Ex Parte Christianson et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJan 30, 201711508031 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 30, 2017) 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. 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation