Ex Parte Angell et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 16, 2016

11861966 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 16, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
11/861,966 0912612007
37945 7590 08/18/2016
DUKEW, YEE
YEE AND AS SOCIA TES, P.C.
P.O. BOX 802333
DALLAS, TX 75380
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Robert Lee Angell
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.
END920070292US 1 9220
EXAMINER
BOSWELL, BETH V
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3623
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/18/2016 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
Appeal2014--001842
Application 11/861,966
Technology Center 3600
Before ANTON W. PETTING, CYNTHIA L. MURPHY, and
MATTHEWS. MEYERS, Administrative Patent Judges.
PETTING, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE1
Robert Lee Angell and James R. Kraemer (Appellants) seek review
under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of a final rejection of claims 1-14, 16-19, and 21-23,
the only claims pending in the application on appeal. We have jurisdiction
over the appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
1 Our decision will make reference to the Appellants' Appeal Brief ("Br.,"
filed July 16, 2013) and the Examiner's Answer ("Ans.," mailed September
18, 2013), and Final Action ("Final Act.," mailed February 20, 2013).
Appeal2014-001842
Application 11/861,966
The Appellants invented a way of processing video and audio data.
Specification para. 2.
An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of
exemplary claim 1, which is reproduced below (bracketed matter and some
paragraphing added).
1. A computer implemented method for determining
profitability of customer groups, the computer implemented
method comprising:
[1] parsing
by the computer
event data
to identify dynamic customer data of customer
behavior at a retail facility,
wherein the event data is derived from a continuous
video stream captured at the retail facility,
and
wherein the dynamic customer data is at least one of
a set of physical patterns of customer behavior
and
a set of observable characteristics of the customer;
[2] combining
by the computer
the dynamic customer data
with
customer profile data
to form dynamic customer profiles;
[3] analyzing
by the computer
2
Appeal2014-001842
Application 11/861,966
the dynamic customer profiles
to identify the customer groups;
and
[ 4] ranking the customer groups
according to profitability of the customer groups.
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art:
Sorensen '028 US 2006/0010028 Al
Sorensen '378 US 2006/0200378 Al
Maga US 2007/0118419 Al
Jan. 12,2006
Sep. 7,2006
May 24, 2007
Claims 1-5, 8-13, 16-19, and 21-23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as unpatentable over Maga and Sorensen '028.
Claims 6, 7, and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Maga, Sorensen '028, and Sorensen '378.
ISSUES
The issues of obviousness tum primarily on whether the art describes the
recited parsing, combining, and analyzing.
FACTS PERTINENT TO THE ISSUES
The following enumerated Findings of Fact (FF) are believed to be
supported by a preponderance of the evidence.
3
Appeal2014-001842
Application 11/861,966
Facts Related to Claim Construction
01. The disclosure contains no lexicographic definition of "parse."
02. The ordinary plain meaning of "parse" in a computer context is
to analyze or separate into more easily processed components. 2
03. The disclosure contains no lexicographic definition of
"metadata."
04. The ordinary plain meaning of "metadata" in a computer
context is to analyze or separate into more easily processed
components. 3
Facts Related to Appellants' Disclosure
05. Dynamic customer profiles are customer profiles associated
with data describing dynamic customer data. Spec. para. 116.
Facts Related to the Prior Art
Maga
06. Maga is directed to analyzing a business's profitability on a
customer-by-customer basis. Maga para. 3.
2 The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition,
2015, Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company
https://www.ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=parse
3 Metadata describes other data. http://techterms.com/definition/metadata
4
Appeal2014-001842
Application 11/861,966
07. Maga describes a profitability data mart at the heart of its
system. The profitability data mart is an optimized database
configured to store all of the customer data, revenue data, cost
data, and operational data necessary to calculate the profitability
of individual customers and to generate the desired reports. Maga
para. 49.
08. Maga describes its customer profitability data mart interfaced
with business operating systems including a customer billing
system, a customer relationship management system, and
accounting systems. Maga para. 12.
09. Maga describes key performance indicators (KPis) relating to
customer profitability generated from the customer profitability
data. Maga para. 49.
10. Maga describes customer attribute data stored in the
profitability data mart. Maga para. 79.
11. Maga describes customer attributes to group customers on
which reports are based. Among those are dynamic attributes
such as usage patterns and profile attributes such as plan
subscriptions or market segments. Maga para. 88-90.
12. Maga describes various reports showing average customer
profitability by different parameters. Maga para. 94--112.
Sorensen '028
13. Sorensen '028 is directed to shopper tracking. Sorensen '028
para. 2.
5
Appeal2014-001842
Application 11/861,966
14. Sorensen '028 describes manufacturers and retailers of goods
desiring accurate information concerning customers' shopping
habits and behavior, in order to more effectively market their
products, and thereby increase sales. Tracking of shopper
movements and behavior in shopping environments is especially
desirable due to the recent development of sophisticated methods
and systems for analysis of such tracking data. Sorensen '028
para. 3.
15. Sorensen '028 describes tracking shopper movements and
habits in a shopping environment with a video-monitored
shopping environment and an associated computer-aided video
tracking system. Sorensen '028 para. 19.
16. Sorensen '028 describes a mapping technician entering
observed behavior, or adding a note about the shopper behavior.
The mapping technician typically follows the path of a shopper on
the screen with the cursor. Periodically--every few seconds or
when specific behavior is observed such as a change in direction,
stopping, looking, touching, purchasing, encountering a sales
agent or any other desired event--the mapping technician may
enter a shopping point, which instantly records the store map
coordinates, time and camera number, and perhaps additionally
providing fields for the mapping technician to input information
such as shopping behaviors that have been observed. Sorensen
'028 paras. 37-39.
6
Appeal2014-001842
Application 11/861,966
17. Sorensen '028 describes a mapping technician entering
observed behavior, or adding a note about the shopper behavior.
The mapping technician typically follows the path of a shopper on
the screen with the cursor. Periodically--every few seconds or
when specific behavior is observed such as a change in direction,
stopping, looking, touching, purchasing, encountering a sales
agent or any other desired event--the mapping technician may
enter a shopping point, which instantly records the store map
coordinates, time and camera number, and perhaps additionally
providing fields for the mapping technician to input information
such as shopping behaviors that have been observed. Sorensen
'028 paras. 37-39.
Sorensen '3 78
18. Sorensen '378 is directed to a marketing analysis system based
upon tracking shoppers and purchases in a shopping environment.
Sorensen '378 para. 2.
19. Sorensen '378 describes a data analyzer that automates the
analysis of a shopper's path and generates data describing shopper
behavior. Sorensen '378 para. 55---68.
ANALYSIS
We adopt the Examiner's findings and analysis from Final Action 7-16
and Answer 14--18 and reach similar legal conclusions.
7
Appeal2014-001842
Application 11/861,966
Claims 1-5, 8-13, 16--19, and 21-23 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Maga and Sorensen '028
We initially find that claim 1 is a method claim of four steps, viz.
parsing event data to identify event data, combining that event data with
profile data to form dynamic profiles, analyzing the dynamic profiles to
identify groups, and ranking groups according to profitability. Dynamic
customer profiles are customer profiles associated with data describing
dynamic customer data. The claim does not recite or narrow any
implementation for such parsing, combining, analyzing, and ranking. The
claim does not recite any manner of determining the profitability data the
fourth step bases its criterion on. The claim does not recite or narrow any
implementation for how customer profiles are associated with data
describing dynamic customer data to tum a customer profile into a dynamic
customer profile, but as the Specification describes, the "combining" recited
in the claims is an equivalent to such association.
Put another way, claim 1 recites
parsing by the computer T to identify X at a retail facility,
wherein the Tis derived from a continuous video stream
captured at the retail facility, and wherein the Xis U;
combining by the computer the X with Z to form Y;
analyzing by the computer the Y to identify the V; and
ranking the V according to W criteria of the V
where
T is labeled event data
U is labeled at least one of a set of physical patterns of customer
behavior and a set of observable characteristics of the customer
8
Appeal2014-001842
Application 11/861,966
V is labeled customer groups
W is labeled profitability
X is labeled dynamic customer data of customer behavior
Y is labeled dynamic customer profiles
Z is labeled customer profile data
Nothing in the claim depends on or enforces the perceptual labels the
claim suggests. Mental perceptions of what data represents are non-
functional and given no weight. King Pharm., Inc. v. Eon Labs, Inc., 616
F.3d 1267, 1279 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ("[T]he relevant question is whether 'there
exists any new and unobvious functional relationship between the printed
matter and the substrate.'") (citations omitted). See also In re Lowry, 32
F.3d 1579, 1583 (Fed.Cir.1994) (describing printed matter as "useful and
intelligible only to the human mind") (quoting In re Bernhart, 417 F .2d
1395, 1399 (CCPA 1969)). Data labels are just examples of such mental
perceptions. Data, being a succession of binary digits, are just those digits,
not perceptual labels of those digits. The binary digits may impose some
functional consequence, but absent some recitation of how so, such
consequence is not an issue. So claim 1, without regard for the meaning of
the assigned labels, is little more than performing
Y =f(X, Z) where X is identified by parsing T
V=g(Y)
Sort V according to W
This set of operations is performed by almost every analytical engine
that searches a joined table (function f on the join of parsed X with Z) and
9
Appeal2014-001842
Application 11/861,966
filters (function g) parsed input data according to criteria and sorts the
results; it is merely the mental perception of the variables that distinguishes
applications. At this level, it is easily seen how the references read on the
actual steps.
But even granting the labels weight, the Examiner finds that Maga
describes all the steps generally, although does so on data that has already
been stored in a database. The Examiner then finds that Sorensen '028
describes analyzing customer behavior as Maga does, but based on video
footage. So the Examiner finds that one of ordinary skill would want to
apply the benefits of Maga's analytical techniques on customer behavior
data to Sorensen '028's video based behavioral data.
Appellants take issue with the recited parsing, combining, and
identifying groups. Br. 9. As no implementation for the parsing is recited,
Sorensen '028's reliance on a mapping technician to insert marks for parsing
is within the claim scope. Such entering of those marks with the computer
are accordingly done "by the computer" as recited in the claim. Maga
describes a more automated form of parsing, albeit on data from a database
rather than a video stream. Sorensen '028 provides the reason for applying
Sorensen '028's video data to Maga as meeting the retailers' need to take
shopper habits and behavior more into account in Maga's customer by
customer analysis to increase sales.
Further, claim 1 does not recite parsing the video data per se, but instead
data that are derived from video data. Thus, ordinary textual parsing of the
data and notes the mapping technician may enter in Sorensen '028's
10
Appeal2014-001842
Application 11/861,966
shopping points, which are derived from the video data, is also within the
scope of the claim.
As to the combining, which according to the Specification is another
way of saying associating, Maga groups customers on which reports are
based by dynamic attributes such as usage patterns and profile attributes
such as plan subscriptions or market segments. Thus, Maga's grouping is
within the scope of the recited combining. The resultant reports are within
the scope of the recited analyzing.
Claims 6, 7, and 14 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Maga, Sorensen '028, and Sorensen '378
As to claim 6, reciting "generating metadata describing the dynamic
customer data," as metadata is simply data about data, this is somewhat
redundant. Data describing data are data about that data. We are not
persuaded by Appellants' argument that the art fails to describe this as this is
precisely the nature of the content generated by Sorensen '028's mapping
technician and further automated in Sorensen '378.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The rejection of claims 1-5, 8-13, 16-19, and 21-23 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Maga and Sorensen '028 is proper.
The rejection of claims 6, 7, and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Maga, Sorensen '028, and Sorensen '378 is proper.
11
Appeal2014-001842
Application 11/861,966
DECISION
The rejection of claims 1-14, 16-19, and 21-23 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this
appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l)(iv) (2011).
AFFIRMED
12