Adobe Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Feb 25, 2021

2020004423 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 25, 2021)

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.
14/167,183 01/29/2014 John Hughes 20030.723.4 2946
119741 7590 02/25/2021
Keller Jolley Preece / Adobe
1010 North 500 East, Suite 210
North Salt Lake, UT 84054
EXAMINER
EZEWOKO, MICHAEL I
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3682
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/25/2021 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):
docketing@kjpip.com
gjolley@kjpip.com
ljohnson@kjpip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte JOHN HUGHES, ADAM ROSE, JOHN M. TRENKLE, KEVIN
THAKKAR, and JASON LOPATECKI
____________

Appeal 2020-004423
Application 14/167,183
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before BIBHU R. MOHANTY, BRADLEY B. BAYAT, and TARA L.
HUTCHINGS, Administrative Patent Judges.

MOHANTY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), the Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1−28. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

SUMMARY OF THE DECISION
We REVERSE.

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Adobe Inc.
(Appeal Br. 1).
Appeal 2020-004423
Application 14/167,183

2

CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The Appellant’s claimed invention relates to systems and methods for
rating the success of online advertising campaigns as well as predicting the
success of the advertising and pricing campaigns (Spec., page 1, lines 9−11).
Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on appeal.

1. In a digital medium environment for real-time bidding and
selection of advertising opportunities corresponding to viewers
simultaneously accessing websites via computing devices, a
computerized method for selecting and executing online ad
campaigns, comprising:
identifying, based on user interaction with a user interface for
an online ad campaign, targeted Gross Rating Points for the online ad
campaign, targeted viewer characteristics for the online ad campaign,
targeted media properties for the online ad campaign, and a run time
for the online ad campaign;
determining available impressions for the targeted media
properties, polarization probabilities for the targeted media properties
with respect to the targeted viewer characteristics, and historical costs
of impressions for the targeted media properties;
determining projected Gross Rating Points for the targeted
viewer characteristics for the online ad campaign based on the
polarization probabilities for the targeted media properties with
respect to the targeted viewer characteristics, the run time for the
online ad campaign, and the historical costs of the impressions for the
targeted media properties, wherein the projected Gross Rating Points
are different from the targeted Gross Rating Points;
determining that the projected Gross Rating Points satisfy the
targeted Gross Rating Points;
upon determining that the projected Gross Rating Points satisfy
the targeted Gross Rating Points, determining an estimated cost for
providing the projected Gross Rating Points based on the polarization
probabilities and the historical costs of the impressions for the
targeted media properties;
providing for display, via the user interface for the online ad
campaign, the projected Gross Rating Points and the estimated cost
Appeal 2020-004423
Application 14/167,183

3

for providing the projected Gross Rating Points for the online ad
campaign;
in response to receiving, via the user interface, a modification to
at least one of the targeted Gross Rating Points for the online ad
campaign, the targeted viewer characteristics for the online ad
campaign, targeted media properties for the online ad campaign, or
the run time for the online ad campaign, providing modified projected
Gross Rating Points and a modified estimated cost for providing the
modified projected Gross Rating Points for display in response to
receiving the modification; and
executing the online ad campaign in accordance with the
modification by: receiving an online ad impression from a remote
server, the online ad impression comprising a media property and a
first user and responding to the online ad impression by providing an
advertisement to the remote server for display to the first user.

THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence in support of the
rejections:
Name Reference Date
Luu et al. US 2005/0021395 A1 Jan. 27, 2005
Dilling et al. US 2011/0231242 A1 Sept. 22, 2011
Simmons et al. US 2012/0323674 A1 Dec. 20, 2012

The following rejections are before us for review:
1. Claims 1−15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Luu, Dilling, and Simmons.
2. Claims 16−20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Dilling and Simmons.
3. Claims 21−28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Luu and Simmons.

Appeal 2020-004423
Application 14/167,183

4

FINDINGS OF FACT
We have determined that the findings of fact in the Analysis section
below are supported at least by a preponderance of the evidence.2

ANALYSIS
Claims 1−15
The Appellant argues that the rejection of claim 1 is improper because
the prior art fails to disclose the claim limitation requiring:
determining projected Gross Rating Points for the targeted
viewer characteristics for the online ad campaign based on the
polarization probabilities for the targeted media properties with
respect to the targeted viewer characteristics, the run time for the
online ad campaign, and the historical costs of the impressions for the
targeted media properties, wherein the projected Gross Rating Points
are different from the targeted Gross Rating Points.

(App. Br. 15, 16, emphasis added; Reply Br. 1−3).
In contrast, the Examiner cites to the claim limitation as being
disclosed by Luu at paragraphs 10, 34, 42, and 102 (Final Act. 3, Ans. 15,
17).
We agree with the Appellant. Here, the above cited claim limitation
makes a differentiation and requirement that “the projected Gross Rating
Points are different from the targeted Gross Rating Points.” However, the
above citations to Luu only make a recitation to general “GRP’s” and “target
GRP” and does not show that “projected Gross Rating points are different
from the targeted Gross Rating Points” in the specific manner claimed.

2 See Ethicon, Inc. v. Quigg, 849 F.2d 1422, 1427 (Fed. Cir. 1988)
(explaining the general evidentiary standard for proceedings before the
Patent Office).
Appeal 2020-004423
Application 14/167,183

5

Also, while the citation to Luu at paragraph 102 does disclose the use of a
“cookie” of an audience member, it does not disclose the “polarization
probabilities for the targeted media properties with respect to historical costs
of impressions for the targeted media properties” in the manner claimed.
Accordingly, the rejection of claim 1 and its dependent claims is not
sustained.

Claims 16−20
The Appellant argues that the rejection of claim 16 is improper
because the prior art fails to disclose the claim limitation requiring:
upon determining that the at least one cost of the impressions
corresponding to the polarized viewers satisfies the threshold cost,
modify execution of the online ad campaign by bidding, by the one or
more processors and via the remote server, for an impression
corresponding to an unknown viewer from the plurality of impression
opportunities.

(App. Br. 22, 23; Reply Br. 10, 11).
In contrast, the Examiner cites to the claim limitation as being
disclosed by Simmons at paragraphs 99, 124, 164, 325, 330, and 331 (Final
Act. 12, Ans. 19, 20).
We agree with the Appellant. Here, the above cited citations to
Simmons fail to disclose the requirements of the argued claim limitation.
For example, while Simmons at paragraph 330 does disclose a “score” exists
for each consumer impression it does not specifically disclose modifying
execution of the online ad campaign by “bidding…for an impression
corresponding to an unknown viewer from the plurality of impression
Appeal 2020-004423
Application 14/167,183

6

opportunities” in the manner claimed. Accordingly, the rejection of claim
16 and its dependent claims is not sustained.
Claims 21−28
The Appellant argues that the rejection of claim 21 is improper
because the prior art fails to disclose the claim limitation requiring:
upon determining that the at least one cost of the impressions
corresponding to the polarized viewers satisfies the threshold cost,
modify execution of the online ad campaign by bidding, by the one or
more processors and via the remote server, for an impression
corresponding to an unknown viewer from the plurality of impression
opportunities
run the online ad campaign to satisfy the gross rating points
during the run time by bidding on a second set of impressions in
accordance with the adjusted ratio of polarized viewer impressions to
target versus impression opportunities for unknown viewers visiting
polarized Media Properties to target.

(App. Br. 26, 27; Reply Br. 13−15).
In contrast, the Examiner cites to the claim limitation as being
disclosed by Simmons at paragraphs 330 and 331 (Final Act. 15; Ans. 21).
We agree with the Appellant. Here, the above cited citations to
Simmons fail to disclose the requirements of the argued claim limitation.
For example, although Simmons at paragraph 330 does disclose a “score”
exists for each consumer impression, it does not specifically disclose the
limitations for the “threshold cost,” bidding “for an impression
corresponding to an unknown viewer from the plurality of impression
opportunities,” or “satisy[ing] the gross rating points” in the manner
specifically claimed. Accordingly, the rejection of claim 21 and its
dependent claims is not sustained.
Appeal 2020-004423
Application 14/167,183

7

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
We conclude that Appellant has shown that the Examiner erred in
rejecting claims 1−15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Luu,
Dilling, and Simmons.
We conclude that Appellant has shown that the Examiner erred in
rejecting claims 16−20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Dilling and Simmons.
We conclude that Appellant has shown that the Examiner erred in
rejecting claims 21−28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Luu
and Simmons.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–15 103(a) Luu, Dilling,
Simmons
1–15
16–20 103(a) Dilling, Simmons 16–20
21–28 103(a) Luu, Simmons 21–28
Overall
Outcome
1–28

REVERSED