Amitabh Seth

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 31, 2020

14329779 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jan. 31, 2020)

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.
14/329,779 07/11/2014 Amitabh Seth 20004/101587US02 6002
81905 7590 01/31/2020
Hanley, Flight & Zimmerman, LLC (Nielsen)
150 S. Wacker Dr. Suite 2200
Chicago, IL 60606
EXAMINER
DUONG, OANH
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2441
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/31/2020 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@hfzlaw.com
jflight@hfzlaw.com
mhanley@hfzlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

Ex parte AMITABH SETH

Appeal 2019-000744
Application 14/329,779
Technology Center 2400

Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, SCOTT E. BAIN, and
MICHAEL T. CYGAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

CYGAN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–10 and 19–38. Appeal Br. 2. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as The
Nielsen Company (US), LLC. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2019-000744
Application 14/329,779

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claimed invention generally relates to monitoring media;
specifically, to measuring media using media object characteristics. Spec.
¶ 2. Traditionally, audience engagement in media programming has been
measured based on monitoring of audience members who have consented to
being on a monitored panel. Id. ¶ 3. More recently, such monitoring has
been performed via Internet server logs; i.e., records of requests for
particular content and/or advertisements. Id. ¶ 4. However, such logs are
not immune from tampering, nor can they keep track of a user re-playing
locally stored media. Id. ¶ 17. A method disclosed in U.S. Patent 6,108,637
to Blumenau “fundamentally changed” such monitoring to overcome the
above-mentioned limitations by tagging Internet media with beacon
instructions, so as to associate monitoring instructions with the HTML of the
media to be tracked. Id. ¶ 18. Whenever the media is requested, the beacon
instructions are downloaded with the media, and are executed whenever the
media is accessed. Id.
In order to leverage existing databases of database proprietors to
collect more extensive Internet usage and demographic data, the claimed
invention extends the beaconing process to encompass participating
proprietors, and to use those proprietors as interim data collectors. Id. ¶ 25.
Further, when multiple media objects are presented at client devices, one of
the media objects is designated as a collector media object that includes
collector instructions and beacon instructions, collecting media object
characteristics from all of the other media objects being concurrently
presented. Id. ¶ 26. This permits relationships between the different media
objects to be determined. Id. ¶ 27.
Appeal 2019-000744
Application 14/329,779

3
Independent claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A method comprising:
receiving at a client device a plurality of first network
communications from at least a first server, the first network
communications including a collector media object and a
plurality of second media objects for presenting at the client
device, the collector media object and the plurality of second
media objects embedded in a webpage;
based on a processor executing a first instruction in the
collector media object presented at the client device, collecting
a first characteristic of the collector media object and collecting
second characteristics corresponding to the plurality of second
media objects presented at the client device concurrently with
the collector media object; and
based on the processor executing a second instruction
associated with the collector media object, transmitting a
second network communication from the client device to a
second server of an audience measurement entity, the second
network communication reporting multiple impressions
corresponding to the presentations of the collector media object
and the second media objects at the client device, the reporting
of the multiple impressions including sending the first and
second characteristics and an identifier associated with the
client device in the second network communication.
Appeal Br. 26 (Claims App.).
Independent claims 24 and 34 recite a storage medium and apparatus,
respectively, each having limitations commensurate in scope with claim 1.
Id. at 28–29, 31–32. Dependent claims 2–10, 19–23, 25–33, and 35–38 each
incorporate the limitations of their respective independent claims. Id. at 26–
32. Claims 11–18 were cancelled during prosecution. Id. at 28.

Appeal 2019-000744
Application 14/329,779

4
REFERENCES
Name Reference Date
Blumenau US 6,108,637 Aug. 22, 2000
Heffernan et al.
(Heffernan)
US 2012/0158954 A1 June 21, 2012
Filed Sep. 21, 2011
Vass US 2013/0166520 A1 June 27, 2013
Filed Sep. 21, 2009
Sharon et al.
(Sharon)
US 9,508,011 B2 Nov. 29, 2016
Filed May 10, 2011

REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 19, and 29 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
obvious over the combined teachings and suggestions of Blumenau and
Vass.
Claims 2–7, 9–10, 20–25, 27–28, 30–35 and 37–38 are rejected under
AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over the combined teachings and
suggestions of Blumenau, Vass, and Hefferman.
Claims 8, 26, and 36 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
obvious over the combined teachings and suggestions of Blumenau, Vass,
Hefferman, and Sharon.

OPINION
With respect to claim 1, Appellant contends that the Blumenau and
Vass combination fails to teach or suggest the recitation:
based on a processor executing a first instruction in a collector
media object, collecting a first characteristic of the collector
media object and collecting second characteristics
corresponding to a plurality of second media objects, where the
collector media object and the plurality of second media objects
are embedded in a webpage.
Appeal 2019-000744
Application 14/329,779

5
Appeal Br. 7.
With respect to that recitation, the Examiner finds Blumenau to teach
or suggest a processor executing a first instruction in a collector media
object, in the form of monitoring instructions that are part of an applet
written in the Java programming language. Ans. 10 (citing Blumenau
11:57–67). Further, the Examiner finds Blumenau to teach collecting a first
characteristic of the collector media object and second characteristics of the
plurality of second media objects, in the form of executing the applet to
cause aspects of all of the displayed content to be monitored. Id. at 11
(citing Blumenau 12:29–39). Further, that the provided content includes
advertisements as part of the content provider’s webpage. Id. (citing
Blumenau 5:26–32). The Examiner finds the “collector media object” to be
taught by Blumenau’s content provider’s webpage having the applet therein.
Id. at 10–11. The Examiner further finds the “second media objects” to be
taught by the advertisements placed on the content provider’s webpage. Id.
at 11.
Appellant first argues that the references do not teach or suggest
transferring monitoring instructions “in” a collector media object. Appeal
Br. 7–11. Appellant argues that Blumenau transfers monitoring instructions
“before, with or after”; i.e., separately from, the content. Id. at 7–8; Reply
Br. 2–4 (citing Blumenau 10:63–65). Appellant argues that the applet is a
separate program that includes the monitoring instructions, and that the
Examiner has not shown Blumenau to describe the applet as being “in” the
webpage. Appeal Br. 9; Reply Br. 4.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument. The Examiner finds
Blumenau’s applet, containing instructions to monitor media, to be a
Appeal 2019-000744
Application 14/329,779

6
collector media object that is embedded in a webpage. Ans. 10–11.
Although Appellant argues that the applet containing the instructions is
separate from the content, the claim does not require the collector media
object to be “in” the content. The claim only requires the collector media
object to be “in” the webpage. We are further guided by Appellant’s
characterization of Blumenau as having “monitoring instructions . . .
associated with the HTML of the media to be tracked.” Spec. ¶ 18.
Blumenau explains that a web page is generated from an HTML file.
Blumenau 3:18–19. In Blumenau, “the monitoring instructions are part of a
computer program that includes instructions for displaying the content,” and
the instructions may be “in accordance with the html syntax that can be used
to cause execution of an applet that both displays content and monitors the
display.” Id. 11:59–67. Blumenau’s applet contains further instructions that
are transferred to the requesting web site and executed by the browser to
perform monitoring of aspects of the display of content. Id. 12:9–36.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in finding
Blumenau to teach or suggest executing a first instruction in a collector
media object that is embedded in a webpage.
Appellant next argues that the references do not teach a processor
executing a first instruction in a particular one of the media content items as
being associated with collecting characteristic of both a collector media
object and a plurality of second media objects. Appeal Br. 12–15.
Specifically, Appellant contends that while Blumenau may indicate that an
advertisement and other content in a web page may both be monitored,
Blumenau does not show the monitoring instructions being “in the
advertisement being monitored.” Appeal Br. 10. Further, that Vass does not
Appeal 2019-000744
Application 14/329,779

7
teach an instruction “in” a media object, and that the “trigger” in Vass does
not collect characteristics of both a collector media object and a plurality of
second media objects that are embedded in a single web page. Id. at 11–13.
The Examiner finds Blumenau to teach or suggest that the content
being monitored can comprise all of the content being displayed, including
advertisements (second media objects) that are also part of the content
provider’s web page. Final Act. 3 (citing Blumenau 12:36–39); Ans. 11
(citing Blumenau 5:26–32). The Examiner determines that Blumenau does
not explicitly teach the second communication reporting multiple
impressions corresponding to the presentations of the collector objects and
the second media objects, but that such is taught by Vass. Id. at 3. The
Examiner characterizes Vass as teaching or suggesting a monitoring
program that can collect data regarding each media content item object being
rendered. Id. at 3–4 (citing Vass ¶ 65).
With respect to the monitoring instructions being “in” the monitored
advertisement, the claims do not recite such a requirement. The claims
require the monitoring instructions to be in the collector media object,
corresponding here to Blumenau’s applet, not in the second media objects,
corresponding here to Blumenau’s advertisements. With respect to Vass not
teaching an instruction “in” a media object, the Examiner has relied on
Blumenau’s teaching, not Vass’s teaching, for that limitation. Ans. 10
(citing Blumenau 11:57–67).
With respect to Appellant’s argument that Vass does not collect
characteristics of both the collector media object and a plurality of second
media objects that are embedded in a single web page, the Examiner has
relied upon Blumenau for teaching both the collector media object and
Appeal 2019-000744
Application 14/329,779

8
plurality of media objects embedded in a single web page, and that both
Blumenau and Vass teach the collector media object collecting data from
another (Blumenau) or multiple (Vass ¶ 65) media objects. Final Act. 3;
Ans. 10–11. “[O]ne cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references
individually where, as here, the rejection[] [is] based on combinations of
references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck &
Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Consequently, we are not
persuaded, by Appellant’s arguments solely against Vass, that the Examiner
has failed to show the combination of Blumenau and Vass teaches or
suggests the limitation at issue.
Appellant next argues that the Examiner has not presented an
acceptable rationale to show that the references would be combined. Appeal
Br. 15–18. In response, the Examiner explains that Vass “describes
collecting particular types of data that may ‘aid in aggregating the collected
data to generate statistics’.” Ans. 12 (quoting Vass ¶ 78). Appellant
clarifies, “even if the Examiner can identify some motivation to combine the
two references,” and that the Examiner’s explanation “may provide a
motivation to combine Blumenau and Vass,” collecting particular types of
data is not a concern of claim 1. Reply Br. 7–8.
We are not persuaded. Obviousness can be established by combining
or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention
where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so. In re
Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 986 (Fed. Cir. 2006). The Examiner relies upon Vass
for teaching the collection of two types of data: that concerning multiple
media objects, and an identifier associated with the client device in the
second network communication. Final Act. 3. Both are required features of
Appeal 2019-000744
Application 14/329,779

9
claim 1, and the Examiner relies upon advantages provided by those
teachings of Vass for the reason to combine the teachings or suggestions of
Vass with those of Blumenau. Id. Accordingly, the advantages determined
by the Examiner to provide a reason to combine Blumenau and Vass so as to
meet the limitations of claim 1 provide a reasoned explanation as to why one
would combine Blumenau and Vass to teach or suggest the limitations of
claim 1. Thus, we are not persuaded of error in the Examiner’s obviousness
rejection of claim 1 and sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1.
Appellant sets forth the same arguments against the rejections of
claims 19 and 29. For the reasons set forth above for claim 1, we sustain the
Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 19 and 29. With respect to
dependent claims 2–10, 20–28, and 30–38, Appellant has not argued any
features of the dependent claims separately from the claims from which they
depend. Appeal Br. 15, 20, 25. For the same reasons as for claims 1, 19,
and 29, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 2–7, 9–
10, 20–25, 27–28, 30–35, and 37–38 over Blumenau, Vass, and Heffernan,
and the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 8, 26, and 36 over
Blumenau, Vass, Heffernan and Sharon.
CONCLUSION
For the above-described reasons, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection
of claims 1–10 and 19–38 as being obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § References/Grounds Affirmed Reversed
1, 19, 29 103 Blumenau, Vass 1, 19, 29
2–7, 9– 103 Blumenau, Vass, 2–7, 9–10,
Appeal 2019-000744
Application 14/329,779

10
10, 20–
25, 27–
28, 30–
35, 37–38
Heffernan 20–25, 27–
28, 30–35,
37–38
8, 26, 36 103 Blumenau, Vass,
Heffernan, Sharon
8, 26, 36
Overall
Outcome
1–10, 19–
38

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED