Ex Parte Paradies

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 5, 2017

11215598 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 5, 2017)

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.
11/215,598 08/30/2005 Bernd Paradies B122 4198
108982 7590
Wolfe-SBMC
116 W. Pacific Avenue
Suite 300
Spokane, WA 99201
01/09/2017 EXAMINER
BRANDENBURG, WILLIAM A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3681
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/09/2017 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):
docket@sbmc-law.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte BERND PARADIES
Appeal 2015-0000241
Application 11/215,5982
Technology Center 3600
Before NINA L. MEDLOCK, PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, and
MATTHEW S. MEYERS, Administrative Patent Judges.
MEDLOCK, 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—4, 10, 11, 35—39, and 44—52. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 Our decision references Appellant’s Appeal Brief (“Br.,” filed
February 24, 2014), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed July 17,
2014) and Final Office Action (“Final Act.,” mailed September 13, 2013).
2 Appellant identifies Adobe Systems Incorporated as the real party in
interest. Br. 3.
Appeal 2015-000024
Application 11/215,598
CLAIMED INVENTION
Appellant’s claimed invention relates to a method and apparatus for
processing use of a computer system (Title).
Claims 1, 35, and 36 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1,
reproduced below, is illustrative:
1. A method comprising:
during operation of a software application in a
computerized device, receiving multiple input signals resulting
in movement of a pointer along a first path on a graphical user
interface (G.U.I.) during a first instance of a period of time, the
multiple input signals received from at least one input device
controlling the movement of the pointer through multiple G.U.I.
locations to create the first path, each input signal requesting
movement of the pointer from a current G.U.I location to a
subsequent G.U.I. location;
tracking movement of the pointer through all the multiple
G.U.I. locations that make up the first path to calculate a total
distance from an initial G.U.I. location of the first path to a final
G.U.I. location of the first path; and
providing a first credit to a registered user of the software
application, an amount of the first credit based on the total
distance traveled by the pointer, the first credit redeemable via a
reward program.
REJECTIONS
Claims 47—50 and 52 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, as indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly
claim the subject matter that Appellant regards as the invention.
Claims 1—4, 10, 11, 35—39, and 44—52 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Glezerman (US 2003/0207237 Al,
pub. Nov. 6, 2003) and Chefalas (US 2006/0149628 Al, pub. July 6, 2006).
2
Appeal 2015-000024
Application 11/215,598
ANALYSIS
Indefiniteness
Appellant does not provide any response to the Examiner’s rejection
of claims 47—50 and 52 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.
Therefore, the Examiner’s rejection is summarily sustained.
Obviousness
Independent Claim 1 and Dependent Claims 2—4, 10, 11, and 46—52
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
Chefalas, on which the Examiner relies, does not disclose or suggest
“tracking movement of the pointer through . . . multiple G.U.I. locations that
make up the first path to calculate a total distance from an initial G.U.I.
location of the first path to a final G.U.I. location of the first path,” as recited
in claim 1 (Br. 13—16). Instead, we agree with, and adopt the Examiner’s
findings and rationale as set forth at pages 4—6 of the Examiner’s Answer.
Chefalas is directed to a system and method for implementing a
customer incentive program that conditionally rewards a customer based on
the customer’s movement through a shopping area (Chefalas, Abstract).
Chefalas discloses a shopping area 120, with reference to Figures 1 and 3,
and describes that the shopping area can be any area where products and
services are purchased, including a virtual store from which products and
services can be purchased online {id. 122). Still referencing Figures 1
and 3, Chefalas discloses that the system comprises a customer tracking
system 140 that tracks a customer’s movement through shopping area 120,
including the customer’s movement through different sections of the area,
e.g., aisles 130a—d (id. 124). A reward processing unit receives data from
3
Appeal 2015-000024
Application 11/215,598
the customer tracking system and can be programmed to reward the
customer based, inter alia, on the distance traveled in the shopping area
(id. 1 8).
Appellant acknowledges that Chefalas discloses that its shopping area
can be implemented as a “virtual store” (Br. 15). But Appellant argues that
“at best Chefalas contemplates movement through a virtual store by clicking
on links ... to browse to different areas of the online store (e.g., clicking on
links to navigate to different web pages to buy different products within the
online store),” and Appellant maintains “there is no mention in Chefalas of
tracking movement of a pointer through a virtual store” (id. at 16).
We disagree.
As the Examiner correctly observes, Chefalas explicitly discloses that
shopping area 120, including aisles 130a—d, can be implemented as a virtual
store; as such, it is clear from a fair reading of Chefalas that, contrary to
Appellant’s assertions, the virtual store implementation is not merely a
website or online shopping cart where products can be purchased or where
links are merely selected (Ans. 4 (citing Chefalas 122, Figs. 1, 3)).
Chefalas admittedly discloses tracking of electronic browsing
(Chefalas 124). However, Chefalas also explicitly discloses tracking a
customer’s movement through shopping area 120, e.g., moving up and down
aisles 130a—d, and further discloses that the tracking systems used to locate
and track a customer within a shopping area include “customer input
devices” {id. 124). We agree with the Examiner that tracking customer
movement via customer input devices can reasonably be interpreted to
include tracking a customer’s movement up and down aisles 130a—d of
a virtual shopping area 120 via a computer mouse (Ans. 5).
4
Appeal 2015-000024
Application 11/215,598
In view of the foregoing, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). We also sustain the Examiner’s rejection
of dependent claims 2-4, 10, 11, and 46—52, which are not argued separately
except based on their dependence from independent claim 1 (Br. 16—17).
Independent Claims 35 and 36 and Dependent Claims 37—39, 44, and 45
Appellant’s arguments with respect to independent claims 35 and 36
are substantially identical to Appellant’s arguments with respect to
independent claim 1 (Br. 17—25). We found those arguments unpersuasive
with respect to claim 1, and we find them equally unpersuasive with respect
to claims 35 and 36. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
independent claims 35 and 36 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for the same reasons
set forth above with respect to claim 1. We also sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 37—39, 44, and 45, which are not argued separately
except based on their dependence from independent claim 36 {id. at 25)
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 47—50 and 52 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, second paragraph, is affirmed.
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—4, 10, 11, 35—39, and 44—52
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. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
5