Ex Parte Pandey

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 3, 2016

12337902 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 3, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/337,902 12/18/2008
25537 7590 11/07/2016
VERIZON
PA TENT MANAGEMENT GROUP
1320 North Court House Road
9th Floor
ARLINGTON, VA 22201-2909
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Siddharth PANDEY
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.
20080303 4509
EXAMINER
STOPP, COURTNEY L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3684
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/07/2016 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):
patents@verizon.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SID DHAR TH PANDEY
Appeal2014-007574 1
Application 12/337,9022
Technology Center 3600
Before JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, BRADLEY B. BAY AT, and
MATTHEWS. MEYERS, Administrative Patent Judges.
MEYERS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final rejection of claims 1-27. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 Our decision references Appellant's Appeal Brief ("Appeal Br.," filed
December 20, 2013), and Reply Brief ("Reply Br.," filed June 20, 2014), the
Examiner's Answer ("Ans.," mailed April 24, 2014) and Final Office Action
("Final Act.," mailed August 22, 2013).
2 Appellant identifies Verizon Communications Inc., as the real party in
interest (Appeal Br. 1 ).
Appeal2014-007574
Application 12/337,902
CLAIMED INVENTION
Appellant's claimed invention relates generally to "[a] system and
method ... for facilitating sale transactions using radio-frequency
identifications (RFID) and/or barcodes" (Spec. ,-i 8).
Claims 1, 11, 13, and 20 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim
1, reproduced below with bracketing matter added, is illustrative of the
subject matter on appeal:
1. A method, comprising:
[a] detecting, via a wireless device, identification
information associated with at least one of products and services,
wherein the at least one products and services are identified
based at least in part on the identification information;
[b] providing the identification information associated
with one or more of the identified products and services to a
server;
[ c] receiving, from the server, solicited retail information
associated with the one or more identified products and services
offered by a plurality of retailers;
[ d] displaying, via a set-top box, the solicited retail
information associated with the one or more identified at least
one of products and services offered by the plurality of retailers
to a user, wherein the wireless device is capable of detecting the
identification information associated with at least one of
products and services at any of the plurality of retailers; and
[ e] receiving, via the set-top box, verification information,
wherein the verification information indicates at least whether
the displayed retail information corresponds to the at least one
products and services.
REJECTION
Claims 1-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Treyz (US 6,587,835 Bl, iss. July 1, 2003) and Maggio (US
2006/0282319 Al, pub. Dec. 14, 2006).
2
Appeal2014-007574
Application 12/337,902
ANALYSIS
Obviousness
Independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2-11
We are not persuaded by Appellant's argument that the Examiner
erred in rejecting independent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because the
proposed combination of Treyz and Maggio fails to suggest limitations [ d]
and [e] of independent claim 1 (See Appeal Br. 5-9; see also Reply Br. 2--4).
Instead, we agree with, and adopt the Examiner's findings and rationale, as
set forth at pages 3-6 of the Final Action (see Final Act. 4-5 (citing Treyz,
col. 26, 11. 16-25, 40--45, and 50-65; col. 27, 11. 55-60; col. 31, 1. 66 - col.
32, 1. 11; Figs. 28, 29; Maggio ,-i,-i 518-524)) and the Examiner's response to
Appellant's arguments, as set forth at pages 17-19 of the Answer. We add
the following discussion for emphasis only.
Treyz is directed to "handheld computing devices that assist users in
shopping and in performing wireless transactions" (Treyz col. 1, 11. 7-9)
which includes "a radio-frequency identification (RFID) unit" (id. at col. 1,
11. 55-57) to identify items in stores (id. at col. 2, 11. 38--40) and a shopping
assistance service to "provide product information" and "[i]nteractive
advertisements" (id. at col. 1, 11. 45--45). Treyz discloses that its "[h ]andheld
computing device 12 may be used to interact wirelessly with a merchant or
service provider or other entity" (id. at col. 20, 11. 57-67; see also id. at col.
26, 11. 34-65) "to receive materials from a kiosk associated with the
merchant or other entity" (id. at col. 21, 11. 4-6). More particularly, Treyz
discloses that "a link may be used, for example, to push promotional
materials or other information to a user's handheld computing device or to
consummate a wireless purchase transaction or to receive a shopping list or
3
Appeal2014-007574
Application 12/337,902
directory from computer 184" (id. at col. 21, 11. 11-14 ). In this regard,
Treyz discloses that "[a] remote link may be used to obtain a shopping list
from a remote server, to retrieve a directory, to retrieve product information
from a remote database, to access a remote web site containing product
information or personal information, to access a service implemented at a
remote service provider, etc." (Treyz, col. 21, 11. 18-23)
Treyz also discloses that its shopping assistance service enables a user
to create a shopping list based on video content and "[t]he video content may
be displayed on in-home electronic equipment or the handheld computing
device" (id. at col. 3, 11. 56-61). More particularly, Treyz discloses that
"[p ]latforms such as in-home electronic device 28, handheld computing
device 12, computer 42, and automobile personal computer 44 may support
remote interactions with stores, malls, and other establishments and with one
or more service providers 46" (id. at col. 11, 11. 39--44). In this regard, Treyz
discloses
a handheld computing device 12 that has obtained information
on an item in a store or other facility 34 (e.g., by scanning the
item with a bar code, by using an RFID unit, by receiving input
from the user through a touch screen, or by receiving information
over a local wireless link, etc.) may obtain additional information
and services related to the item from computer 28 over link 52.
Information and services may be obtained from manufacturer 48,
service provider 46, order fulfillment facility 30, and other such
entities over communications network 32.
(Id. at col. 27, 11. 55-65).
Maggio is directed a system for presenting advertisements by
"substituting media content for presentation on a media device, such as a
television" (Maggio ,-i 5). Maggio describes one embodiment which utilizes
an interactive remote control that controls television content (id. ,-i 518).
4
Appeal2014-007574
Application 12/337,902
Maggio further discloses that its remote control includes a bar code scanner
which "can acquire UPC data as well as other data represented in barcode
format" (id. ,-i,-i 518, 519). In this regard, Maggio discloses that
[a Jn appearance of a CRA V Ad on the magazine can draw the
user's attention from the content 3510 presented on the broadcast
receiver 2205 to the CRA V Ad. Recognizing the advertisement
as being interactive based on a CRA V logo or other
distinguishing feature, the user 3421 can direct the interactive
remote control 4700 to the magazine to initiate an immersion
level of interaction with the magazine's advertising content.
(Id. ,-i 520). Maggio further discloses
server computer 2230 processes scanned data and returns
messages via the Internet 2225 and the data station 3450 for
display on the interactive remote control's display 2306. Such
exemplary messages can comprise CRA V questions,
promotional content, follow-on advertisements, gaming
information, product usage suggestions, awards, discounts,
survey questions, contest information, prize redemption codes,
or detailed product specifications, for example.
(Id. iJ 522). iviaggio still further discloses
user 3421 can make entries via the interactive response keypad
2308 in respon[ se] to messages presented on the interactive
remote control's display 2306. For example, the user 3421 can
reply to CRA V questions, request additional product details,
enter a contest, request mailing of an award certificate or coupon,
rate product performance, characterize satisfaction with a
product, order a product, or redeem prizes using the interactive
response keypad 2308. The interactive transmitter/receiver 2302
transmits such user entries to the server computer 2230 via the
data station 3450 and the Internet 2225.
(Id. ,-i 523). Maggio also discloses that its interactive remote can include "an
RFID device (not shown) that can acquire data from items that have an
associated RFID tag. The RFID device can be an "RFID scanner or reader
5
Appeal2014-007574
Application 12/337,902
that supplies radiant energy to an RFID tag, coupled to a product, an
advertisement, or to another physical item" (id. iJ 525).
We are not persuaded by Appellant's argument that Maggio fails to
disclose or suggest limitation [ d] of independent claim 1 because "the
display in Maggio simply displays information from one source, the singular
retailer associated with the scanned advertisement. Maggio does not
disclose displaying solicited retail information associated with one or more
identified at least one or products and services offered by the plurality of
retailers to a user" (Appeal Br. 6; see also Reply Br. 2-3).
Appellant's argument is not persuasive at least because claim 1 is
rejected as unpatentable over the combination Treyz and Maggio, and not
over either Treyz or Maggio alone. See In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091,
1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986) ("Non-obviousness cannot be established by attacking
the references individually where the rejection is based upon the teachings of
a combination of references."). Here, the Examiner relies on Maggio to
"show that it is well established that product information can be scanned by
a device and displayed via a set top box" (Ans. 18), but relies on Treyz as
disclosing "receiving solicited retail information associated with the one or
more identified products offered by a plurality of retailers" (id.; see also
Final Act. 4-5 (citing Treyz, Fig. 28)) and being "used within a plurality of
retailers" (Ans. 18; see also Treyz, Fig. 28).
We also are not persuaded by Appellant's argument that the
"Examiner's Answer fails to show how replacing the handheld computing
device 12 in Treyz with the set top box in Maggio would still read on the
claims, given that the set top box in Maggio is only configured to display
information from a single scanned CRA V ad" (Reply Br. 3). Instead, as the
6
Appeal2014-007574
Application 12/337,902
Examiner points out, the Maggio reference is relied upon to disclose "that
product information can be scanned by a device and displayed via a set top
box" (Ans. 18). Moreover, the Examiner's proposed combination of Treyz
and Maggio does not suggest "replacing the handheld computing device 12
in Treyz with the set top box in Maggio," as Appellant asserts (Reply Br. 3);
but rather, the Examiner proposes "applying the known techniques of
displaying the product data via a set-top device and receiving verification
information via the set top device as shown by Maggio to the teachings in
Treyz" (Final Act. 6).
To the extent that Appellant argues there is inadequate articulated
reasoning with rational underpinning to support the Examiner's legal
conclusion of obviousness (Reply Br. 3), we find that the Examiner has
provided "articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support
the legal conclusion of obviousness" (see KSR Int 'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550
U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (citing In re Kahn, 441F.3d977, 988 (Fed. Cir.
2006)). On pages 5-6 of the Final Action, the Examiner provides the
required rationale to support the combination. And, moreover,
[ w ]hen a work is available in one field of endeavor, design
incentives and other market forces can prompt variations of it,
either in the same field or a different one. If a person of ordinary
skill can implement a predictable variation, § 103 likely bars its
patentability.
KSR, 550 U.S. at 417. We note that Appellant's argument does not address
whether the modification described by the Examiner is more than the
predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions
nor do they specifically mention or contest the substance of the Examiner's
rationale, but rather only generally asserts that "[t]he fact that Treyz and
Maggio exist in a similar field is not enough to show that the combination of
7
Appeal2014-007574
Application 12/337,902
the two would be obvious, or that the combination would yield the claimed
features" (Reply Br. 3).
We also are not persuaded by Appellant's argument that the
combination of Treyz and Maggio fails to disclose or suggest limitation [ e]
of independent claim 1 (see Appeal Br. 6-9; see also Reply Br. 3--4). More
particularly, Appellant argues that "[ w ]hile Maggio discloses a variety of
user responses in reply to an advertiser's message, none of the user
responses include 'verification information [that] indicates at least whether
the displayed retail information corresponds to the at least one products
and services"' (Appeal Br. 7; see also Reply Br. 4). Instead, we agree with
the Examiner that the combination of Treyz and Maggio discloses the argued
limitation (see Final Act. 5-6; see also Ans. 18-19).
In making this determination, we note that Appellant has not directed
us to any special definition in the Specification for the term "verification
information;" and, after reviewing Appellant's Specification, we are unable
to find any such clear and explicit definition for the term. Instead, we find
the Specification broadly describes
[ t ]he user 120 may verify whether the products and/ or services
130 displayed are desired by the user 120. For example, the user
120 may confirm that the displayed products and/or services 130
are desired by the user 120. Also, the user 120 may refute that
the displayed products and/or services 130 are desired by the user
120.
(Spec. ,-i 25). Therefore, in the absence of an explicit definition, the
Examiner may adopt the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term
consistent with the Specification. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1053-54
(Fed. Cir. 1997).
8
Appeal2014-007574
Application 12/337,902
Here, we agree with the Examiner that Maggio' s disclosure regarding
"receiving an order for the product or requesting additional product
specifications is an indication that the displayed data refer[] to the product
that was scanned" (Ans. 18-19), under a broad, but reasonable interpretation
of "verification information." Thus, Appellant's argument is not persuasive
to show error in the Examiner's rejection.
In view of the foregoing, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of
independent claim 1under35 U.S.C. § 103(a). We also sustain the
Examiner's rejection of dependent claims 2-11, which is not separately
argued (see Appeal Br. 10).
Independent claims 12, 13, and 20, and dependent claims 14-19 and 21-27
Appellant argues that independent claims 12, 13, and 20 are
patentable for reasons similar to those set forth with respect to independent
claim 1 (Appeal Br. 9). We are not persuaded for the reasons set forth above
that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Therefore, we sustain the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of independent
claims 12, 13, and 20 for the same reasons. We also sustain the rejection of
claims 14-19 and 21-27, which depend from independent claims 12, 13, and
20, and are not argued separately (see Appeal Br. 10).
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1-27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is
affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § l .136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
9