Ex Parte Yeager

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardApr 12, 2016

12050684 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 12, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 12/050,684 03/18/2008 24234 7590 04/14/2016 SIMMONS PERRINE MOYER BERGMAN PLC 1150 5TH STREET, SUITE 170 CORALVILLE, IA 52241 Daniel C. Yeager 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. 08Yl954U 9110 EXAMINER FRISBY, KESHA ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3715 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 04/14/2016 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): patents@simmonsperrine.com eofficeaction@appcoll.com greg@iowapatentattorney.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte DANIEL C. YEAGER Appeal 2014-003179 1,2 Application 12/050,684 Technology Center 3700 Before ANTON W. PETTING, PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, and TARA L. HUTCHINGS, Administrative Patent Judges. HOFFMANN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-9, 11, 13, and 14. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 Our decision references Appellant's Specification ("Spec.," filed Mar. 18, 2008), Appeal Brief ("Appeal Br.," filed Mar. 15, 2013), and Reply Brief ("Reply Br.," filed Nov. 13, 2013), as well as the Final Office Action ("Final Action," mailed Aug. 21, 2012) and the Examiner's Answer ("Answer," mailed Sept. 17, 2013). 2 The real party in interest is Daniel C. Yeager. Appeal Br. 4. Appeal2014-003179 Application 12/050,684 According to Appellant, the invention "generally relates to advert1smg consumer products and services[,] and teaching students about the same." Spec. 3. We reproduce, below, independent claim 1 as representative of the appealed claims. 3 1. A method of simultaneously advertising consumer products and service and teaching students about the consumer products and services, comprising the steps of: providing to an education institution, at a less-than-cost charge, a simulation kit comprising: a self-storing modular rollaway structure; and a plurality of items of sponsored merchandise, sized and configured to be stored within said self-storing modular rollaway structure, when said self-storing modular rollaway structure is in a stowed configuration taking the shape of a rectangular box; using the simulation kit to perform a tangible hands-on simulation of a real-life experience involving consumer activity; providing to participants of the tangible hands-on simulation which uses the simulation kit, an ancillary simulation testing website configured for administering an online interactive test for assessing a student's level of competence with the real- life experience involving consumer activity, which is directly related to the sponsored merchandise; providing financial remuneration to the education institution for cumulative traffic upon the ancillary simulation testing website, which is ancillary to the tangible hands on simulation; providing financial remuneration to participants of the simulation for their browsing activity occurring at the ancillary simulation testing website; and 3 We remove Appellant's references to the portion of the Specification which provide support for the claim limitations. 2 Appeal2014-003179 Application 12/050,684 providing financial remuneration to part1c1pants of the simulation for performance on the online interactive test which exceeds a predetermined threshold. Appeal Br., Claims App. REJECTIONS AND PRIOR ART The Examiner rejects claims 1-7 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Admitted Prior Art and Previdi (US 2005/0273387 Al, pub. Dec. 8, 2005). The Examiner rejects claims 8, 13, and 14 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Admitted Prior Art, Previdi, and Vulcano (US 2006/0042992 Al, pub. Mar. 2, 2006). The Examiner rejects claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Admitted Prior Art, Previdi, and Official Notice. Final Action 2-9. ANALYSIS In the rejection of claims 1-7 and 11, the Examiner relies on Previdi to disclose the claimed ancillary simulation testing website. See, e.g., Final Action 3, Answer 5. Appellant argues the rejection of the claims is in error because "Previdi does not teach a SIMULATION TESTING website, let alone an ANCILLARY SIMULATION TESTING WEBSITE." Appeal Br. 9, 12; see also Reply Br. 2-3. More specifically, the Examiner determines that Previdi discloses an ancillary simulation testing website because, "as is shown in Previdi[,] a simulation could be reading product literature which can be considered a consumer activity, which, for example, simulates gathering information 3 Appeal2014-003179 Application 12/050,684 while shopping. So in other words, real-life consumer experience/activity is reading the product information," and because Previdi discloses testing related to the product literature. Answer 4. In response, Appellant argues [i]t is clear that nowhere in Previdi does it discuss a simulation. Indeed, Previdi does not relate to any simulation. It takes real products and real product information and gives it to real consumers, and gives them a survey, or a test, over the real product information before rewarding the consumer. The Examiner struggles to equate a mere reading test of actual product literature with testing the learning from a hands- on simulation. This is essentially the Examiner just ignoring part of the claim limitation, i.e. the fact that the present invention is about testing a hands-on simulation with an online simulation testing website. Reply Br. 2. However, Appellant's argument does not persuasively rebut the Examiner's finding that Previdi's presentation of product information for reading by a consumer discloses the claimed real-life experience involving consumer activity, or the Examiner's finding that Previdi's online testing related to the product information discloses the claimed ancillary simulation testing website for assessing a student's level of competence with the real- life experience. Appellant's further arguments are based on the above argument that Previdi does not teach a simulation testing website. See Appeal Br. 11-12. Thus, based on the foregoing, we sustain the rejections of the claims. 4 Appeal2014-003179 Application 12/050,684 DECISION We AFFIRM the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-9, 11, 13, and 14. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 5