Ex Parte Lammers et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 25, 201310426936 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 25, 2013) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte GUIDO LAMMERS, MARTIN STEIERT, and HORST GERLACH ____________ Appeal 2010-012223 Application 10/426,936 Technology Center 3600 ____________ Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, HUBERT C. LORIN, and BIBHU R. MOHANTY, Administrative Patent Judges. CRAWFORD, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1-2, 5-8, 11-13, 18-22, 24-31, and 33. We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. Appeal 2010-012223 Application 10/426,936 2 BACKGROUND Appellants’ invention is directed to a method and system for managing marketing campaigns. (Spec. 1, ll. 7-9.). Claim 1 is illustrative: 1. A method of managing a marketing campaign using a computer system, the method comprising: determining, using a computer system, an identifier for a first marketing campaign; performing a first campaign step of the first marketing campaign, the first campaign step being directed at a plurality of customers, the identifier applying to the first marketing campaign with regard to each of the plurality of customers; encoding, using a processor in the computer system, the identifier for the first marketing campaign in an order number to be included in the first campaign step, the order number being unique to a first customer of the plurality of customers that is targeted by the first campaign step; including, in the computer system, the order number in the first campaign step such that the identifier can be detected in a response by the first customer to the first campaign step, in which response the first customer places an order corresponding to the order number; providing that the response to the first campaign step from the first customer can be received, at the computer system, through any of a plurality of communication channels, the plurality of communication channels including at least mail, a public computer network, fax and electronic mail; receiving, at the computer system, the response to the first campaign step from the first customer through one of the communication channels, wherein the response includes the order number encoded with the identifier for the first marketing campaign, the order number indicating that the response is received from the first customer and that the response pertains to the first marketing campaign; Appeal 2010-012223 Application 10/426,936 3 detecting, using the computer system, from the received response the identifier encoded in the order number that is included in the first customer's response; using the detected identifier in matching, in the computer system, the response with the first marketing campaign; generating, using the computer system, and storing in a computer memory a first object that represents the first customer's order in response to the first campaign step and contains information from the response; servicing the first customer's order using the order number; and using the information in the first object to match, in the computer system, the first object with the first marketing campaign. Appellants appeal the following rejections: Claims 1-2, 5-8, 11-13, 18-19, 21-22, 24-31, and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Shimada (US 7,519,665 B1; iss. Apr. 14, 2009) and Sash (US 2005/0075925 A1; pub. Apr. 7, 2005). Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Shimada, Sash, and Appellants’ Admitted Prior Art (AAPA). ANALYSIS Claims 1-2, 5-8, 11-13, 18-19, 21-22, 24-31, and 33 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Shimada and Sash. Independent claims 1, 21, and 30 We are persuaded the Examiner erred in asserting that the combination of Shimada and Sash teaches or suggests the step of “encoding . . . the identifier for the first marketing campaign in an order number to be included in the first campaign step, the order number being unique to a first customer of the plurality of customers that is targeted by the Appeal 2010-012223 Application 10/426,936 4 first campaign step,” as generally recited by independent claims 1, 21, and 30. (App. Br. 12-13; Reply Br. 5.) Appellants assert the “‘Queue ID’ disclosed in the Shimada reference is not ‘an order number’” or “unique to a first customer of the plurality of customers,” but instead “an identifier for a queue in which a customer request (e.g., an incoming phone call) that cannot be immediately handled is placed.” (App. Br. 13.) The Examiner asserts that column 6, lines 16 to 18 and Figure 10 of Shimada addresses the “order number” recited by independent claims 1, 21, and 30. (Ans. 5.) Specifically, the Examiner contends that Shimada’s Queue ID is a number “unique to a first customer of the plurality of customers because the Queue ID number refers to a particular request of a customer that is yet to be handled.” (Ans. 14.) We cannot agree. In making this determination, we find Shimada’s “Queue ID” refers to the various queue categories depicted by Figure 12 of Shimada (see also Col. 5, l. 57 – col. 6, l. 5.), and not as the Examiner contends to a particular customer request. These queue categories are assigned into a queue category using a Queue ID (i.e., categories 1-9) based upon criteria such as the type of communication channel (e.g., phone, web, e-mail) in which the customer’s request was received. (Col. 6, ll. 3-5; see Fig. 11.) Based upon this distinction, we find that the Examiner has failed to establish that the “Queue ID” in Shimada is unique to each customer, as required by independent claims 1, 21, and 30. See Texas Instr., Inc. v. U.S. Int'l Trade Comm’n, 988 F.2d 1165, 1171 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (claim language cannot be mere surplusage. An express limitation cannot be read out of the claim). Sash does not cure this deficiency nor has the Examiner shown that Sash’s ability to encode marketing campaign IDs into URL links (paras. Appeal 2010-012223 Application 10/426,936 5 [0128] – [0129]) teaches or suggests an “order number being unique to a first customer of the plurality of customers” (emphasis added), as presently claimed. Accordingly, as the Examiner has not set forth a prima facie case of obviousness, we cannot sustain the rejection of independent claims 1, 21, and 30, and claims 2, 5-8, 11-13, 18-19, 22, 24-29, 31, and 33 from which they depend. Claim 20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Shimada, Sash, and Appellants’ Admitted Prior Art (AAPA). This rejection is directed to claim 20 which depends upon independent claim 1, whose rejection we have reversed above. For the same reason, we will not sustain the rejection of claim 20 over the combination of Shimada, Sash, and AAPA. Cf. In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1266 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (“[D]ependent claims are nonobvious if the independent claims from which they depend are nonobvious.”). DECISION The decision of the Examiner is reversed. REVERSED hh Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation