collins, Julien, and Angell; claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Collins, Julien, Angell, and Sharma; claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Collins, Julien, Angell, and Looney; claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Collins, Julien, Angell, and Official Notice; and claims 9-11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Collins, Julien, Angell, Sharma, and Official Notice? 3 Appeal2014-002974 Application 12/250,974 ANALYSIS Independent claim 1 includes the limitation [5] continuing to display, in response to sensing that the customer is no longer proximate to the display and further sensing that another customer is proximate to the display, a level of product detail on the display based on the customer's current stage in the product buying cycle. The Examiner found said claim limitation disclosed in paragraphs 13, 15, 16, 18, 26-27, and 30 of Julien (see Ans. 4--5). According to the Examiner, "in light of the broad claim language, Julien reads upon managing the display information (loop policies) in response to the sensing of customer proximity (dwell time and captivity parameters, for example)" (id. at 21). The Appellants contend, inter alia, that Julien does not disclose the "sensing" aspect of limitation [ 5] because "Julien appears to disclose determining a display schedule for advertisements based on a previously performed site survey" (App. Br. 10). The Examiner responds that the "sensing" in limitation [ 5] reads on the site survey (that measures dwell time and captivity parameters) disclosed in Julien because "the claim language of the instant application fails to distinctly claim a 'live sensing' of customer proximity as what appears to be argued" (Ans. 21 ). We agree with the Appellants. We first address the proper interpretation for the disputed claim limitation. Claim 1 requires "[ 1] sensing an amount of time a customer is proximate to a display" and "[5] continuing to display, in response to sensing that the customer is no longer proximate to the display" (emphasis 4 Appeal2014-002974 Application 12/250,974 added). The claim elements "the customer," and "the display" in limitation [5] rely on "a customer," and "a display" in limitation [1] for antecedent basis, respectively. Thus, the plain language of claim 1 requires first "sensing" a customer as being "proximate to a display" and subsequently sensing that the same customer is "no longer proximate" to the same display. Julien discloses in paragraph 26 that a site survey is conducted for a particular venue to measure characteristics for the venue including dwell time and captivity schedules for typical audience members in the venue. Julien further discloses that electronic displays in the venue are programmed with rule sets (including loop policies) based on the characteristics measured by the site survey (see, e.g, Julien i-f 26-27). We see no disclosure in Julien of an electronic display that senses a particular customer being proximate to the display and later senses that the same customer is no longer proximate to the same display as required by claim 1. Therefore, we will not sustain the rejection. Independent claims 12 and 19 contain a similar limitation as claim 1 and are rejected based on the same erroneous findings (see Ans. 7). Accordingly, for the same reasons, we find that a prima facie case of obviousness has not been made out in the first instance for the subject matter of claims 12 and 19. CONCLUSION The rejection of independent claims 1, 12, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Collins, Julien, and Angell is not sustained. The rejections of dependent claims 2-11, 13-18, 20, and 21 are not 5 Appeal2014-002974 Application 12/250,974 sustained for the same reasons given because independent claims 1, 12, and 19 from which they depend are nonobvious. DECISION The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-21 is reversed. REVERSED 6 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation