Ex Parte Angell et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardJul 2, 2013

11769409 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 2, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte ROBERT LEE ANGELL and JAMES R. KRAEMER ____________________ Appeal 2011-007838 Application 11/769,409 Technology Center 3600 ____________________ Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, MEREDITH C. PETRAVICK, and NINA L. MEDLOCK, Administrative Patent Judges. MEDLOCK, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2011-007838 Application 11/769,409 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1-33, 35, and 36. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). STATEMENT OF THE DECISION We REVERSE.1 BACKGROUND Appellants’ invention relates to a computer implemented method, apparatus, and computer usable program code for generating customized marketing messages for customers using current events data (Spec., para. [0003]). Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on appeal: 1. A computer implemented method for generating customized marketing messages using current events data, the computer implemented method comprising: receiving external marketing data from a set of sources; responsive to detecting a customer entering a retail facility, filtering the external marketing data based upon a date the customer entered the retail facility to form the current events data; receiving data regarding the customer to form customer data; 1 Our decision will make reference to Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“App. Br.,” filed November 30, 2010) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed April 4, 2011) and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed February 17, 2011). Appeal 2011-007838 Application 11/769,409 3 processing, by a processing unit, the current events data with the customer data to form dynamic data; and generating a customized marketing message for the customer using the dynamic data. THE REJECTIONS The following rejections are before us for review: Claims 1, 3, 5, 8-10, 12, 14, 16, 19-21, 23, 27, 29, 31, 32, and 35 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Huang (US 2008/0004951 A1, pub. Jan. 3, 2008). Claims 2, 4, 13, 15, 22, 24, 28, and 30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Huang in view of Fitzpatrick (US 2006/0218057 A1, pub. Sep. 28, 2006). Claims 7, 18, 25, and 33 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Huang in view of Herz (US 7,630,986 B1, iss. Dec. 8, 2009). Claims 6, 11, 17, 26, and 36 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Huang in view of Avanzi (US 2006/0089918 A1, pub. Apr. 27, 2006). ANALYSIS Independent claim 1 and dependent claims 3, 5, and 8-10 We are persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) by Appellants’ argument that Huang fails to disclose “responsive to detecting a customer entering a retail facility, filtering the external marketing data based upon a date the customer entered the retail facility to form the current events data,” as recited in the claim (App. Br. 13-16 and Reply Br. 3-7). Appeal 2011-007838 Application 11/769,409 4 The Examiner cites paragraphs [0031 through [0033], [0039], [0054], [0058], [0075], and [0081] of Huang as teaching this feature (Ans. 4 and 12- 14). However, we find nothing in any of these paragraphs that discloses filtering external marketing data based upon a date the customer entered the retail facility. Huang is generally directed to an “[a]rchitecture for presenting advertisements in realtime in retail establishments” (Huang, Abstract). Huang describes that a sensor system monitors and captures information about the customer as the customer moves around in the store (e.g., by tagging products with RFID devices and monitoring the location of the customer based on readings from the RFID tags of customer selected products), and also obtains historical data about the customer from the customer’s past purchase history. Based on this information, advertisements are selected and displayed to the customer, e.g., as the customer approaches a store display (see, e.g., Huang, paras. [0031] – [0033], [0038], and [0075]). Huang discloses a velocity sensing system in paragraph [0054] that determines a speed at which a customer is traveling through the store and uses this information to filter the type of advertisement presented, e.g., a short ad may be presented if the customer is moving quickly. But none of these paragraphs discloses filtering external marketing data based upon a date the customer entered the retail facility. The Examiner notes that Huang describes in paragraph [0081] that advertisements may be ranked based, e.g., on seasonal information, the day the customer is shopping, holiday information, and so on, and the Examiner asserts that “date” may be referring to a particular season (Ans. 13-14). However, even accepting the Examiner’s position, ranking advertisements Appeal 2011-007838 Application 11/769,409 5 based on the date the customer entered the retail facility is not the same as, and does not disclose or suggest that external marketing data is filtered based on that date. Huang describes that advertisements are filtered based, for example, on customer preferences, as evidenced by historical shopping information collected about the customer from past purchase history, and velocity sensing (see, e.g., Huang, paras. [0039], [0054], [0075], and [0078]). However, Huang does not disclose filtering advertisements, which the Examiner equates to “external marketing data,” based on the date the customer entered the retail facility. Therefore, we will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e). We also will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 3, 5, and 8-10, which depend from claim 1. Independent claims 12, 21, and 27 and dependent claims 14, 16, 19, 20, 23, 29, 31, 32, and 35 Independent claims 12, 21, and 27 include language substantially similar to claim 1. Therefore, we will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 12, 21, and 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) for the same reasons as set forth above with respect to claim 1. We also will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 14, 16, 19, 20, 23, 29, 31, 32, and 35, each of which depends on one of claims 12, 21, and 27 Dependent claims 2, 4, 6, 7, 11, 13, 15, 17, 18, 22, 24-26, 28, 30, 33, and 36 Each of claims 2, 4, 6, 7, 11, 13, 15, 17, 18, 22, 24-26, 28, 30, 33, and 36 ultimately depends on one of claims 1, 12, 21, and 27. The Examiner has not established on this record that the secondary references relied on rejecting these dependent claims cure the deficiencies of Huang as set forth Appeal 2011-007838 Application 11/769,409 6 above. Therefore, we will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2, 4, 6, 7, 11, 13, 15, 17, 18, 22, 24-26, 28, 30, 33, and 36 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). DECISION The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 3, 5, 8-10, 12, 14, 16, 19-21, 23, 27, 29, 31, 32, and 35 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) is reversed. The Examiner’s rejections of claims 2, 4, 6, 7, 11, 13, 15, 17, 18, 22, 24-26, 28, 30, 33, and 36 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) are reversed. REVERSED hh