Ex Parte Rojas et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 11, 2016

11450533 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 11, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
111450,533 0610912006 John W. Rojas
919 7590 03/15/2016
PITNEY BOWES INC.
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & PROCUREMENT LAW DEPT.
37 EXECUTIVE DRIVE
MSC 01-152
DANBURY, CT 06810
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.
G-124-01 9716
EXAMINER
GARTLAND, SCOTT D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3622
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/15/2016 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):
iptl@pb.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JOHN W. ROJAS,
KENNETH G. MILLER, JOHN H. WINKELMAN,
CARLOS REYES, and JAMES R. NORRIS, JR.
Appeal2013-008888 1
Application 11/450,5332
Technology Center 3600
Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, and
MATTHEWS. MEYERS, Administrative Patent Judges.
MEYERS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's final
rejection of claims 29--32. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
1 Our decision references Appellants' Appeal Brief ("Appeal Br.," filed
March 4, 2013) and Reply Brief ("Reply Br.," filed July 1, 2013), the
Examiner's Answer ("Ans.," mailed May 1, 2013), and Final Office Action
("Final Act.," mailed October 4, 2012).
2 Appellants identify Pitney Bowes Inc., as the real party in interest (Appeal
Br. 2).
Appeal2013-008888
Application 11/450,533
CLAIMED fNVENTION
Appellants' claimed invention relates generally to "creating a
coordinated direct marketing contact strategy between" a direct mailing and
other marketing channels (Spec. i-f 9).
Claim 29, reproduced below with added bracketed notations, is
illustrative of the subject matter on appeal:
29. A method for optimizing the response to a marketing campaign
for a product offering, comprising the steps of:
[a] determining an optimal contact date for delivery of the
mail piece to a mail recipient, which optimal contact date is
anticipated to result in a favorable response by the mail
recipient[,] the optimal contact date being developed by
processing historical data of a similar product offering which
includes the steps of dynamically determining a date in the future
which most closely corresponds to a previous date resulting in a
favorable response in connection with the similar product
offering;
[b] calculating, by a computer, a predicted arrival date for
delivery of the mail pieces of the marketing campaign to the
direct mail recipients based upon an anticipated induction date,
the predicted arrival date being developed by processing
historical mailpiece delivery data which includes the steps of
dynamically recording and storing the number of days required
to deliver a mail piece from an induction to a delivery location;
[ c] mailing the mail pieces of the marketing campaign on
the induction date such that the mail piece arrives on or near the
optimal contact date; and
[ d] electronically contacting at least a portion of the mail
piece recipients on or near the optimal contact date;
[ e] wherein the step of electronically contacting the mail
piece recipients is operative to reinforce the product offering and
enhance the probability for the favorable response.
2
Appeal2013-008888
Application 11/450,533
REJECTION
Claims 29--32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Grossman (US 5,621,790, iss. Apr. 15, 1997), Mougey (US
2005/0256731 Al, pub. Nov. 17, 2005), and Ryan (US 2005/0065897 Al,
pub. Mar. 24, 2005).
ANALYSIS
Independent claim 29 and dependent claims 30-32
We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument that the Examiner
erred in rejecting independent claim 29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because
the combination of Grossman, Mougey, and Ryan fails to disclose or suggest
limitations [a], [b], and [d], as recited by independent claim 29 (see Appeal
Br. 3-7; see also Reply Br. 1-2). Instead, we agree with the Examiner that
the combination of Grossman, Mougey, and Ryan discloses the argued
limitations (see Final Act 3-6; see also Ans. 3-9).
Grossman is directed to "a system for the optimization of telephone
contact campaigns by increasing the probability that an attempt to contact a
party will be successful" (Grossman, col. 1, 11. 15-17). More particularly,
Grossman discloses that "[ o ]ptimized campaigns reduce the number of
wrong party contacts and achieve heightened levels of productivity by
predicting when telephone contact attempts are most likely to be successful
and/or which telephone contact attempts will result in maximum operator
productivity" (id. at col. 2, 1. 63 - col. 3, 1. 1). Although Grossman's
disclosure is related primarily to telephone campaigns, Grossman discloses
"[b ]y refocusing the optimal contact analysis on days rather than hours and
appropriately varying the definition of a successful or right party contact, the
3
Appeal2013-008888
Application 11/450,533
campaign optimizer could also be used to optimize a direct mail campaign"
(id. at col. 5, 11. 3-7).
In this regard, Grossman discloses "individual contact histories, in
conjunction with behavior models, are used to generate telephone contact
campaigns" (id. at col. 5, 11. 54--56) and its "predictive dialer system
attempts to contact the targeted individuals associated with the selected
account records at the times determined by campaign optimizer 20" (id. at
col. 6, 11. 3-5). More particularly, Grossman discloses
[ c ]hronological scheduling accounts for temporal variations in
either the likelihood of contacting the targeted individual or
operator productivity that are represented by call vectors 200.
Call vectors 200 are constructed from individual contact
histories 130, behavior models 160 at and, if desired, operator
productivity data, at 180. Contact histories 130 reflect the
outcome of previous attempts to contact a targeted individual that
are maintained using predictive dialer 30 data uploaded into the
campaign optimizer at 170 and new or changed information
downloaded from host computer system 10 at 190.
(Id. at col. 7, 11. 4--15). Grossman further discloses that
[ c ]all vectors 200 may reflect either contact probability or
maximum operator productivity. Call vectors 200 are produced
by processing the individual contact histories 130 along with
selected behavior models 160 that most closely correspond to the
individual contact history. Call vectors 200 are normally
produced or updated before the host-download preceding
telephone contact campaigns. This is necessary to ensure that
the required processing can be completed in a timely fashion so
as to not delay commencement of a telephone contact campaign
at the start of a workday. This is particularly important because
of the high contact probabilities and operator productivity
normally associated with early morning hours.
(Id. at col. 7, 11. 33--42).
4
Appeal2013-008888
Application 11/450,533
Mougey is directed to a system for "calculating a delivery date using,
for example, a postcode database" (Mougey i-f 2). Mougey discloses that its
system
determines a first estimated date and time that the item will be
scanned at an outbound delivery office, and determines a second
estimated date and time that the item will be scanned at an
inbound delivery office. Thereafter, the delivery processor
calculates the estimated delivery date based on the start date and
time, the first estimated date and time, and the second estimated
date and time, and provides the estimated delivery date to a
source data processor.
(Id. i-f 5; see also id. i-f 14).
Ryan is directed to a system for processing refund requests in a
postage system "wherein the delivery confirmation code is used as a unique
identifier for refund tracking" (Ryan i-f 35). Ryan discloses that "data
obtained by scanning PLANET codes on envelopes is used to monitor USPS
delivery performance" and "mailers may use the information to plan mailing
campaigns and to coordinate follow-up communications such as telephone
calls" (id. at ,-r 96).
We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument
that Grossman has nothing to do with mail marketing campaigns
and does not teach or suggest the claimed determination of the
optimal contact date based on processing historical data
associated with a similar product offering or calculating, based
on historical data, an induction date for the mail piece to ensure
delivery of the mail piece near the optimal contact date.
(Appeal Br. 4; see also Reply Br. 1-2).
Instead, we agree with the Examiner that Grossman's system for
optimizing campaigns is indeed related to, and concerned with, mailing
campaigns (see Ans. 2-3). In this regard, Grossman discloses that its
5
Appeal2013-008888
Application 11/450,533
"system for the optimization of telephone contact campaigns by increasing
the probability that an attempt to contact a party will be successful"
(Grossman, col. 1, 11. 15-17) is applicable to the "optimiz[ ation of] a direct
mail campaign" "[b ]y refocusing the optimal contact analysis on days rather
than hours and appropriately varying the definition of a successful or right
party contact" (id. at col. 5, 11. 3-7).
Moreover, Grossman discloses that its "[ c ]all vectors 200 may reflect
either contact probability or maximum operator productivity. Call vectors
200 are produced by processing the individual contact histories 130 along
with selected behavior models 160 that most closely correspond to the
individual contact history" (id. at col. 7, 11. 33-37). Therefore, in the context
of Grossman's disclosure that its "optimal contact analysis" which provides
an optimal contact period that may provide a favorable response by the
recipient, can be utilized "to optimize a direct mail campaign" (id. at col. 5,
11. 3-7), we agree with the Examiner that Grossman, in combination with
Mougey and Ryan, discloses the argued limitations of independent claim 29.
We note that Appellants do not present any persuasive argument or technical
reasoning that the claimed features would not have been obvious over
Grossman, in view ofMougey and Ryan, to a person of ordinary skill in the
art using no more than the inferences and creative steps such a person would
employ. See KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007).
Appellants also argue that Grossman fails to disclose or suggest
"electronically contacting at least a portion of the mail piece recipients on or
near the optimal contact date," as recited by limitation [ d] of independent
claim 29, because Grossman "discusses mail campaigns as alternatives to
telephone campaigns and does not teach or suggest reinforcing a mail
6
Appeal2013-008888
Application 11/450,533
campaign with a follow up telephone call" (Appeal Br. 4--5; see also Reply
Br. 1-2). However, Appellants' argument is not persuasive at least because
independent claim 29 is rejected as unpatentable over the combination of
Grossman, Mougey, and Ryan, and not over Grossman alone. See In re
Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986) ("Non-obviousness
cannot be established by attacking the references individually where the
rejection is based upon the teachings of a combination of references.")
(citation omitted). Here, the Examiner relies on Grossman to the extent
Grossman discloses "determining an optimal contact date for delivery of the
mail piece to a mail recipient," as recited by limitation [a] (see Final Act. 3)
and Grossman, in combination with Mougey, as disclosing "calculating, by a
computer, a predicted arrival date for delivery of the mail pieces of the
marketing campaign to the direct mail recipients," as recited by limitation
[b] (see id. at 3--4), but relies on Ryan, in combination with Grossman and
Mougey to address limitation [d] (see id. at 5). Thus, Appellants' argument
is not persuasive.
Appellants further argue that Ryan fails to disclose or suggest
"electronically contacting at least a portion of the mail piece recipients on or
near the optimal contact date," as recited by limitation [d]" because "[i]n
Ryan, the follow up call is driven by live tracking" and "relying on tracking
information to determine when to place a follow up phone call is not the
same as determining when to make the follow up electronic communication
based on an analytically determined optimal contact date" (Appeal Br. 6).
However, Appellants' argument is not persuasive at least because claim 29
is rejected as unpatentable over the combination of Grossman, Mougey, and
Ryan, and not over any of Grossman, Mougey, or Ryan alone. See In re
7
Appeal2013-008888
Application 11/450,533
Merck, 800 F.2d at 1097. Here, the Examiner does not rely on the "live
tracking" utilized in Ryan; but instead, relies on Ryan only to the extent it
discloses that "mailers may use the information to plan mailing campaigns
and to coordinate follow-up communications such as telephone calls" (Final
Act. 5 (citing Ryan i-f 96)). To address the "determined optimal contact
date" called for by independent claim 29, the Examiner relies on the
combination of Grossman and Mougey (see Final Act. 3-6). Thus,
Appellants' argument is not persuasive.
In view of the foregoing, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of
independent claim 29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). We also sustain the
Examiner's rejection of claims 30-32, which depend from claim 1 and are
not argued separately.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 29-32 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
8