Ex Parte Bennett et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 22, 2010

11026781 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 22, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte DAVID LAWRENCE BENNETT,
ROBERT JAMES DEMICK, DAVID L. JOHNSON,
THOMAS J. PROROCK, RAYMOND LEE WADDELL, JR.,
and LONG-KIM VO YATES
____________

Appeal 2009-014582
Application 11/026,781
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, HUBERT C. LORIN, and BIBHU R.
MOHANTY, Administrative Patent Judges.

CRAWFORD, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, or for filing a request for rehearing,
as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the “MAIL DATE”
(paper delivery mode) or the “NOTIFICATION DATE” (electronic delivery
mode) shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision.

Appeal 2009-014582
Application 11/026,781

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 (2002) of the
Examiner’s final decision rejecting claims 1 to 7. We have jurisdiction over
the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2002).
We AFFIRM.
BACKGROUND
Appellants’ invention is directed to a method and system for
providing access to government benefits by locating, detecting, prompting
purchase of, and monitoring eligible WIC items in the store (Spec., para.
[0001]).
Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A method comprising:
positioning a short-range transmitter in a
predetermined product area in a store;
storing one or more marketing messages in
the short-range transmitter, wherein the one
or more marketing messages are associated with
one or more specific products located in the
predetermined product area;
transmitting the one or more marketing
messages to a computer;
identifying a user as a participant in a
government benefits scheme;
communicating benefits available under a
subsidy program to a user;
upon scanning an item for purchase,
displaying an analysis of benefits available under a
subsidy program, wherein said step of displaying
an analysis of benefits available under a subsidy
program further comprises displaying to said user
notice of a comparable product that is available to
said user at a lower effective price.
Appeal 2009-014582
Application 11/026,781

3
Appellants appeal the following rejection:
Claims 1 to 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Brown
(US Pub. 2006/0074784 A1, pub. Apr. 6, 2006) in view of O’Hagan (US
Pat. 5,821,513, iss. Oct. 13, 1998) and Kassan (US Pub. 2005/0021417 A1,
pub. Jan. 27, 2005).

ISSUE
Did the Examiner in rejecting the claims because the prior art does not
disclose displaying to the user notice of a comparable product that is
available to the user at a lower effective price upon the scanning of the item
for purchase?

FACTUAL FINDINGS
We adopt all of the Examiner’s findings as our own. (Ans. 4 to 6).

ANALYSIS
The Appellants' argument that the prior does not disclose displaying
comparable products that are available at a lower effective price upon
scanning an item for purchase is unconvincing. The Appellants argue that
the claims include a temporal component in that the display of comparable
products occurs upon the scanning of the item for purchase and that this
temporal component is not disclosed in the prior art. We disagree. Brown
discloses that upon scanning of the items for purchase, the screen of the POS
terminal displays the price of the items for purchase using the WIC program
and using a discount program. As seen in Figure 3, the cost of the items for
purchase under both programs is displayed and the customer is prompted to
Appeal 2009-014582
Application 11/026,781

4
select whether they desire to purchase the items under the WIC program or
under the discount program. This display is occasioned upon the scanning
of the item (para. [0029]). Kassan discloses that when a customer removes
an item from an e-commerce shopping cart, the web site displays other
related items that may be purchased at a lower price. The Examiner reasons,
and we agree, that a person or ordinary skill at the time of the invention
would have found it obvious to display related items having a lower price in
addition to displaying items that may be purchased on a discount program.
This combination of Brown and Kassan would have the related or
comparable products that can be purchased at a lower price displayed upon
scanning of the items. Appellants’ argument that Kassan does not disclose
displaying comparable products that can be purchased at a lower price upon
scanning an item for purchase is not persuasive because the Examiner relies
on Brown for teaching displaying upon scanning an item for purchase. We
note that an applicant cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references
individually where, as here, the rejections are based on a combination of
references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981).

DECISION
We AFFIRM the Examiner’s § 103(a) rejection of claims 1 to 7 as
unpatentable over Brown in view of O’Hagan and Kassan.
Appeal 2009-014582
Application 11/026,781

5
TIME PERIOD
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) (2007).

AFFIRMED

hh

DILLON & YUDELL, LLP
8911 N. CAPITAL OF TEXAS HWY.
SUITE 2110
AUSTIN, TX 78759