Ex Parte Kantarek

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 19, 2017

12328445 (P.T.A.B. May. 19, 2017)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
12/328,445 12/04/2008 Jeffrey Kantarek 007499.00001 6929
22908 7590 05/23/2017
BANNER & WITCOFF, LTD.
TEN SOUTH WACKER DRIVE
SUITE 3000
CHICAGO, IL 60606
EXAMINER
GARCIA-GUERRA, DARLENE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3683
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/23/2017 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):
eofficeaction @bannerwitcoff.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JEFFREY KANTAREK
Appeal 2014-0049461
Application 12/328,4452
Technology Center 3600
Before PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, CYNTHIA L. MURPHY, and
KENNETH G. SCHOPFER, Administrative Patent Judges.
SCHOPFER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the rejection of
claims 1, 4—8, 12, and 14—16. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM—IN—PART.
BACKGROUND
According to Appellant, “[the] invention relates to methods and
systems for conducting market research, product research, or advertising
research.” Spec. 11.
1 Our decision references the Appeal Brief (“Br.,” filed Sept. 20, 2013), the
Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed Jan. 14, 2014), and the Final Office
Action (“Final Act.,” mailed Mar. 25, 2013).
2 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Jeffrey Kantarek.
Br. 1.
Appeal 2014-004946
Application 12/328,445
CLAIMS
Claims 1, 4—8, 12, and 14—16 are on appeal. Claim 1 is illustrative of
the appealed claims, and recites:
1. An automated system for collecting market research on an
airplane comprising:
a display mounted in an airline seat within an airplane, said
display containing a graphical user interface having a plurality of
selectable screens wherein at least one of said selectable screens
includes a survey question regarding a consumable product and
a selectable icon corresponding to an answer to said survey
question, said survey question displayed without using a
moderator;
a touch screen input device for inputting answer data
corresponding to an airplane passenger’s answer to said survey
question;
a storage device for storing said answer data, said storage
device storing said answer data in a database, said database
further storing said answer data in association with demographic
data relating to an airplane passenger;
a database server operatively connected to said storage
device, said database server connected to a communications
network whereby authorized users may access at least a portion
of said answer data and said demographic data.
Br., Claims App.
REJECTIONS
1. The Examiner rejects claims 1, 4, 5, 8, and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Weinberger3 in view of Le4 and Scott.5
3 Weinberger et al., US 7,028,304 Bl, iss. Apr. 11, 2006.
4 Le, US 2001/0032121 Al, pub. Oct. 18, 2001.
5 Scott et al., US 2008/0270218 Al, pub. Oct. 30, 2008.
2
Appeal 2014-004946
Application 12/328,445
2. The Examiner rejects claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Weinberger in view of Le, Scott, and Renton.6
3. The Examiner rejects claims 6 and 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Weinberger in view of Le, Scott, and Weitzman.7
4. The Examiner rejects claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Weinberger in view of Le and Official Notice.
5. The Examiner rejects claims 14 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Weinberger in view of Le, Weitzman, and Official
Notice.
DISCUSSION
Rejection 1
Claim 1, 4, 8, and 16
With respect to claim 1, the Examiner finds that Weinberger discloses
an automated system including a display, a graphical user interface with a
plurality of selectable screens, a survey regarding a consumable product and
a selectable icon and input device associated therewith, a storage device, and
a database server. Final Act. 18—22. The Examiner acknowledges that
Weinberger does not disclose storing answer data in association with
demographic data or a database server connected to a communications
network. Id. at 22. The Examiner relies on Le as disclosing a database
including demographic data relating to airplane passengers and a database
server connected to a communications network allowing authorized users to
access demographic data. Id. at 22—23. The Examiner further relies on
6 Renton et al., US 2006/0184583 Al, pub. Aug. 17, 2006.
7 Weitzman et al., US 2002/0099605 Al, pub. July 25, 2002.
3
Appeal 2014-004946
Application 12/328,445
Scott as disclosing displaying survey questions without a moderator and
storing answer data in association with demographic data relating to an
airplane passenger. Id. at 24—28.
We have reviewed Appellant’s arguments regarding the rejection of
claim 1, and, as discussed below, we are not persuaded of reversible error.
Appellant first argues that Weinberger does not include a plurality of
selectable screens. Br. § VII.(a).8 However, we agree with the Examiner’s
response and find that Weinberger does in fact disclose a plurality of screens
that may be selected by a user. See Ans. 39-40; see also, e.g., Weinberger
col. 6,11. 52-64; col. 17,1. 38-col. 19,1. 23.
Second, Appellant argues that Weinberger does not disclose a
selectable icon corresponding to an answer. Br. § VII.(a). Although the
Examiner initially relies on Weinberger in the rejection, the Examiner goes
on to also rely on Scott for this limitation. See Final Act. 27—28.
Weinberger discloses the use of touch screens (see below), and Scott
discloses selecting answers on a touch screen display. See, e.g., Scott | 86.
We agree with the Examiner that the combination of art teaches this
limitation. Thus, we find that this argument against Weinberger individually
is not persuasive.
Third, Appellant argues that Weinberger does not disclose “that a
survey question is directed to any products, let alone a consumable product.”
Br. § VII.(a). We are not persuaded for reasons provided by the Examiner.
See Ans. 40-42. Specifically, we agree that the specific content of a survey
required by the claim is non-functional descriptive matter. We also agree
Appellant’s Brief does not include page numbers.
4
Appeal 2014-004946
Application 12/328,445
that although Weinberger does not explicitly disclose the content of the
surveys provided, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it
obvious to include questions related to consumable products based on
Weinberger disclosures related to the use of surveys as well as the use of
Weinberger’s device to make selections of consumable products. See, e.g.,
Weinberger col. 82,11. 11—28 (describing the use of surveys); col. 76,11. 10-
23 (describing that information is displayed to passengers regarding what
products and services are available on a flight).
Fourth, Appellant argues that Weinberger does not disclose a touch
screen and uses primarily a passenger control unit. Br. § VII.(a). However,
we agree with the Examiner that Weinberger teaches the use of touch
screens via its disclosure of “seat display units with or without touch
screens” in addition to its passenger control unit. See Weinberger col. 13,11.
30-45; see also Ans. 42-43.
Fifth, Appellant argues that Le does not teach a database storing
answer data in association with demographic data. Br. at § VII. (b).
However, the Examiner clarifies that the rejection does not specifically rely
upon Le to show a database storing survey answers in association with
demographic data. Ans. at 44. Rather, the rejection relies on Scott for this
disclosure. Id. For this reason, Appellant’s argument against Le
individually is not persuasive.
Sixth, Appellant argues that Le does not disclose any means for
allowing an authorized user to access survey answer data associated with
demographic data relating to an airline passenger. Br. at § VII.(b). In
support, Appellant argues that Le does not allow a client to access
demographic information. Id. However, the Examiner maintains that the
5
Appeal 2014-004946
Application 12/328,445
rejection does not rely on Le with respect to this limitation. Ans. 44. We
agree. The Examiner cites Scott for this limitation in the rejection. Final
Act. 28 (citing Scott || 47, 97). Thus, this argument regarding Le
individually is not persuasive.
Seventh, Appellant argues that Le is not analogous art. Br. § VII.(c).
Specifically, Appellant asserts, inter alia, that Le is not in the same field of
endeavor because Le is related to providing targeted display advertising
while the present invention is directed to conducting market or product
research. Id. However, we agree with the Examiner that Le is in the same
field of endeavor. See Ans. 45 46. The Specification states that the field
relates to “conducting market research, product research, or advertising
research.” Spec. 11. Similarly, Le is related to providing “display
advertising and interactive focus marketing using information from the
internet.” Le 12
Eighth, Appellant argues that Scott does not disclose displaying
survey questions without using a moderator. Br. § VII.(d). We are not
persuaded for the reasons provide by the Examiner. See Ans. 46-47
(explaining that a host server and data acquisition device are disclosed in
Scott as obtaining demographic data and presenting a survey without
disclosing the use of a moderator). Scott discloses that a data device is used
to present a series of question to an interviewee including questions related
to demographic information and then a survey is given based on the
demographic information entered. See Scott || 75—87. Scott discloses that a
host server processes a response and determines the next question to be
displayed. Id. at 87. Thus, Scott discloses presenting survey questions
without the use of a moderator.
6
Appeal 2014-004946
Application 12/328,445
Ninth, Appellant argues that Scott does not disclose the database
storing survey answers in association with demographic information.
Br. § VII.(d). We agree with Examiner’s response regarding this argument.
See Ans. 48-49. Specifically, we agree that because Scott uses demographic
information to determine particular questions to be asked, as described
above, the questions and stored answers are necessarily associated with
demographic information as required by the claims.
Finally, Appellant argues that Scott does not teach that the database
server is connected to a communications network whereby authorized users
may access answer data and demographic data. Br. § VII.(d). We are not
persuaded for the reasons provided by the Examiner. See Ans. 50-51. In
particular, Scott discloses that an external computer may be used to connect
to a host server such that “the party responsible for the survey” can view the
survey data. Scott 194.
Because we find each of Appellant’s arguments unpersuasive, we
sustain the rejection of claim 1. We also sustain the rejection of claims 4
and 8, for which Appellant does not provide separate arguments. Further,
we sustain the rejection of claim 16, for which Appellant relies on arguments
addressed above.
Claim 5
With respect to claim 5, we agree with Appellant that the limitations
added by this claim are not specifically addressed in the rejection over
Weinberger, Le, and Scott. Thus, we are persuaded of reversible error with
respect to this claim and this combination of art. Accordingly, we do not
sustain the rejection of claim 5 over Weinberger in view of Le and Scott.
7
Appeal 2014-004946
Application 12/328,445
Rejection 2
The Examiner alternatively rejects claim 5 over Weinberger in view
of Le, Scott, and Renton. Claim 5 depends from claim 1 and further requires
that “said database server is accessible by an authorized user via a web
browser configured to generate a second user interface, said second user
interface displaying survey answer data.” The Examiner relies on
Weinberger, Le, and Scott as discussed above with respect to claim 1 and
relies on Renton as teaching the specific limitations added by claim 5. Final
Act. 34—36 (citing Renton H 3, 6, 7, 17).
Appellant argues that Renton does not teach the limitations of claim 5
because Renton does not disclose a database storing demographic
information. Br. § VII. “Claim 5 Rejection Under 35 U.S.C. § 103.”
However, Renton is not relied upon for teaching the particular database
required by claim 1. Rather, Renton is only relied upon as showing that it
would have been obvious to include a second user interface to display
survey data in a web browser. See Final Act. 35; see also Ans. 51—52.
Thus, Appellant’s argument against Renton individually regarding the use of
demographic data is not persuasive. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of
claim 5 over Weinberger in view of Le, Scott, and Renton.
Rejection 3
As noted above, the Examiner does not address the specific
limitations of claim 5 in the rejection over only Weinberger, Le, and Scott.
Likewise, the rejection of claims 6 and 7 over Weinberger, Le, Scott, and
Weitzman fails to address the specific limitations of claim 5. See Final
Act. 36—39. For this reason, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 6
and 7.
8
Appeal 2014-004946
Application 12/328,445
Rejections 4 and 5
We are persuaded by Appellant’s argument that the proposed
combination of Weinberger, Le, and Official Notice does not disclose the
transmitting step of claim 12, which requires “transmitting said passenger
answer data over said second data link and storing said passenger answer
data in said offsite data storage device, said passenger answer data stored
associated with said demographic information in a database in said offsite
data storage device.” In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner acknowledges that
the combination of Weinberger and Le does not explicitly teach a database
storing answer data in association with demographic data relating to an
airplane passenger, for which the Examiner further relied on Scott. In
rejecting claim 12, the Examiner acknowledges that Weinberger does not
explicitly teach storing demographic information with passenger answer
data. Final Act. 43. The Examiner indicates that Le | 64 teaches this
limitation, but that paragraph is silent regarding passenger answer data, and
the Examiner does not otherwise explain why this would have been obvious
to do without including the Scott reference. Accordingly, we find reversible
error and we do not sustain the rejection of claim 12. For the same reasons,
we do not sustain the rejection of claims 14 and 15, which depend from
claim 12.
CONCLUSION
We AFFIRM the rejection of claims 1, 4, 8, and 16 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Weinberger in view of Le and Scott.
We REVERSE the rejection of claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Weinberger in view of Le and Scott.
9
Appeal 2014-004946
Application 12/328,445
We AFFIRM the rejection of claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Weinberger in view of Le, Scott, and Renton.
We REVERSE the rejection of claims 6 and 7 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Weinberger in view of Le, Scott, and
Weitzman.
We REVERSE the rejection of claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Weinberger in view of Le and Official Notice.
We REVERSE the rejection of claims 14 and 15 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Weinberger in view of Le, Weitzman, and
Official Notice.
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-IN-PART
10