Ex Parte Christianson et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 30, 2017

11508031 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 30, 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.
11/508,031 08/21/2006 Alfred Christianson 10522 2260
27752 7590 02/01/2017
THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY
Global IP Services
Central Building, C9
One Procter and Gamble Plaza
CINCINNATI, OH 45202
EXAMINER
DURAN, ARTHUR D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3622
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/01/2017 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):
centraldocket. im @ pg. com
pair_pg @ firsttofile. com
mayer.jk @ pg. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ALFRED CHRISTIANSON,
MAGRACIA BERNARDINO LENON, and
STEVEN M. LEVIN
Appeal 2015-0040091
Application 11/508,0312
Technology Center 3600
Before HUBERT C. LORIN, PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, and
KENNETH G. SCHOPFER, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOFFMANN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the rejection of
claims 1—13 and 15—21. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
According to Appellants, the invention is directed “to systems and
methods for analyzing and predicting the efficacy of a marketing campaign
1 Our decision references Appellants’ Specification (“Spec.,” filed Aug. 21,
2006) and Appeal Brief (“Br.,” filed Oct. 24, 2014), as well as the
Examiner’s Answer (“Answer,” mailed Dec. 10, 2014).
2 According to Appellants, “[t]he real party in interest is The Procter &
Gamble Company.” Br. 1.
Appeal 2015-004009
Application 11/508,031
or marketing message to generate word of mouth [(WOM)] within social
networks.” Spec. 1,11. 5—7. We reproduce independent claim 1, below, as
representative of the appealed claims.
1. A method for predicting the efficacy of a marketing
campaign to generate WOM communication, the method
comprising:
identifying a promotional item;
selecting a target market group to market the promotional
item;
creating at least one marketing message corresponding to
the promotional item, wherein the marketing message meets an
impression criteria associated with the target market group;
developing a communication plan to communicate the at
least one marketing message to a subset of the target market
group, wherein the communication plan comprises at least one
survey with at least one question relating to the marketing
message in WOM criteria selected from the group consisting of
(i) message advocacy and (ii) message amplification;
testing the communication plan with the subset of the
target market group;
receiving results from the testing of the communication
plan from the subset of the target market group; and
analyzing the results received from the testing, wherein
analyzing the results comprises calculating at least one score for
the marketing message, the at least one score derived at least in
part from responses within said WOM criteria to the at least one
survey.
Br., Claims App.
2
Appeal 2015-004009
Application 11/508,031
REJECTIONS AND PRIOR ART
The Examiner rejects claims 1—13 and 15—21 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over De Rafael (US 6,529,878 B2, iss. Mar. 4,
2003) and Gross (US 2006/0010029 Al, pub. Jan. 12, 2006).
The Examiner rejects claims 1—13 and 15—21 under 35 U.S.C. § 101
as directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Answer 3—15.
ANALYSIS
103 rejection
With respect to the obviousness rejection of claims 1—13 and 15—21,
Appellants argue that “[njeither reference discloses analyzing the results
received from the testing, ‘wherein analyzing the results comprises
calculating at least one score for the marketing message,’ as claimed.” Br. 4.
More specifically, Appellants argue that
Gross is cited [by the Examiner] as disclosing surveys and scores
and adapting ad techniques based on feedback or assessments.
However, Gross fails as a secondary reference to create a prima
facie case of obviousness. While Gross mentions “scores” in
many paragraphs, these scores are not related to the marketing
message, as claimed by [Appellants]. Instead, the scores in
Gross are directed to the responders themselves (called
“trendsetters” by Gross). See [Gross’s paragraph] 84, “For
example, for person A, he/she has achieved a trendsetter score
of 5 for item #1. . .”[; paragraphs] 88[—]90 refer to “trendsetter
scores.”[; paragraph] 93 states “Persons C and E simply have an
overall score that is too low.”[; paragraph] 99 states, “Since a
particular user may be an early adopter of more than one item,
his/her score has increased within the list for every such
instance.” Gross further discloses measuring awareness of a
product among a group or community but makes no disclosure
of calculating a score for a marketing message using responses
3
Appeal 2015-004009
Application 11/508,031
to a survey directed toward the word of mouth dimensions of the
marketing message.
Id. at 6 and 7. In response to Appellants’ argument, the Examiner
determines that the argument is unpersuasive because Appellants’
[arguments do not address any of the citations that Examiner
made to Gross. In the 5/27/14 action, [the] Examiner provides
detailed citations to Gross to show how Gross discloses
calculating at least one score for the marketing message or rating
a particular marketing message (see the 5/27/14 action and the
Response to Arguments pages 11 [—] 15 and the 103 rejection on
pages 5[—]8). Also, an Advisory Action was sent on 7/31/2014
and made this same point, “Gross does teach scores to rate
individuals. However, and also, Gross teaches scores to rate ads
or messages. See the detailed and underlined citations at the
Response to Arguments pages 11 [—] 15 and also copied in the
rejection at pages 5[—]8.” (Advisory Action dated
7/31/2014). ... So, Appellants] do[] not recognize or argue
against the citations from Gross that [the] Examiner has actually
cited to show Gross’[s] scores to rate ads or messages.
Answer 15—16. Consistent with the Examiner’s statements reproduced
above, in the above-identified Office Action, the Examiner does find that in
addition to “teaching] scores to rate individuals ...[,] Gross teaches scores
to rate ads or messages,” and identifies at least paragraphs 2, 19, 61,71, 113,
139, 216, 242 of Gross. Final Office Action dated May 27, 2014 (“Final
Action”), 5—7. Because Appellants do not adequately address the portions of
Gross on which the Examiner relies in the Final Action to teach calculating
at least one score for a marketing message, Appellants do not persuasively
establish that the Examiner’s findings are erroneous. Thus, we sustain the
rejection of claims 1—13 and 15—21.
Appellants’ submit additional arguments against “[t]he rejection of
[cjlaims 11, 12, and 13 . . . [based on] Official Notice.” Br. 6. As explained
4
Appeal 2015-004009
Application 11/508,031
by the Examiner, however, neither the Final Action nor the Answer rejects
any claims based on Official Notice. Answer 20.
101 rejection
For the first time in the Answer, the Examiner rejects claims 1—13
and 15—21 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Answer 12—15. Appellants do not argue that the rejection is erroneous, such
as by filing a Reply Brief. Thus, we summarily sustain the non-statutory
subject matter rejection.
DECISION
We AFFIRM the Examiner’s rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of
claims 1—13 and 15—21.
We summarily AFFIRM the Examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C.
§ 101 of claims 1—13 and 15—21.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. §
1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
5