Cognant LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Nov 12, 2021

2020004834 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 12, 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.
16/032,426 07/11/2018 Heng Wang MZI-074 6133
142528 7590 11/12/2021
GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
PATENT ADMINISTRATOR
100 Northern Avenue
BOSTON, MA 02210
EXAMINER
JACKSON, JENISE E
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2439
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/12/2021 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):
JGoodwin@goodwinlaw.com
PSOUSA-ATWOOD@GOODWINPROCTER.COM
US-PatentBos@goodwinlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte HENG WANG, ARUN KEJARIWAL, JAMES KOH,
ISHAN UPADHYAYA, and OWEN S. VALLIS
____________

Appeal 2020-004834
Application 16/032,426
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before JAMES B. ARPIN, AMBER L. HAGY, and
PHILLIP A. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.

ARPIN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1–20, all of the pending claims. Final Act. 2.2 We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

1 Appellant refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant
identifies the real party-in-interest as Cognant LLC. Appeal Br. 2.
2 In this Decision, we refer to Appellant’s Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.,” filed
February 28, 2020) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed June 9, 2020); the
Final Office Action (“Final Act.,” mailed October 7, 2019) and the
Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed April 10, 2020); and the Specification
(“Spec.,” filed July 11, 2018). Rather than repeat the Examiner’s findings
and Appellant’s contentions in their entirety, we refer to these documents.
Appeal 2020-004834
Application 16/032,426
2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s claimed methods, systems, and articles “relate[] generally
to anomaly detection and, in certain examples, to systems and methods for
detecting and managing fraud associated with digital content presentations
on client devices.” Spec. ¶ 2.
As noted above, claims 1–20 are pending. Claims 1, 11, and 20 are
independent. Appeal Br. 10 (claim 1), 11–12 (claim 11), 13 (claim 20)
(Claims App.). Claims 2–10 depend directly or indirectly from claim 1, and
claims 12–19 depend directly or indirectly from claim 11. Id. at 10–13.
Claim 1, reproduced below with disputed limitations emphasized, is
representative.
1. A computer-implemented method, comprising:
obtaining a stream of data comprising a record of clicks
generated by users on a plurality of user client devices;
aggregating the stream of data by user client device to
generate a batch click stream for each of the user client devices,
wherein each batch click stream comprises click data for
clicks generated on an individual user client device from the
plurality of user client devices;
processing the stream of data using a real-time anomaly
detector to detect a first anomaly indicating that at least one of
the user client devices was previously associated with fraudulent
clicks;
processing the batch click stream for each user client
device using a batch anomaly detector to detect a second
anomaly indicating that at least one of the batch click streams
comprises fraudulent clicks; and
facilitating an adjustment of content presentations on the
user client devices, based on at least one of the detected first
anomaly and the detected second anomaly.
Id. at 10 (emphasis added). Each of claims 11 and 20 recites limitations
Appeal 2020-004834
Application 16/032,426
3

corresponding to the disputed limitations of claim 1. Id. at 11, 13; see
Final Act. 7.
REFERENCES AND REJECTIONS
The Examiner relies upon the following references:
Name3 Reference Issued/Publ’d Filed
Marsa US 8,561,184 B1 Oct. 15, 2013 June 10, 2010
Ramer US 2007/0061211 A1 Mar. 15, 2007 Feb. 3, 2006
Kitts US 2008/0281606 A1 Nov. 13, 2008 May 7, 2007
Aaron US 2014/0156390 A1 June 5, 2014 Feb. 6, 2014
The Examiner rejects:
a. claims 1–4, 6, 9, 11–13, 15, 17, 18, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
obvious over the combined teachings of Marsa and Kitts (Final
Act. 4–7);
b. claims 5, 10, 14, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the
combined teachings of Marsa, Kitts, and Aaron (id. at 8–9); and
c. claims 7, 8, and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the
combined teachings of Marsa, Kitts, and Ramer (id. at 9–10).
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
identified by Appellant, and in light of the contentions and evidence
produced thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010)
(precedential). Appellant and the Examiner focus their contentions and
findings, respectively, on claim 1, so we do as well. See Appeal Br. 8–9;
Ans. 3–6. Because we determine that reversal of the rejection of
independent claim 1, as well as of independent claims 11 and 20, is

3 All reference citations are to the first named inventor only.
Appeal 2020-004834
Application 16/032,426
4

dispositive, except for our ultimate decision, we do not discuss the merits of
the rejections of claims 2–10 and 12–19 further herein. We address the
rejections below.
ANALYSIS
1. Non-Obviousness of Claim 1 Over Marsa and Kitts
As noted above, the Examiner rejects independent claim 1 as obvious
over the combined teachings of Marsa and Kitts. Final Act. 4–6. In
particular, the Examiner finds that Marsa teaches or suggests a majority of
the limitations recited in claim 1. Id. (citing Marsa, 8:15–22, 8:47–66, 10:1–
7, 18:10–20, 19:28–33, 20:1–28, 20:30–33, Figs. 4, 13); see Ans. 3–4 (citing
Marsa, 6:57–61, 8:8–29, 20:34–37). The Examiner finds, however, that
Marsa does not explicitly teach or suggest, “facilitating an adjustment of
content presentations on the user client devices, based on at least one of the
detected first anomaly and the detected second anomaly.” See Final Act. 6.
Nevertheless, the Examiner finds Kitts teaches or suggests,
“facilitating an adjustment of content presentations on the user client
devices,” in particular, presenting or suppressing a selected advertisements.
Id. (citing Kitts ¶ 27, Figs. 3, 8, 9). Moreover, the Examiner finds a person
of ordinary skill in the relevant art would have had reason to combine the
teachings of Marsa and Kitts to achieve the methods of claim 1. Id. In
particular, the Examiner finds:
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the
art at the time of the effective filing date to include facilitating
an adjustment of content presentations on the client devices of
Kitts with Marsa’s first and second anomaly detection, both are
analogous in the art of click fraud, the motivation to include
adjusting the content presentations on the user client devices is a
security measure that adjust the rate at which commercial
Appeal 2020-004834
Application 16/032,426
5

advertisements are presented, thereby optimizing web page
publisher revenue and reducing inappropriate billing for invalid
requests (Kitts: para. 0027).
Id.
Appellant contends the Examiner errs because “Marsa’s references to
‘client’ and ‘client computer’ are clearly distinguishable over the claimed
‘user client devices.’” Reply Br. 2 (citing Marsa, 8:16–18); see Appeal
Br. 6. For the reasons given below, we agree with Appellant.
“Both anticipation under § 102 and obviousness under § 103 are two-
step inquiries. The first step in both analyses is a proper construction of the
claims. . . . The second step in the analyses requires a comparison of the
properly construed claim to the prior art.” Medichem, S.A. v. Rolabo, S.L.,
353 F.3d 928, 933 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (internal citations omitted); see In re
Geerdes, 491 F.2d 1260, 1262 (CCPA 1974) (“Before considering the
rejections . . . , we must first [determine the scope of] the claims . . . .”).
During examination of a patent application, pending claims are given their
broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification. In re
Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004); In re
Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 1404–05 (CCPA 1969).
The Examiner finds, “the Appellant has not provided a specific
definition of a ‘client device’ in the Appellant’s specification.” Ans. 4.
Consequently, the Examiner finds, “Marsa discloses in one embodiment the
client computer may be a server machine residing at the client device . . . .
Marsa discloses the client computer may be a [server] machine; thus, Marsa
does disclose a client [device].” Id. (citations omitted, citing Marsa, 8:16–
18). Specifically, Marsa discloses, “[i]n some embodiments, the client
computer may be a server machine residing at the client site, in the client’s
Appeal 2020-004834
Application 16/032,426
6

computing environment or network. In some embodiments, the client
computer may collect click streams associated with visitors to one or more
Web sites owned and/or operated by the client.” Marsa, 8:16–21; see, e.g.,
id. at 4:31–33 (“Currently, the system is rapidly growing with an increasing
number of clients, each having a very large amount (e.g., several millions of
clicks in a week) of traffic.”), 8:41–43 (“For example, company A at server
site 220 may provide click fraud detection services to company B at client
site 210.”), 8:50–52 (describing an exemplary “client” as an online retailer).
Thus, the Examiner finds that Marsa’s server residing at the client site
broadly encompasses the recited, “user client device.”
Claim interpretation is a question of law, which we review de novo.
For the reasons given below, we disagree with (1) the Examiner’s
interpretation of the disputed limitations and (2) the Examiner application of
Marsa’s teachings to those limitations.
First, we disagree with the Examiner that the Specification fails to
define a “user client device.” As Appellant contends, “[t]he instant
Specification explains that the claimed client device can be a smart phone, a
personal computer, a tablet computer, or a laptop computer, and that a user
can click an item of content presented on the client device.” Reply Br. 3
(citing Spec. ¶¶ 26–28). In particular, the Specification discloses, “[t]he
client application or components thereof can be accessed through a
network 133 (e.g., the Internet) by users of client devices, such as a smart
phone 134, a personal computer 136, a tablet computer 138, and a laptop
computer 140. Other client devices are possible.” Spec. ¶ 26 (emphasis
added). Thus, we agree with Appellant that the recited, “user client device”
may be a smart phone, a personal computer, a tablet computer, a laptop
computer, or similar devices.
Appeal 2020-004834
Application 16/032,426
7

Second, the Examiner finds that Marsa teaches or suggests, “obtaining
a stream of data comprising a record of clicks generated by users on a
plurality of user client devices.” Final Act. 5 (citing Marsa, 8:15–22, 8:47–
66, Fig. 13 (depicting clients 1301, 1303, 1305, and 1307)); Appeal Br. 10
(Claims App.) (emphasis added). The Examiner identifies “client devices
#1301, 1303, 1305, 1307.” Final Act. 5. Nevertheless, as noted above,
clients 1301, 1303, 1305, and 1307 are entities owning and/or operating a
Web site or sites accessible by a user. Marsa, 14:67–15:6 (“FIG. 13 depicts
a diagrammatic representation of an example embodiment of collusion
detection and traffic quality prediction system 1300 communicatively
coupled to clients 1301, 1303, 1305, 1307. System 1300 may receive files
containing historical click data from these clients or obtain the historical
click data from click data warehouse(s) 1415 maintained by the clients.”
(emphasis added)); see id., Fig. 14 (depicting “CLICK DATA
WAREHOUSE 1415”). Thus, the Examiner incorrectly finds clients 1301,
1303, 1305, and 1307 teach or suggest the recited “user client devices.”
The Examiner also finds that Marsa teaches or suggests, “aggregating
the stream of data by user client device to generate a batch click stream for
each of the user client devices.” Final Act. 5 (citing Marsa, 10:1–7, 20:9–
12, 20:15–28, Fig. 4 (depicting item 420 for “DAILY BATCH
PROCESSING OF CLIENTS”)); Appeal Br. 10 (Claims App.) (emphasis
added). In particular, the Examiner finds that “aggregating the stream of
data includes the historical click data to generate a batch click stream for
each of the client devices.” Final Act. 5. Thus, the Examiner finds,
Marsa discloses receiving historical click data from a client
computer connected to the enterprise computing environment
over a network (Marsa: col. 8, lines 8-11). Marsa discloses the
historical click data includes a plurality of clicks generated over
Appeal 2020-004834
Application 16/032,426
8

a period of time and information associated with the plurality of
clicks (Marsa: col. 8, lines 11-14). Marsa discloses the historical
click data may be collected by the client computer (Marsa:
col. 8, lines 15-16).
Ans. 3 (underlining added).
Marsa discloses:
In some embodiments, the method may comprise receiving
historical click data from a client computer connected to the
enterprise computing environment over a network. In some
embodiments, the historical click data may comprise a plurality
of clicks generated over a period of time and information
associated with the plurality of clicks.
In some embodiments, the historical click data may be
collected by the client computer.
Marsa, 8:8–16. In view of this disclosure, Appellant contends,
Marsa fails to generate the claimed batch of click data for an
individual user client device, and Marsa therefore necessarily
fails to process such a batch of click data for an individual user
client device, as recited in the independent claims. Marsa instead
processes “Web log files” containing click data collected by a
“client computer’ (a server machine) from multiple visitors to a
“client’s” (company’s) website. Marsa’s Web log file contains
click data for multiple website visitors and is therefore not a
batch of click data for an individual user client device.
Reply Br. 4. Thus, Appellant contends, “Marsa at FIG. 4 #420 again merely
indicates that daily batch processing of ‘clients’ (companies operating web
sites) can be performed.” Appeal Br. 7; see Marsa, 20:9–12 (“In some
embodiments, job scheduler 1520 is able to process historical click data for
each client on a daily basis. In some embodiments, a daily batch for a client
may comprise past few weeks traffic for that client.” (emphases added));
see also Marsa, 4:31–33 (“Currently, the system is rapidly growing with an
increasing number of clients, each having a very large amount (e.g., several
millions of clicks in a week) of traffic.” (emphasis added)). We agree with
Appeal 2020-004834
Application 16/032,426
9

Appellant that the Examiner fails to show that the batch processing is “for
each of the user client devices.”
In addition, the Examiner finds Marsa teaches or suggests, “wherein
each batch click stream comprises click data for clicks generated on an
individual user client device from the plurality of user client devices.” Final
Act. 5 (citing Marsa, 20:1–12 (discussing job scheduler 1520)); Appeal
Br. 10 (Claims App.) (emphasis added). As noted above, however, job
scheduler 1520 processes historical click data for each client, not each user
client device, on a daily basis or over a period of weeks. See Marsa, 20:9–
12. Thus, we are persuaded the Examiner fails to show Marsa teaches or
suggests this limitation.
Nevertheless, the Examiner finds Marsa teaches or suggests that the
clicks may originate from a user and on a user device. Ans. 4–5 (citing
Marsa, 6:57–61, Fig. 1). Moreover, the Examiner finds Marsa teaches or
suggests, “the historical click data is processed for each client on a daily
basis, which is the batch of click data for a user client device on which the
clicks were generated (Marsa: col. 20, lines 10-11, See Fig. 1).” Ans. 5.
Further, the Examiner finds:
Marsa discloses the log file of a client can contain historical click
data such as, information associated with a plurality of clicks
including a visitor IP address, date and time information, publish
information, referrer information, just to name a few (Marsa:
col. 8, lines 19-29). Further, Marsa discloses the historical click
data can provide a detailed look at how each visitor got to the
web site, what pages were viewed by the visitor, what products
and/or services the visitor clicked on, and the date and time of
each visit and click (Marsa: col. 8, lines 53-65).
Ans. 5 (underlining added). Thus, the Examiner finds Marsa teaches or
suggests, “the click streams can be collected from visitors, a visitor uses a
Appeal 2020-004834
Application 16/032,426
10

client device, such as the one used in Figure 1.” Id.
Despite these findings, Appellant contends, “[t]here is simply no
teaching or suggestion in Marsa to (i) generate a batch of click data for an
individual user client device (on which clicks were generated) and then
(ii) process the batch of click data for the individual user client device, as
recited in the independent claims.” Reply Br. 4. Although Marsa may teach
or suggest that the historical click data may be gathered from multiple site
visitors’ clicks and may include information about those visitors, we are
persuaded the Examiner fails to show that this data is collected based on the
individual user client devices. Although the Examiner finds, “Marsa
discloses click data for clicks generated on an individual user client device,
because Marsa discloses [a] click transaction may begin with the user
clicking on an online ad via user device at a particular IP address,” an IP
address does not necessarily identify an individual user client device,4 and
the Examiner fails to show where Marsa teaches or suggests such an IP
address identifies an individual user client device over time, e.g., between
detection of a first anomaly and a second anomaly. See Ans. 4 (citing Marsa
6:57–61, Fig. 1) (emphasis added).
Consequently, the Examiner bases the obviousness rejection of
claim 1 on an incorrect interpretation of the disputed limitations. Because of
this incorrect interpretation, the Examiner fails to properly apply Marsa’s
teachings to the disputed limitations.

4 The Specification distinguishes between “a device identifier or device ID”
and “an IP address.” Spec. ¶ 27; see id. ¶¶ 36, 38; see also id. ¶ 37
(distinguishing between “device IP address” and “device ID”).
Appeal 2020-004834
Application 16/032,426
11

Because these deficiencies in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 are
dispositive, we do not reach Appellant’s other challenges to the rejection of
claim 1. Consequently, we are persuaded that the Examiner errs in rejecting
claim 1, and we do not sustain the obviousness rejection of claim 1.
2. The Remaining Claims
As noted above, Appellant challenges the rejection of independent
claims 11 and 20 for substantially the same reasons as claim 1. Appeal
Br. 8; see Final Act. 7 (rejecting claims 11 and 20). Thus, we also are
persuaded that the Examiner errs in rejecting claims 11 and 20 for
substantially the same reasons set forth above with respect to claim 1.
Therefore, we do not sustain the obviousness rejection of claims 11 and 20.
Each of claims 2–10 and 12–19 depends directly or indirectly from
independent claim 1 or 11. Appeal Br. 10–13 (Claims App.). Because we
are persuaded the Examiner errs with respect to the obviousness rejection of
claim 1, as well as of claim 11, we also are persuaded the Examiner errs with
respect to the obviousness rejections of claims 2–10 and 12–19. For this
reason, we do not sustain the rejections of claims 2–10 and 12–19.
DECISION
1. The Examiner errs in rejecting:
a. claims 1–4, 6, 9, 11–13, 15, 17, 18, and 20 as obvious over the
combined teachings of Marsa and Kitts;
b. claims 5, 10, 14, and 19 as obvious over the combined teachings of
Marsa, Kitts, and Aaron; and
c. claims 7, 8, and 16 as obvious over the combined teachings of
Marsa, Kitts, and Ramer.
2. Thus, on this record, claims 1–20 are not unpatentable.
Appeal 2020-004834
Application 16/032,426
12

CONCLUSION
For the above reasons, we reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting
claims 1–20.
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–4, 6, 9,
11–13, 15,
17, 18, 20
103 Marsa, Kitts

1–4, 6, 9,
11–13, 15,
17, 18, 20
5, 10, 14,
19
103 Marsa, Kitts, Aaron 5, 10, 14,
19
7, 8, 16 103 Marsa, Kitts, Ramer 7, 8, 16
Overall
Outcome
1–20

REVERSED