Ex Parte ParadiesDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJan 5, 201711215598 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 5, 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. 11/215,598 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation