Ex Parte Palmquist

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 26, 2009

11221402 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 26, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte ROBERT D. PALMQUIST
____________

Appeal 2008-003990
Application 11/221,402
Technology Center 2800
____________

Decided:1 June 29, 2009
____________

Before JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO, MAHSHID D. SAADAT,
and SCOTT R. BOALICK, Administrative Patent Judges.

RUGGIERO, Administrative Patent Judge.

ON REQUEST FOR REHEARING

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, begins to run from the decided date
shown on this page of the decision. The time period does not run from the
Mail Date (paper delivery) or Notification Date (electronic delivery).
Appeal 2008-003990
Application 11/221,402

2
Appellant requests that we reconsider our Decision of January 14,
2009, wherein we sustained all of the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
rejections of the appealed claims. We have reconsidered our Decision of
January 14, 2009, in light of Appellant’s arguments in the Request for
Rehearing, and we find no error therein. We, therefore, decline to make any
changes in the original Decision for the reasons which follow.
Appellant’s arguments in the Request for Rehearing, which are
directed to appealed claim 1, focus on the contention that our original
Decision erred in concluding that the disclosure of Swartz satisfies the
claimed requirements because Swartz discloses that advertising information
is based on “… user location and product information input.” According to
Appellant (Request 2-3), the language of appealed claim 1 requires that
advertising information be output to a user based on the location of a
product, not on the location of the user as allegedly erroneously interpreted
by the Board Decision.
We do not find Appellant’s arguments to be convincing of any error in
the original Decision. Our original Decision cited numerous paragraphs
from the disclosure of Swartz in support of the conclusion that advertising
information is indeed output to a user based on product location.
For example, paragraph [0100] of Swartz discloses the sending of
promotional messages concerning a product to a user based on the location
of the product. This cited paragraph of Swartz further discloses that user
location is also utilized in sending messages to a user by tracking a user’s
location through the user’s portable terminal. There is nothing in the
language of claim 1, however, which precludes user location from being a
factor in providing advertising information to a user.
Appeal 2008-003990
Application 11/221,402

3
We also note that, while Swartz discloses embodiments in which
information is provided to a user whose location is tracked through a
portable terminal carried by the user, Swartz also discloses other
embodiments (e.g., ¶ [0184], cited in our original Decision) in which
product location information, such as aisle-sorted shopping lists, is provided
to a user from a kiosk. Swartz also discloses (¶ [0121]) a “Shopper Sheet”
in which advertising material related to products arranged by item location is
provided to a user based on past customer shopping patterns or product
categories. In both of the above examples from Swartz, product-related
advertising information is provided to a user based on product location
without a consideration of the user’s location within a store.
We also find to be unpersuasive Appellant’s argument (Request 3)
directed to the reference in our original Decision to Figures 17 and 18 of
Swartz, and the accompanying description at paragraphs [0073] and [0076]
of Swartz. As discussed in our original Decision (Dec. 7-8), the cited
portion of Swartz describes a product profile database having information
including, inter alia, product location, available discount promotions,
alternative product brands, and the location of the alternative product brands
that are in proximity to a user-identified product.
We do not disagree with Appellant’s contention (Request 3) that
product location information in a database by itself would not necessarily
lead to the conclusion that it would have been obvious to the ordinarily
skilled artisan to utilize such information to provide advertising information
to a user based on product location as claimed. It is apparent from the
disclosure of Swartz, however, including paragraphs [0099] and [0100] cited
in our original Decision (Dec. 7-8), that it is precisely Swartz’s product
Appeal 2008-003990
Application 11/221,402

4
profile database which is accessed to provide product location and
promotional, i.e., advertising, messages to a user based on product location.

CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, we have granted Appellant’s request to the
extent that we have reconsidered our original Decision of January 14, 2009,
but we deny the request with respect to making any changes therein.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

REHEARING DENIED

bim

SHUMAKER & SIEFFERT, P. A.
1625 RADIO DRIVE
SUITE 300
WOODBURY, MN 55125