Ex Parte Angell et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 28, 2016

11862279 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 28, 2016)

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.
11/862,279 09/27/2007 Robert Lee Angell END920070007US5 9775
37945 7590 11/30/2016
DTTKFW YFF
EXAMINER
YEE AND ASSOCIATES, P.C. BROWN, ALVIN L
P.O. BOX 802333
DALLAS, TX 75380 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3682
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/30/2016 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):
ptonotifs @yeeiplaw.com
mgamez @ yeeiplaw. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ROBERT LEE ANGELL and JAMES R. KRAEMER
Appeal 2014-0085551
Application 11/862,2792
Technology Center 3600
Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, ANTON W. FETTING, and
NINA L. MEDLOCK, Administrative Patent Judges.
MEDLOCK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1—25. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 Our decision references Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“App. Br.,” filed
March 7, 2014) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed July 31, 2014), and the
Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed June 4, 2014) and Final Office Action
(“Final Act.,” mailed December 30, 2013).
2 Appellants identify International Business Machines Corporation as the
real party in interest. App. Br. 2.
Appeal 2014-008555
Application 11/862,279
CLAIMED INVENTION
Appellants’ invention “is directed to a computer implemented method,
apparatus, and computer usable program product for using dynamically
gathered digital video data to generate an optimal marketing strategy to
improve sales based on patterns of events in the retail facility” (Spec. 13).
Claims 1, 14, 21, and 22 are the independent claims on appeal.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative:
1. A computer implemented method for generating an
optimized marketing strategy for improving sales, the computer
implemented method comprising:
identifying an item in a plurality of items selected for
purchase by each customer in a plurality of customers associated
with a retail facility to form a selected item;
identifying at least one item in the plurality of items
selected for purchase by each customer in the plurality of
customers that is related to the selected item to form a set of
related items;
parsing event data associated with the plurality of
customers to identify patterns of events associated with a
selection of the selected item by each customer in the plurality of
customers, wherein the event data comprises metadata
describing events associated with the plurality of customers and
the plurality of items;
parsing the event data associated with the plurality of
customers to identify patterns of events associated with a
selection of at least one item in the set of related items by
customers in the plurality of customers;
identifying, by a processing unit, events in the patterns of
events associated with the selection of the selected item and in
the patterns of events associated with the selection of the at least
one item in the set of related items, wherein the events result in
a purchase of at least one item in the set of related items by the
customers to form optimized events, and wherein the purchase of
the at least one item in the set of related items by the customers
results in an increase in profit or an increase in revenue; and
2
Appeal 2014-008555
Application 11/862,279
generating a marketing strategy using the optimized
events, wherein the marketing strategy comprises a set of
strategies for increasing purchases of items in the set of related
items by the customers.
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 4—14, and 16—24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Huang (US 2008/0004951 Al, pub. Jan. 3, 2008), Miller
(US 2006/0116927 Al, pub. June 1, 2006), and Reich
(US 2011/0004511 Al, pub. Jan. 6, 2011).
Claims 2, 3, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Huang, Miller, Reich, and Walker (US 2009/0198625 Al,
pub. Aug. 6, 2009).
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Huang, Miller, Reich, and Giraud (US 2010/0299210 Al, pub. Nov. 25,
2010).
ANALYSIS
Independent Claim 1 and Dependent Claims 4—13
We are persuaded by Appellants’ argument that the Examiner erred in
rejecting claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because none of Huang, Miller,
and Reich, individually or in combination, discloses or suggest identifying
events common to the selection of a selected item and the selection of at
least one related item where the events result in the purchase of at least one
related item, i.e.,
identifying, by a processing unit, events in the patterns of events
associated with the selection of the selected item and in the
patterns of events associated with the selection of the at least one
item in the set of related items, wherein the events result in a
purchase of at least one item in the set of related items by the
3
Appeal 2014-008555
Application 11/862,279
customers to form optimized events, and wherein the purchase of
the at least one item in the set of related items by the customers
results in an increase in profit or an increase in revenue [,]
as recited in claim 1 (App. Br. 9—14; see also Reply Br. 2—5).
The Examiner acknowledges that Huang and Miller do not disclose
the argued limitation, and relies on Reich to cure this deficiency (Final
Act. 4—5 (citing Reich | 79; claims 1, 34)). However, we agree with
Appellants that there is nothing in the cited portions of Reich that discloses
or suggests correlating events between both a selected item and related
items, as called for in claim 1 (App. Br. 12—14).
Reich is directed to a system and method for combining the delivery
of advertising with weather predictions that are limited in geographical area
and time (Reich, Abstract), and discloses that advertisements are delivered
to a user based on the user’s location and the current weather forecast (see,
e.g., id. 18, 19; see also id., claims 1, 34). Reich discloses at
paragraph 79, cited by the Examiner, that the user’s actual consuming habits
are monitored so that the system knows, in real time, what product was
purchased, the time, the location, and the means of payment, including
whether the customer used a weather related coupon. Yet we agree with
Appellants that there is nothing in paragraph 79, or the other cited portions
of Reich, that discloses or suggests correlating events between a selected
item and related items, as called for in claim 1 (App. Br. 12—14). “Reich
simply retrieves a weather forecast and then makes item suggestions (and
generates coupons) based on the forecast” (id. at 13).
Responding to Appellants’ arguments, the Examiner asserts in the
Answer that Miller, not Reich, is relied on as disclosing related items, i.e.,
“identifying at least one item in the plurality of items selected for purchase
4
Appeal 2014-008555
Application 11/862,279
by each customer in the plurality of customers that is related to the selected
item to form a set of related items” (Ans. 3 (citing Miller | 63)), and that
“Reich reads on appellant’s claimed invention in reference to ‘event data’”
{id. at 4). However, the Examiner does not adequately explain how, and we
fail to see how, the combination of Miller and Reich, alone or in
combination with Huang, discloses or suggests identifying events common
to the selection of a selected item and the selection of at least one related
item where the events result in the purchase of at least one related item, as
called for in claim 1.
In view of the foregoing, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection
of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). For the same reasons, we also do not
sustain the rejection of dependent claims 4—13. Cf. In re Fritch, 972 F.2d
1260, 1266 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (“dependent claims are nonobvious if the
independent claims from which they depend are nonobvious”).
Independent Claims 14, 21, and 22 and Dependent Claims 16—20, 23, and
24
Independent claims 14, 21, and 22 include language substantially
similar to the language of claim 1. Therefore, we do not sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 14, 21, and 22, and claims 16—
20, 23, and 24, which depend therefrom, for the same reasons set forth above
with respect to claim 1.
Dependent Claims 2, 3, 15, and 25
Each of claims 2, 3, 15, and 25 ultimately depends from one of
independent claims 1, 14, and 22. The Examiner’s rejections of these
dependent claims do not cure the deficiency in the Examiner’s rejection of
independent claims 1, 14, and 22. Therefore, we do not sustain the
5
Appeal 2014-008555
Application 11/862,279
Examiner’s rejections of claims 2, 3, 15, and 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
for the same reasons set forth above with respect to the independent claims.
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1—25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
are reversed.
REVERSED
6