Ex Parte Root et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardApr 16, 201410965088 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 16, 2014) Copy Citation 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. 10/965,088 10/14/2004 Steven A. Root 134602.0102 5651 27557 7590 04/17/2014 BLANK ROME LLP WATERGATE 600 NEW HAMPSHIRE AVENUE, N.W. WASHINGTON, DC 20037 EXAMINER ARJOMANDI, NOOSHA ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2167 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 04/17/2014 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte STEVEN A. ROOT and MICHAEL R. ROOT ____________________ Appeal 2011-012406 Application 10/965,088 Technology Center 2100 ____________________ Before: MICHAEL L. HOELTER, JAMES P. CALVE, and JILL D. HILL, Administrative Patent Judges. CALVE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the final rejection of claims 1-8. App. Br. 3. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. Appeal 2011-012406 Application 10/965,088 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Claim 1, the sole independent claim, is reproduced below. 1. A method for providing information to a plurality of vendors located remotely from a broadcast network, comprising the steps of: receiving a plurality of user-defined parameters by a user input database with at least one of the user-defined parameters including a user profile, each of the user profiles including a user identifier code identifying a communicator device associated with a particular user; receiving real-time data indicative of the spatial locations of the communicator devices by a communicator location database; receiving search information independently from a plurality of vendors; generating a data set utilizing the search information for each of the plurality of vendors, each data set including user identifier codes from user profiles other than a user profile associated with the vendor; and sending advertisements utilizing the user identifier codes to the communicator devices identified in the data sets. REJECTION Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Schwoegler (US 6,590,529 B2; iss. Jul. 8, 2003) and Tso (US 6,047,327; iss. Apr. 4, 2000). ANALYSIS The Examiner found that Schwoegler discloses the claimed method including generating a data set using the information for each of a plurality of vendors and the data set also includes user identifier codes from user profiles. Ans. 3-5. The Examiner offers as an example the user profile of a customer or subscriber of service. Ans. 3-5. The Examiner also found that Appeal 2011-012406 Application 10/965,088 3 Schwoegler discloses that a plurality of vendors can use the weather related delivery service and that vendors such as Home Depot can be both vendors (sponsors) and users of such services. Ans. 9-10. The Examiner further found that Schwoegler does not disclose user profiles other than a user profile associated with the vendor and sending advertisements using user identifier codes to the communicator devices identifier in the data sets, but Tso discloses these features. Ans. 6. Appellants argue that the Figure 8 embodiment of Schwoegler, relied upon by the Examiner, depicts an example in which Home Depot is a vendor and a user who enters information into the system to obtain weather reports and receives individualized weather-related information. Reply Br. 2. As a result, Appellants argue that Home Depot cannot, as per the claim language, be a user and also be one of a plurality of vendors from whom the system receives search information “independently from a plurality of vendors” as recited in claim 1. Reply Br. 2-3. Appellants assert that claim 1 does not cover a situation where a user also is a vendor but instead requires that search information be received independently from vendors who are not users. Reply Br. 3. We agree. The Examiner’s finding that Schwoegler discloses receiving search information independently from a plurality of vendors, such as Home Depot, and also discloses generating a data set using the search information for each of the plurality of vendors where each data set includes user identifier codes from user profiles (such as the user profile of Home Depot as the customer or subscriber of the service) is overly broad and is not consistent with the language of claim 1 interpreted in light of Appellants’ Specification. Claim 1 requires receiving a plurality of user-defined parameters including a user Appeal 2011-012406 Application 10/965,088 4 profile that has a user identifier code and receiving search information independently from a plurality of vendors and then generating a data set using the vendor search information “each data set including user identifier codes from user profiles other than a user profile associated with the vendor” (emphasis added). Schwoegler’s disclosure of data sets containing user profiles of vendors such as Home Depot does not satisfy the terms of claim 1. Even if Tso discloses user profiles other than a user profile associated with a vendor (Ans. 6), the Examiner has not explained how Schwoegler discloses receiving search information from a plurality of vendors independently and then generating a data set using that search information from the plurality of vendors where the data sets include user identifier codes from user profiles other than a vendor user profile. Instead, as per the Examiner’s findings, Schwoegler’s data sets include user profile and user identifier codes from users such as Home Depot. Ans. 9-10 (citations omitted). The Examiner also found that Schwoegler discloses receiving a plurality of user-defined parameters and these users can receive specific weather information. Ans. 4. However, the Examiner has not shown where Schwoegler discloses that vendors such as Home Depot provide search information that is used to generate data sets independently of other parties or users who provide user-defined parameters to a user input database. Thus, receiving user-defined parameters from such vendors acting as users does not disclose receiving search information independently from a plurality of vendors. The fact that Tso may disclose generating a data set including user identifier codes from user profiles other than a vendor user profile does not remedy this deficiency in Schwoegler. Appellants disclose that users input data corresponding to weather reports, advisories, or Appeal 2011-012406 Application 10/965,088 5 forecasts so individualized weather reports, advisories, or prediction of events can be transmitted to each user and a user input database 14 contains data for such user-defined parameters. Spec. 7-8, para. [0018]. Vendors can independently input search information into the weather analysis unit 12 for compiling a data set of information that is useful to the vendors 36. Spec. 21, paras. [0042]-[0043]. Weather analysis unit 12 then outputs a data set of weather data to a vendor 36a and the vendor 36a may send advertisements to users who are identified in the data set. Spec. 21-22, para. [0044]. Thus, Appellants distinguish between “users” who are parties that input user- defined parameters into a user input database and other parties such as vendors who independently input search information that is used to generate a data set from the user input database with user identifier codes of users other than the vendors. The Examiner has not shown by a preponderance of evidence that Schwoegler discloses receiving search information from a plurality of vendors who are different parties than users who input user- defined parameters, user profiles, and user identifier codes into a user input database and generating a data set using the vendor search information. We do not sustain the rejection of claims 1-8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. DECISION We REVERSE the rejections of claims 1-8. REVERSED Klh Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation