Ex Parte Wehrmaker et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 29, 2016

12434519 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 29, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 12/434,519 0510112009 132862 7590 03/31/2016 Schwegman Lundberg & Woessner, P.A. I PayPal P.O. Box 2938 Minneapolis, MN 55402 J. Chad Wehrmaker 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. 2043.671US1 1398 EXAMINER ADE, OGER GARCIA ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3687 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/31/2016 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): slw@blackhillsip.com uspto@slwip.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte J. CHAD WEHRMAKER, JARROD SCHWARZ, UMESH C. LALCHAND, and WILLIAM MARTIN-GILL Appeal2013-005222 Application 12/434,519 Technology Center 3600 Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, ANTON W. PETTING, and BRADLEY B. BAY AT, Administrative Patent Judges. CRAWFORD, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134 of the Examiner's final decision rejecting claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b ). We REVERSE. Claim 1 is illustrative: 1. A computer-implemented system comprising: at least one processor coupled to a memory; a click monitor to monitor clicks originated from a web site of an affiliate; Appeal2013-005222 Application 12/434,519 a post click monitor to monitor post click indicators associated with users that originated any clicks monitored by the click monitor; a click value generator to determine a click value for the affiliate, based on the post click indicators monitored by the post click activity monitor, the post click indicators associated with the users that originated the clicks monitored by the click monitor over a first period of time; and a compensation calculator to determine compensation of the affiliate accrued during a second period of time, using the at least one processor, the compensation of the affiliate reflecting the click value and a number of clicks originated from the web site of the affiliate detected by the click monitor during the second period of time. Appellants appeal the following rejection: 1. Claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Bamborough (US 2006/0235764 Al, pub. Oct. 19, 2006) and Sundby (US 2010/0023459 Al, pub. Jan. 28, 2010). ISSUE Did the Examiner err in rejecting the claims because the Examiner has not established that the prior art discloses a post click monitor as required by claim 1? ANALYSIS The Appellants argue that Bamborough does not disclose a post click monitor (App. Br. 7). We agree. 2 Appeal2013-005222 Application 12/434,519 The Examiner relies on paragraph 528 of Bamborough for teaching a post click monitor (Final. Act. 3). Paragraph 528 of Bamborough reads as follows: Stain Stories (Moderated Bulletin Board}-This is an area where the shopper can enter (e-mail) a story about a stain challenge and the solution using products from the marketing company. This information is handled in the form of a moderated bulletin board. We agree with the Appellants that the Examiner has failed to explain what in this paragraph the Examiner considers as the post click monitor. We find that this paragraph relates to a moderated bulletin board but does not relate to a post click monitor. Therefore, we will not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1 and claims 2-5 and 7-10 dependent therefrom. We will also not sustain this rejection as it is directed to independent claim 11 and claims 12-19 dependent therefrom, and independent claim 20, because claim 11 requires monitoring post click indicators and claim 20 requires a machine readable medium having instn.1ctions to monitor post click indicators. DECISION The decision of the Examiner is reversed. ORDER REVERSED 3