Appeal 2007-0610
Application 09/766,357
teachings in the manner necessary to reach the presently claimed invention.”
Appeal Br. 12. Specifically, Appellant argues that “Kent and Cornuejols,
taken alone or in combination, fail to teach or suggest an optimization model
to customize the layout areas for customers, wherein the optimization model
used to customize the layout areas is at least one of a transportation model,
a network model, or a generalized network model, as recited in claim 1.
Appeal Br. 12 (emphasis added).
The issue is whether Appellant has shown that the Examiner erred in
holding the combination of Kent’s method of customizing mass-distributed
publications with Cornuejols’ network optimization would have rendered the
subject matter of claim 1, i.e., using a transportation model, a network
model, or a generalized network model to optimize customizing direct
marketing materials, obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of
the invention.
B. Findings of Fact
The record supports the following findings of fact (FF) by a
preponderance of the evidence.
Scope and Content of the Prior Art
1. The Examiner found that:
Kent discloses a method including steps of developing models
to predict customer purchases (Kent at FIG. 4 at 100 and Paras. 0062-
0068, "automatic personalization software program"), scoring
customers for each predictive model (Kent at Paras. 0066-0068,
"establishes priorities based upon criteria"), determining specific
layout areas (Kent at Paras. 0091 and 0095- 0096, "standard design
template" or "an aesthetically pleasing, readable final page"),
determining where a particular product can be placed in the layout
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013