Ex Parte Bao et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 20, 201612944053 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 20, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 121944,053 11/11/2010 48813 7590 09/22/2016 LAW OFFICE OF IDO TUCHMAN (YOR) PO Box 765 Cardiff, CA 92007 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Shenghua Bao 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 ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. CN920090075US 1 4987 EXAMINER AMIN, MUSTAFAA ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2144 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/22/2016 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): pair@tuchmanlaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte SHENGHUA BAO, BEN PEI, ZHONG SU, XIAN WU, and XIAO XUN ZHANG Appeal2015-007407 Application 12/944,053 Technology Center 2100 Before DAVID M. KOHUT, JENNIFER L. McKEOWN, and SCOTT E. BAIN, Administrative Patent Judges. McKEOWN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-24. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants' invention generally relates to "publishing a web electronic advertisement at a specified location of a webpage which matches the sentiment of the context surrounding the specified location." Spec. i-f 1. Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed invention and reads as follows: 1. A method of publishing specified content at a specified location of a webpage, the method comprising: Appeal2015-007407 Application 12/944,053 performing sentiment analysis by at least one computer processor upon the context surrounding the specified location where specified content is to be published, the sentiment analysis determining a sentiment tendency of the context surrounding the specified location, the sentiment tendency based on at least one of statistical learning and dictionary matching; and selecting whether or not to publish the specified content at the specified location of the webpage based on the determined sentiment tendency of the context surrounding the specified location. THE REJECTIONS The Examiner rejected claims 1---6, 8, 9, 11-18, 20, 21, 23, and 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable by Farago (US 2007/0083611 Al; pub. Apr. 12, 2007) and Tian (US 2007/0245375 Al; pub. Oct. 18, 2007). Final Act. 3-15. The Examiner rejected claims 10 and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Farago, Tian, and Repas (US 2011/0099076 Al; pub. Apr. 28, 2011). Final Act. 16-17. The Examiner rejected claims 7 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Farago, Tian, and Mei (US 2010/0153219 Al; pub. June 17, 2010). Final Act. 18-20. ANALYSIS THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION BASED ON FARAGO AND TIAN Claims 1-6, 8, 9, 11-18, 20, 21, 23, and 24 Based on the record before us, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1---6, 8, 9, 11-18, 20, 21, 23, and 24 as unpatentable over Farago and Tian. 2 Appeal2015-007407 Application 12/944,053 Appellants assert that the combination of Farago and Tian fails to teach or suggest "performing sentiment analysis by at least one computer processor upon the context surrounding the specified location where specified content is to be published" and "selecting whether or not to publish the specified content at the specified location of the webpage based on the determined sentiment tendency of the context surrounding the specified location." App. Br. 6-9. In particular, Appellants allege that Farago does not perform analysis upon the context surrounding a specified location or that the "advertisement is based on a context surrounding a specified location of a webpage." App. Br. 7 (emphasis omitted). We disagree. As the Examiner explains, Farago describes analyzing the context of the multimedia items, e.g., video, surrounding the specified location where the advertisement is to be published. Final Act. 3. Appellants appear to emphasize the "specified location" language of the claim but fail to persuasively explain why the analysis of the video, which surrounds the specified location where the advertisement is published, is not analysis at the recited surrounding the specified location. In other words, the video surrounds the specified location by playing prior to or next to the advertisement. As such, we find Appellants' argument unpersuasive. Additionally, Appellants argue that the reason to combine Farago and Tian "has been improperly gleaned from Appellants' own disclosure." App. Br 9. More specifically, Appellants assert that, The Examiner argues the modification of Farago with the teachings of Tian would be obvious since, "This would have been desirable for the purpose of determining emotional context of content in order to provide more appropriate, relevant supplemental content such as audio based on context/mood of 3 Appeal2015-007407 Application 12/944,053 content disclosed by (D2, 0035-0042)." FOA, p. 6. However, there is no such teaching in Tian. App. Br. 10. This argument, however, ignores express teachings of Tian. As the Examiner explains, paragraph 6 of Tian states that there has come a desire to further enhance the user's experience . . . one to way to improve user's experience is to deliver background music that is appropriate to the text being delivered [by matching the same mood or emotional qualities, thus] disclosing and providing the motivation for combination of [Farago and Tian]. Ans. 10-11 (citing Tian i-f 6). Therefore, we are not persuaded of error in the Examiner's reasons to combine Farago and Tian. Accordingly, for the reasons discussed above and by the Examiner, we sustain the rejection of claim 1, as well as claims 2---6, 8, 9, 11-18, 20, 21, 23, and 24, not argued with particularity. THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION BASED ON FARAGO, TIAN, AND REPAS Claims 10 and 22 Appellants do not present any separate arguments of patentability for claims 10 and 22, but rather rely on the arguments presented for claim 1. See App. Br. 15. For the reasons discussed above, we find these arguments unpersuasive. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claims 10 and 22. THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION FARAGO, TIAN, AND MEI Claims 7 and 19 With respect to claims 7 and 19, Appellants contend that "Farago does not contemplate determining a context surrounding a specified location of a 4 Appeal2015-007407 Application 12/944,053 webpage, and more particularly, a portion or page block of a webpage where the specified location is located." App. Br. 12. The Examiner, however, relies on Mei for teaching dividing a webpage into a plurality of page block and extracting a primary page block. See Final Act. 18-19. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Similarly unpersuasive is Appellants' argument that "there is no teaching in Mei of inferring a web page's main topic." App. Br. 13. Mei expressly includes the step of "identify a main textual block." See, e.g., Mei Fig. 7. As such, we are not persuaded that Mei fails to teach or suggest the disputed limitation. Finally, Appellants also assert that "the hypothetical combination of Farago, Tian and Mei renders Farago unsatisfactory for its intended purpose and/or changes its principle of operation." App. Br. 13-14. We find this conclusory assertion unpersuasive. In particular, Appellants fail to provide any persuasive support or explanation for this argument. For example, Appellants do not identify what Farago's intended purpose or principle of operation is or how it is rendered unsatisfactory or changed. See, e.g., App. Br. 13-14. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claims 7 and 19 as unpatentable over Farago, Tian, and Mei. DECISION We affirm the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-24. 5 Appeal2015-007407 Application 12/944,053 No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 6 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation