Ex Parte Henne et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 28, 2016

13372386 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 28, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/372,386 02/13/2012
20995 7590 08/01/2016
KNOBBE MARTENS OLSON & BEAR LLP
2040 MAIN STREET
FOURTEENTH FLOOR
IRVINE, CA 92614
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Randal M. Henne
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.
MIPS.l 18Cl 7312
EXAMINER
KONERU, SUJAY
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3624
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/01/2016 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):
j ayna.cartee@knobbe.com
efiling@knobbe.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte RANDAL M. HENNE and
DWAYNE S. BENEFIELD
Appeal2014-005390 1
Application 13/372,386
Technology Center 3600
Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, and
MICHAEL W. KIM, Administrative Patent Judges.
CRAWFORD, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the
Examiner's final rejection of claims 1-19 and 21-27.2 We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We REVERSE.
Appellants' invention is directed to analyzing item acquisition
histories of electronic item catalog users. (Spec., para. 2).
1 Appellants identify Amazon Technologies, Inc. as the real party in interest.
(Appeal Br. 1 ).
2 Claim 20 is allowed. (Final Act. 24).
Appeal2014-005390
Application 13/372,386
Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A data mining method, comprising:
storing, in computer storage, item acquisition data of users
of an electronic catalog of items, said item acquisition data
including information reflective of timings of item acquisition
events, said electronic catalog including item detail pages that
correspond to particular catalog items;
detecting, based on an analysis of the item acquisition data
by a computer system, a sequential item acquisition pattern in
which users who acquire a first catalog item tend to subsequently
acquire a second catalog item, said first catalog item being a non-
consumable item, and the second catalog item being a
consumable item that is used by the first catalog item; and
causing an indication of the sequential item acquisition
pattern to be incorporated into an item detail page for the first
catalog item, to thereby expose an existence of the sequential
item acquisition pattern to users of the electronic catalog, said
indication of the sequential item acquisition pattern indicating a
sequential order in which the first and second catalog items are
acquired.
Appellants appeal the following rejections:
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7-9, 11, 13, 14, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Smith (US 2002/0010625 Al, pub. Jan 24,
2002), Herz (US 2001/0014868 Al, pub. Aug. 16, 2001), and Al-Kazily (US
2002/0111874 Al, pub. Aug. 15, 2002).
Claims 3, 6, 10, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Smith, Herz, Al-Kazily, and Szabo (US 2002/0116260
Al, pub. Aug. 22, 2002).
Claims 15-19, 21-25, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Smith, Herz, Szabo, and Al-Kazily.
2
Appeal2014-005390
Application 13/372,386
ANALYSIS
Independent claim 1 recites detecting "a sequential item acquisition
pattern in which users who acquire a first catalog item tend to subsequently
acquire a second catalog item." Independent claim 8 recites detecting "a
sequential item acquisition pattern in which users who acquire a first catalog
item subsequently acquire a second catalog item." Independent claims 15
and 21 each recite "identifying a pair of catalog items, item A and item B,
that, based on said item acquisition data, have been acquired in the sequence
item A followed by item B by each of a plurality of said users." Each of the
independent claims, thus, detect or identify a purchasing sequence.
We are persuaded by Appellants' arguments that Herz does not
disclose detecting a sequential item acquisition pattern, because Herz instead
identifies items bought over a period of time by a user (Appeal Br. 6, 9), and
purchased together at the same time (Appeal Br. 15, 17; see also Reply Br.
2), without determining or identifying a purchase sequence for those items.
For the limitations about sequence, the Examiner cites Smith,
paragraphs 12, 14, 16, 53, and 78 (Final Act. 5), and asserts that Smith does
not disclose a sequence, but instead cites Herz, at paragraphs 5, 10, and 37,
as disclosing a purchase sequence. (Final Act. 6-7, 16-17; see also Answer
3). However, the Examiner also states Herz discloses purchases on the
"same shopping trip." (Answer 3).
The claim term "sequence" is not defined, but is described as items
"acquired sequentially in the order indicated (i.e., first item followed by
second item)." (Spec., para. 20). This is consistent with the ordinary and
customary meaning of "sequence" as being "a set of elements ordered so
that they can be labeled with the positive integers." (Merriam-Webster
3
Appeal2014-005390
Application 13/372,386
Online Dictionary, http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sequence
(last retrieved on July 21, 2016) ).
Smith discloses "related items" (Smith, paras. 12, 16), "similar items"
(id. at para. 78), making product "recommendations" (id. at para. 14), and
detecting items "purchased together" (id. at paras. 16, 53). Smith's related
or similar items are not disclosed as being related or similar because of a
purchase sequence. Furthermore, two items "purchased together," as in
Smith, do not establish an order, since a single purchase of multiple items
indicates only a single event without an order of elements.
As admitted by the Examiner, Herz also merely discloses items
purchased together at "around the same time," or at some time in the past.
(Herz, paras. 5, 10, 37). As with Smith, these disclosures do not meet the
claim language of detecting or identifying a sequence.
The Examiner has therefore failed to establish a prima facie case of
obviousness of any of independent claims 1, 8, 15, or 21. We thus do not
sustain the rejections of claims 1, 8, 15, and 21. We also do not sustain the
rejections of dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, 16-19, and 22-27 because they
depend on claims whose rejections we do not sustain.
DECISION
We reverse the rejections of claims 1-19 and 21-27 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a).
REVERSED
4