Appeal No. 2005-1644
Application 09/400,583
Claims 39, 41-44, 53, and 55-58 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, first paragraph, based on lack of written description, and
under § 112, second paragraph, as indefinite. Claim 53 is the
apparatus counterpart of method claim 39, where "means for" has
been placed before each of the steps in claim 39. Claim 39 is
analyzed as representative.
Claim 39 recites "generating spacial relationships using
data mining techniques, wherein the spatial relationships include
[1] relative placement of products within the retail space; ...
[and] [2] associations of customer paths through the retail space
with product placement within the retail space" (numbers in
brackets added). It does not appear that the "relative placement
of products within the retail space" is done by data mining and,
accordingly, there is no written description support and the
limitation is also misdescriptive. It is disclosed that spatial
analysis using data collected by position identifying devices
such as GPS units is used to determine customer paths and item
location within the retail space (e.g., spec. at 4-5 and 29,
lines 19-24), which implies that spatial relationships of
"relative placement of products within the retail space" are
generated using GPS equipment, not by "data mining." Appellants
describe integrating spatial analysis and data mining analysis
(e.g., spec. at 26, lines 11-14), which again implies that
spatial relationships generated by "spatial analysis" and not by
- 4 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007