Ex Parte CrucsDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJan 27, 201512685387 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 27, 2015) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte KEVIN M. CRUCS ____________ Appeal 2012-006610 Application 12/685,387 Technology Center 3600 ____________ Before ANTON W. FETTING, BIBHU R. MOHANTY, and MICHAEL W. KIM Administrative Patent Judges. MOHANTY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE The Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the final rejection of claims 1–34 which are all the claims pending in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). SUMMARY OF THE DECISION We AFFIRM. Appeal 2012-006610 Application 12/685,387 2 THE INVENTION The Appellant’s claimed invention is directed to a system for “providing tailored customer services at a point-of-sale location upon automatic identification of a customer approaching the point-of-sale location” (Spec., para. 1). Claim 1, reproduced below with added bracketing, is representative of the subject matter on appeal. 1. A method for automatically providing tailored customer services at a point-of-sale location, said method comprising: [1] automatically determining an identity of a customer approaching said point-of-sale location using an auto- identifying technology; [2] automatically accessing stored customer activity data corresponding to said customer in response to said determined identity using a computer-based system operatively interfacing to said auto-identifying technology; and [3] automatically generating at least one tailored customer service for said customer by processing at least a portion of said accessed customer activity data through at least one of a likelihood algorithm and a ranking algorithm using said computer-based system. THE REJECTIONS1 The following rejections are before us for review: 1. Claims 1–3, 5–8, 11, 15–18, 21, 25–27, 30, and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Ramchandani (US 2004/0093268 A1, pub. May 13, 2004). 1 The rejection of claims 15–27 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, is considered withdrawn by the Examiner. See Ans. 15-28 in which this rejection is no longer presented. Appeal 2012-006610 Application 12/685,387 3 2. Claims 4, 9, 10, 12, 14, 19, 20, 22, 24, 28, 29, 31, and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Ramchandani and Hendrickson (US 2008/0270230 A1, pub. Oct. 30, 2008). 3. Claims 13, 23 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Ramchandani, Hendrickson, and Official Notice. FINDINGS OF FACT We have determined that the findings of fact in the Analysis section and the findings of fact enumerated below are supported at least by a preponderance of the evidence2. 1. Appellant’s Specification does not provide a lexicographic definition for “algorithm,” “likelihood algorithm,” and “ranking algorithm.” at paras. 19, 25, and Figures 1 and 3. 2. Appellant’s Specification discloses that “[t]he customer service software application may include an algorithm (e.g., a likelihood algorithm and/or a ranking algorithm) adapted to operate on at least a portion of the customer activity data to, for example, determine the likelihood and/or the rank of an item being ordered” but provides no specific definition for any “algorithm” (Spec., para. 19). 3. Appellant’s Specification describes “automatically generat[ing] at least one tailored customer service for the identified customer by processing at least a portion of the accessed consumer activity” but provides no specific definition for any “algorithm” (Spec., para. 25). 2 See Ethicon, Inc. v. Quigg, 849 F.2d 1422, 1427 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (explaining the general evidentiary standard for proceedings before the Patent Office). Appeal 2012-006610 Application 12/685,387 4 4. The definition for the term “algorithm” provided by the Examiner is for “a set of well-defined directions to perform mathematical operations that lead to the solution or approximate solution of a given problem. If a potentially infinite number of steps is required, the process can qualify as an algorithm if a stopping rule based on solution accuracy can be given. (Definition for “mathematics”, Academic Press Dictionary of Science and Technology (1992)). ANALYSIS The Appellant argues that the rejection of claim 1 is improper because the cited prior art of Ramchandani fails to disclose a “likelihood algorithm or a ranking algorithm, let alone applying such algorithms to historical customer activity data to generate a tailored customer service” (emphasis omitted), as recited by claim limitation [3] (Appeal Br. 14–17; Reply Br. 4– 9). In contrast, the Examiner defines “algorithm” as “‘[a] set of well- defined directions to perform mathematical operations that lead to the solution . . . of a given problem []’, wherein ‘the solution’ is to provide the likelihood (or ranking) of the subject of the mathematical operation” (emphasis omitted) (Ans. 16 and 31; citing Academic Press Dictionary of Science and Technology (1992)), and has determined that Ramchandani discloses the argued limitation at paras. 14–29, 138, 140, 143–145, 148–155, and 180–187 (Ans. 15–16 and 30–32). We agree with the Examiner. As an initial matter, we note that the Appellant’s Appeal Brief states that support for the terms “likelihood algorithm” and “ranking algorithm” are found in the Specification at paras. Appeal 2012-006610 Application 12/685,387 5 19, 25, and Figures 1 and 3 (Appeal. Br. 4). A review of these cited portions of the Specification however provides no specific lexigraphic definition of any “algorithm” (FF1-FF3). For example, the Appellant’s Specification discloses that “[t]he customer service software application may include an algorithm (e.g., a likelihood algorithm and/or a ranking algorithm) adapted to operate on at least a portion of the customer activity data to, for example, determine the likelihood and/or the rank of an item being ordered” but provides no specific definition for any “algorithm” (FF2). In contrast, the Examiner has provided a definition of the term “algorithm” from a common dictionary (FF4) which is both suitable and proper in the context of the Specification and claims. Ramchandani discloses that its system automatically identifies a customer when they walk in the door, uses this information to pull up information based on the customer’s past transactions, and creates an engagement plan or tailored output for the customer based on these data (Ramchandani, paras. 14–20 and 148–150). Ramchandani discloses that an engagement plan may include information such as a list of items to cross-sell the customer on, most likely departments for a salesman to locate the customer in, seating preference, and food and drink preferences (Ramchandani, paras. 138, 157–163, and 180–189). We note that Ramchandani’s engagement plans correspond to “tailored customer service,” as presently claimed and described in the Appellant’s Specification at paragraph 21. Further, Ramchandani’s system automatically generates a tailored customer service by processing at least a portion of the historical transaction information of an identified customer through a computerized determination Appeal 2012-006610 Application 12/685,387 6 which allows a point-of-sale location to present the identified customer with sales items the customer is likely to purchase (see Ramchandani, para. 145), menu items the customer is likely to prefer (see Ramchandani, paras. 158– 163), and the most likely departments for a salesperson to locate the customer in order for the salesman to engage the customer (see Ramchandani, para. 189). We acknowledge that Ramchandani does not refer to its computerized determination explicitly as being performed using any particular type of algorithm; however, in the absence of any specific definition of the terms “algorithm,” “likelihood algorithm,” and “ranking algorithm,” in the Specification, or any set of specific instructions for “automatically generating at least one tailored customer service . . . through . . . one of a likelihood algorithm and a ranking algorithm using said computer-based system,” we agree with the Examiner that Ramchandani discloses the argued limitation, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, in light of the Specification, and we adopt the Examiner’s reasoning set forth in the Answer at pages 29–32. For these above reasons the rejection of claim 1 is sustained. The Appellant has provided the same arguments for the remaining claims and the rejections of these claims are sustained as well. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW We conclude that the Appellant has not shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting the claims as listed in the Rejections section above. Appeal 2012-006610 Application 12/685,387 7 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)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED Ssc Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation