Ex Parte Ramcharran et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 17, 2016

12953109 (P.T.A.B. May. 17, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/953, 109 11/23/2010
23460 7590 05/19/2016
LEYDIG VOIT & MA YER, LTD
TWO PRUDENTIAL PLAZA, SUITE 4900
180 NORTH STETSON A VENUE
CHICAGO, IL 60601-6731
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Leon Ramcharran
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
707188 2912
EXAMINER
KEATON, SHERROD L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2142
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/19/2016 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):
Chgpatent@leydig.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte LEON RAMCHARRAN,
RICHARD BIEGEN, ERIK MOGA VERO,
CHERYLL MOORE, STEVE WEINREB, and SAL NARGI 1
Appeal2015-000629
Application 12/953, 109
Technology Center 2100
Before JEAN R. HOMERE, KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, and
MICHAEL J. ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judges.
ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 17-35. Claims 1-16 were previously cancelled. Br. 12. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Appellants' Invention
The invention is directed to automating a request for the review of
marketing materials for compliance with laws and policies. Spec. i-f 3,
Abstract.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is American
International Group, Inc. App. Br. 1.
1
Appeal2015-000629
Application 12/953, 109
Representative Claims
Claims 17 and 24 are representative and reproduced below with the
key limitations emphasized:
1 7. A system for automated processing of requests for approval
of marketing materials for at least one of a product and a service,
compnsmg:
a physical application server operably arranged with a
network and programmed to present through an electronic user
interface a review request form with data fields adapted to collect
data from a physical computer of a requestor connected to the
network, the data fields including:
at least one data field adapted to indicate an
audience type from a set of predetermined audience types,
said audience type identifying to whom the marketing
materials are presented,
at least one data field adapted to indicate a
distribution type from a set of predetermined distribution
types,
at least one data field adapted to indicate the
marketing materials under review include performance
information relating to the performance of the product or
service,
at least one data field adapted to indicate a
selection of at least one performance reviewer for
reviewing performance information in the marketing
materials relating to the performance of the product or
service, and
at least one data field adapted to indicate a selection
of at least one compliance reviewer for reviewing the
marketing materials for compliance with at least one
predetermined criteria,
the application server being further programmed to generate a
review request document based on information entered by the
requestor and to send an electronic message including the request
document to at least one selected reviewer; and
a database for archiving information regarding the review
request document and the marketing materials.
2
Appeal2015-000629
Application 12/953, 109
24. A method of processing requests for approval of marketing
materials for at least one of a product and a service, the method
compnsmg:
presenting a review request form through an electronic
user interface over a network to a requestor connected to the
network, the review request form having a plurality of data fields
including:
at least one data field adapted to indicate the
marketing materials under review include performance
information relating to the product or service,
at least one data field adapted to indicate a
selection of at least one performance reviewer for
reviewing performance information in the marketing
materials for incorrect or improper information, said at
least one data field including a list of performance
reviewers in the review request form for selection
therefrom by the requester, and
at least one data field adapted to indicate a selection
of at least one compliance reviewer for reviewing the
marketing materials for compliance with at least one
predetermined criteria;
receiving information from the requestor through the
review request form;
generating a review request document based on
information received from the requestor; and
sending an electronic message with the request document
to at least one selected reviewer.
Rejections
Claims 17-19, 21-23, and 31 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over the combination of Fergusson et al. (US
7,349,865 B2; Mar. 25, 2008), Shi (US 2006/0190475 Al; Aug. 24, 2006),
and Truong et al. (US 2004/0098303 Al; May 20, 2004). Final Act. 2.
3
Appeal2015-000629
Application 12/953, 109
Claim 20 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Fergusson, Shi, Truong, and Ben-Meir
et al. (US 2003/0014326 Al; Jan. 16, 2003). Final Act. 14.
Claims 24--30, 32, 34, and 35 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over the combination of Fergusson and Shi. Final
Act. 9.
Claim 33 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Fergusson, Shi, and Ben-Meir. Final
Act. 15.
ISSUES
1. Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Fergusson
and Shi teaches or suggests "at least one data field adapted to indicate an
audience type from a set of predetermined audience types," as recited in
claim 17?
2. Did the Examiner err in concluding that a person of ordinary
skill in the art would have had reason to modify Fergusson to arrive at the
system recited in claim 1 7?
3. Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Fergusson
and Shi teaches or suggests "at least one data field adapted to indicate a
selection of at least one performance reviewer for reviewing performance
information in the marketing materials relating to the performance of the
product or service," as recited in claim 17?
4. Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Fergusson
and Shi teaches or suggests "at least one data field adapted to indicate the
marketing materials under review include performance information relating
to the product or service," as recited in claim 24?
4
Appeal2015-000629
Application 12/953, 109
5. Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Fergusson
and Shi teaches or suggests
at least one data field adapted to indicate a selection of at least
one performance reviewer for reviewing performance
information in the marketing materials for incorrect or improper
information, said at least one data field including a list of
performance reviewers in the review request form for selection
therefrom by the requester,
as recited in claim 24?
ANALYSIS
Claims 17-23
Regarding independent claim 17, Appellants first contend Shi fails to
teach or suggest "at least one data field adapted to indicate an audience type
from a set of predetermined audience types" because the data field in Shi
indicates "a group of reviewers" rather than "audience types who will
receive the marketing materials as claimed." Br. 6.
We are not persuaded of error. The Examiner does not merely
consider Shi in isolation, but rather adapts Shi's teachings to Fergusson
based on the level of ordinary skill in the art. Ans. 4--5. We agree with the
Examiner that "Shi provides groups and it is obvious that these groups could
pertain to any kind of necessary options (i.e. for a food review 'group of
chefs' or 'group of residence in the area')." Ans. 4 (citing Shi i-f 39). For
example, Shi teaches that "[a] query may be sent to one or more of the
foregoing types of groups listed above" (Shi i-f 41 ), provides examples such
as "car discussion group, co-workers, softball group or the like" (Shi i-f 40),
and explains such groups come in a variety of formats such as "a mailing
list"; "a Yahoo! discussion group"; or "members of an IM buddy list" (Shi
5
Appeal2015-000629
Application 12/953, 109
if 39). These same paragraphs explain Figure 2 depicting control buttons
275a for choosing the type of group (such as "Chat Group" or "Yahoo! E-
Mail Group") and menus 275b (e.g., "drop down menus") for choosing the
specific group within that type (such as "Acquaintance Group 1 "). Shi if 41.
Shi's teaching of a user interface to select the recipient group applies equally
regardless of whether the intended recipient group is restaurant reviewers,
compliance reviewers, reviewers of performance information, or potential
customers receiving marketing materials. Appellants have not persuaded us
that Shi could not be adapted for Fergusson using ordinary skill, nor have
Appellants identified any unexpected results from such a combination.
Further, Fergusson explains that "[t]o identify the customers that are
likely to be interested in a particular product" the marketing team can look to
parameters such as "age, income, net worth, investment objectives, current
investment holdings, hobbies and interests, geographic region, and/or any
other parameter that may be helpful in identify[ing] relevant customers."
Fergusson 6:34--43; see also 10:62---67, Fig. 6 (showing list of individual
identified customers for one representative in dialog box 208). We therefore
agree with the Examiner that it would have been obvious to combine
Fergusson with Shi's user interface showing a data field for a recipient
group, where the recipient group indicates an audience type, such as groups
by age, income, or other parameters suggested by Fergusson.
Appellants next contend the Examiner "failed to provide any credible
reason as to why one of ordinary skill in the art would have modified the
teachings of Fergusson to arrive at the system recited in claim 1 7." Br. 7.
Yet Appellants fail to sufficiently address the multiple reasons identified by
the Examiner in both the Final Rejection and the Answer. E.g., Final Act. 5
6
Appeal2015-000629
Application 12/953, 109
("One would have been motivated to provide this functionality because it
provides an efficient form of selection for areas of interest."); Ans. 4
("Incorporating the references provides enhancements in what content is
provided and how it is selected."), 5 ("The data fields of Shi provide
Fergusson with an explicit operation which can enhance the selection system
already provided" by allowing "user selection options for ... marketing
material, list of customers (audience) and reviewers"). Thus, Appellants
have not sufficiently shown error in the Examiner's reasons.
Finally, Appellants argue Fergusson fails to teach or suggest "at least
one data field adapted to indicate a selection of at least one performance
reviewer for reviewing performance information in the marketing materials
relating to the performance of the product or service" because "Fergusson is
focused on measuring the effectiveness of the marketing campaign." Br. 6-
7. Put another way, Appellants contend the only "performance information"
Fergusson teaches is the performance of the campaign (which does not exist
until after the marketing materials have been sent out), whereas the claim
refers to performance information within the marketing materials themselves
(i.e., information that needs to be reviewed before the marketing materials
are sent out). Here, we agree with Appellants with respect to the Examiner's
reliance on Fergusson at column 8, line 8 to column 9, line 55, which we
find is referring to performance of the marketing campaign. See Final Act.
4.
Appellants fail, however, to address the Examiner's other findings,
such as that Fergusson "provides compliance reviewers for the marketing
material" (Final Act. 4 (citing Fergusson 9:56-10:6)) and with respect to
providing a reviewer specifically for performance information rather than
7
Appeal2015-000629
Application 12/953, 109
compliance generally, "providing of different categories is well within the
range of one of ordinary skill." Ans. 5; see also Shi Fig. 2, i-fi-133, 35, 41
(describing queries can be sent to any types of reviewers using a variety of
different user interfaces). Further, Fergusson teaches reviewing marketing
materials of financial products for compliance with applicable rules
(Fergusson Fig. 14A, 9:59---63) and the present application explains that part
of compliance is ensuring that "performance data ... must comply with
regulatory and best practices marketing standards" (Spec. i13). Thus,
Appellants have not sufficiently persuaded us against the Examiner's finding
that the combination of Fergusson and Shi teaches or suggests this
limitation.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 17, and
claims 18-23, which Appellants argue are patentable for similar reasons.
See App. Br. 7-8; 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
Claims 24-35
For independent claim 24, Appellants contend Fergusson fails to teach
or suggest "at least one data field adapted to indicate the marketing materials
under review include performance information relating to the product or
service" because "Fergusson is focused on measuring the effectiveness of
the marketing campaign." Br. 9. This is substantially similar to Appellants'
argument for the "performance reviewer" limitation of claim 17, and we are
not persuaded for the same reasons.
Appellants further contend the prior art references fail to teach or
suggest the following limitation:
at least one data field adapted to indicate a selection of at least
one performance reviewer for reviewing performance
information in the marketing materials for incorrect or improper
8
Appeal2015-000629
Application 12/953, 109
information, said at least one data field including a list of
performance reviewers in the review request form for selection
therefrom by the requester.
Br. 9. Yet Appellants fail to support this assertion or explain why a list of
potential performance reviewers would not have been obvious. For reasons
similar to those discussed above, we conclude that Fergusson's disclosure of
compliance reviews of financial products and Shi' s disclosure of a user
interface with data fields render this limitation obvious.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 24, and
claims 25-35, which Appellants argue are patentable for similar reasons.
See Br. 9-10; 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
DECISION
For the reasons above, we affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting
claims 17-35.
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.
§ 41.50(±).
AFFIRMED
9