Ex Parte Bergh et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Aug 15, 2012

11549797 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 15, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte CHRISTOPHER P. BERGH, MICHAEL S. BAUER,
SIDRA MICHON, and ZACK MILOUSHEV
____________

Appeal 2011-010301
Application 11/549,797
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before: MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, MEREDITH C. PETRAVICK, and
MICHAEL W. KIM, Administrative Patent Judges.

KIM, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2011-010301
Application 11/549,797

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 1-20. We have
jurisdiction to review the case under 35 U.S.C. §§ 134 and 6 (2002).
The invention is directed to a system for managing and distributing
offers (Spec. 1:10). Claim 1, reproduced below, is further illustrative of the
claimed subject matter (some bracketed labeling has been added).
1. A computer-controlled method for managing and
distributing sets of offer data comprising:
[1] preparing sets of offer data characterizing a plurality
of offers, each set of offer data associated with a corresponding
targeted individual and one of a plurality of channels for
presenting corresponding, associated sets of offer data to
targeted individuals;
[2] selecting by a computer one or more offers from the
sets of offer data to present to the individuals associated with
those sets of offer data, the selection based on a rule-based
engine executed by the computer the rule-based engine
executing offer data processing rules, the offer data processing
rules comprising a set of time based rules including [a] a direct
rule that immediately instantiates offers based on an offer
campaign, [b] a triggered rule that instantiates offers based on
the occurrence of particular conditions, and [c] a staged rule
that instantiates offers based on user interaction with previous
offers;
[3] selecting one of these time based rules to determine
which offers from the sets of offer data can be sent to the
individuals;
[4] executing the selected time based rules to determine
the selected offers; and
[5] presenting the selected offers to the associated
individuals over the associated ones of the plurality of channels.

Claims 1-20 stand provisionally rejected on the ground of
nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over
claims 17-47 of copending Application No. 09/777,614 in view of DeLapa
Appeal 2011-010301
Application 11/549,797

3
(US 6,076,068, iss. Jun. 13, 2000); and claims 1-20 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Benthin (US 2002/0035568 A1, pub.
Mar. 21, 2002) in view of Langseth (US 6,694,316 B1, iss. Feb. 17, 2004).
We AFFIRM.

FINDINGS OF FACT
Benthin
FF1. Benthin discloses that the customer first logs in the system. A
campaign is then determined to be presented to the customer. A first
segment of a dialog is selected according to the campaign chosen. The
segment is customized using the customer’s preferences to be presented on
the customer’s interface. The segment is then presented. If the prompt
contained in the segment is attractive, the customer will probably perform an
action such as clicking on a link. This action will be recorded and analyzed.
The user’s action generates a system event, which may cause further system
responses. This will determine the next segment of the dialog to present.
Again, the segment will first be customized and then presented. This
process will continue until the dialog is over (para. [0024]).
FF2. The preferred embodiment of the present invention uses content
delivery and user profiling methods based on content and presentation rules
known as campaigns and dialogs. A campaign is a set of content and
presentation rules used to target a promotion to a specified user group,
following a specific schedule. Dialogs are content sequencing rules. They
represent a decision tree, which the customer then navigates depending on
his or her choices, and on their profiles (para. [0042]).

Appeal 2011-010301
Application 11/549,797

4
ANALYSIS
Double Patenting
Appellants do not appeal the double patenting rejection of claims 1-20
(Reply Br. 1-2). Accordingly, we summarily sustain this rejection.

Independent Claim 1
We are persuaded the Examiner erred in asserting that a combination
of Benthin and Langseth renders obvious independent claim 11 (App. Br. 13-
18; Reply Br. 2-5). Aspects [2]-[4] of independent claim 1 recite a two-step
process. First, a time-based rule is selected in aspects [2]-[3]. Time-based
rules include “[a] a direct rule that immediately instantiates offers based on
an offer campaign, [b] a triggered rule that instantiates offers based on the
occurrence of particular conditions, and [c] a staged rule that instantiates
offers based on user interaction with previous offers.” Based on which time-
based rule is selected, aspects [3] and [4] recite that an offer is selected from
a set of offer data. It is this last aspect which the Examiner has not shown in
Benthin.
Paragraphs [0024], [0030], [0031], [0036], and [0041] of Benthin
discloses time-based rules [a]-[c], and, based on customer interaction, one of
time-based rules [a]-[c] is selected for presenting an offer campaign to the
customer in Benthin (paras. [0024], [0030], [0031], [0036], [0082]).
However, the offer selection in Benthin appears to be independent of the
selection of time-based rules, i.e., the offer presented is not dependent on

1 As Appellants assert that claims 1-4, 6-8, and 10-20 stand or fall together
and choose independent claim 1 as representative (App. Br. 12), we also
choose independent claim 1 as representative of claims 1-4, 6-8, and 10-20.
See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
Appeal 2011-010301
Application 11/549,797

5
time-based rule selected. Indeed, if anything, Benthin appears to disclose
the opposite: the selection of an offer campaign determines the presentation
rules (FF1, FF2).

DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-20 on the ground of
nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting is AFFIRMED.
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) is REVERSED.
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

hh