Appeal No. 2006-1817 Page 8
Application No. 09/851,514
mathematical methodology to form “a promotion campaign plan” that optimizes
the plan by allocating “finite marketing resources across various channels . . . in
view of different business constraints and marketing scenarios, with a goal of
targeting the right customer with the right product through the right channel.”4
(Specification (Background Art), page 2, lines 18-26.)
B. Differences between the prior art and the claims at issue
We find that when one is defining a marketing campaign plan, such as taught
in Gerace, one must consider budget constraints and business objectives and
balance competing factors. We find, however, that the prior art does not explicitly
teach a system to automatically detect contradictions between business constraints
and other management information and automatically identify resolutions and
implement the resolution in a marketing campaign plan. As such, we find that the
difference between the prior art teachings and the claimed subject matter is the
addition of a variable, consisting of business management information, to a
campaign-planning computer program, such as the program taught in Gerace.
C. Level of ordinary skill in the art
The person of ordinary skill in the art is a hypothetical person who is
presumed to know the relevant prior art. Custom Accessories, Inc. v. Jeffrey-Allan
4 MarketSwitch obtained U.S. Patent No. 6,993,493 to Galperin et al. relating to this system.
We note that U.S. Patent No. 6,044,357 to Garg, a prior art patent cited during prosecution of the
Galperin patent, appears relevant to the present application. Notably, the object of the invention.
of Garg is to select a marketing strategy that maximizes a firm’s profits over a planning horizon
while maintaining all expenditures on the marketing strategy within a predetermined budget and
taking into consideration the business objectives of the Operations division. (See e.g., Garg, col.
4, lines 40-47 and col. 5, lines 48-53). If the appellants pursue further prosecution of this
application, the examiner is advised to consider the applicability of the Garg patent
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007