Ex Parte Barsade et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 7, 2011

10113114 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 7, 2011)

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.
10/113,114 03/29/2002 Jonathan Barsade BAR-2 6630
24039 7590 03/07/2011
INNOVAR, LLC
P O BOX 250647
PLANO, TX 75025
EXAMINER
RETTA, YEHDEGA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3622
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/07/2011 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte JONATHAN BARSADE, STEVEN Y. CHO, and ADAM ZELL
____________

Appeal 2010-001979
Application 10/113,114
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before: MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, HUBERT C. LORIN, and ANTON W.
FETTING, Administrative Patent Judges.

CRAWFORD, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, or for filing a request for rehearing,
as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the “MAIL DATE”
(paper delivery mode) or the “NOTIFICATION DATE” (electronic delivery
mode) shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision.

Appeal 2010-001979
Application 10/113,114

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 79, 81-91, and
128-1322. We have jurisdiction to review the case under 35 U.S.C. §§ 134
and 6 (2002).
The claimed invention is generally directed to systems and methods
for generating a full or partial page banner advertisement during an Internet
browser session (Spec. 1:8-10). Claims 79 and 82, reproduced below, are
further illustrative of the claimed subject matter.

79. A method of providing to an information packet data
stream distributor confirmation that an information packet data
stream was loaded into an end computer connected to a
network, comprising:
a) requesting a first network data stream for display in a
network browser session, wherein the first network data stream
comprises activation code for requesting the download of an
information packet data stream independent of the first network
data stream;
b) creating a multi-frame window in a displayable
browser session;
c) loading the first network data stream into a first frame
of the multi-frame window;
d) activating the activation code and downloading an
information packet data stream into a second frame of the
multi-frame window; and
e) activating reporting code and transmitting a delivery
confirmation data stream to the network reporting system, the
delivery confirmation data stream providing a confirmation of
delivery of the information packet data stream to the end
computer;

2 Claims 43-78 and 92-127 are withdrawn from consideration (App. Br. 11-
19, 22-31).
Appeal 2010-001979
Application 10/113,114

3
wherein at least one of the first network data stream and
the information packet data stream comprises the reporting code
for sending a delivery confirmation data stream to a network
reporting system in response to the loading of an information
packet data stream into the end computer.

82. A method of providing to an information packet data
stream distributor assurance that an information packet data
stream is downloaded subject to pre-authorized criteria and
confirmation that the information packet data stream has been
loaded into an end computer connected to a network,
comprising:
a) requesting a first network data stream for display in a
network browser session, wherein the first data stream
comprises activation code for requesting the download of an
information packet data stream independent of the first network
data stream and reporting code for sending at least one of an
approval request data stream and a delivery confirmation data
stream to a network reporting system;
b) creating a multi-frame window in a displayable
browser session;
c) loading the first network data stream into a first frame
of the multi-frame window;
d) activating the reporting code and transmitting an
approval request data stream to the network reporting system;
e) obtaining approval from the network reporting system
to download an information packet data stream;
f) activating the activation code;
g) downloading the information packet data stream into a
second frame of the multi-frame window; and
h) transmitting a delivery confirmation data stream to the
network reporting system, the delivery confirmation data
stream providing a confirmation that the information packet
data stream is loaded into the browser window.

Appeal 2010-001979
Application 10/113,114

4
Claims 82-91 and 130-132 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
anticipated by Wade (US Pub. 2002/0019831 A1, pub. Feb. 14, 2002);
claims 79, 81, 128, and 129 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Slotznick (US Pat. 6,011,537, iss. Jan. 4, 2000) in view of
Wade.
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
ISSUES
Did the Examiner err in asserting that (1) Wade discloses steps d) and
e), as recited in independent claim 82; (2) Wade discloses the subject matter
of independent claim 87; and (3) step 31/43 of Wade can simultaneously
correspond to both recited steps a) and c) of independent claim 130?
Did the Examiner err in asserting that Figures 7 and 8 of Slotznick do
not render obvious a “first network data stream compris[ing] [an] activation
code for requesting the download of an information packet data stream
independent of the first network data stream,” as recited in independent
claim 79, and similarly recited in independent claim 128?
Did the Examiner err in asserting that Wade discloses the subject
matter of dependent claims 81, 89, 129, and 132?

FINDINGS OF FACT
Wade
Wade discloses user node 12 connected via Internet 16 to host server
14 and advertisement server. Advertisement server 20 is connected via
Internet 16 to advertiser server 18 (Fig. 1; para. [0052]).
At step 31/43, user node 12 sends a content request to host server 14.
At step 32/44, the host server 14 sends a command message to user node 12
Appeal 2010-001979
Application 10/113,114

5
and also begins delivery of the requested content. Next, at step 33/45, user
node 12 receives the command message and, in response, opens a second
channel which is directed to advertisement server 20. At step 34/46,
advertisement server 20 transmits an advertisement and a delivery
verification applet to user node 12, and user node 12 receives the
advertisement and verification applet at step 35/47/48. After the
advertisement and verification applet has been received at user node 12, at
step 36/50, user node 12 verifies receipt of the advertisement using the
verification applet. Host server 14 and advertisement server 20 receives this
verification at step 37 (Figs. 2-3; paras. [0056], [0063]).

Slotznick
Slotznick discloses displaying a primary data screen while secondary
data is downloaded, processed, rendered, and stored in the background of the
primary data screen. When the user wants to access the secondary
information, he or she clicks on the image of a man’s face or the caption
beneath the image, and the secondary information will be immediately
recalled from the cache and displayed (Figs. 4, 5, 7, 8; col. 21, ll. 35-67).

ANALYSIS
Independent Claims 82, 87, and 130
We consider whether the Examiner erred in asserting that (1) Wade
discloses steps d) and e), as recited in independent claim 82; (2) Wade
discloses the subject matter of independent claim 87; and (3) step 31/43 of
Wade can simultaneously correspond to both recited steps a) and c) of
independent claim 130 (App. Br. 4-7). We begin our analysis with
Appeal 2010-001979
Application 10/113,114

6
independent claim 82. Steps 31/43 and 32/44 of Wade correspond to recited
steps a)-c) of independent claim 82, except for the reporting code. Similarly,
step 33/45 corresponds to recited step f), steps 34/46 and 35/47/48
correspond to recited step g), and steps 36/60 and 37 correspond to recited
step h). However, independent claim 82 recites two additional steps d) and
e) (related to the reporting code in step a)) that are supposed to occur
between steps 32/44 and 33/45 in Wade. However, Wade does not disclose
any such intermediate steps.
The Examiner asserts that steps 31/43, 32/44, and 33/45 implicitly
include an “‘approval request’” from user node 12 to host server 14, and
“‘obtaining approval’” sent from host server 14 to user node 12, because
otherwise, user node 12 could not receive the advertisement and verification
applet from advertising server 20 (Exam’r’s Ans. 10). However, just
because approval itself for sending the advertisement to user node 12 was
obtained in Wade, does not mean Wade discloses that the approval was
obtained in the same manner as recited in independent claim 82.
Independent claim 82 recites “wherein the first data stream comprises
activation code for requesting the download of an information packet data
stream… and reporting code for sending at least one of an approval request
and a delivery confirmation data stream,” and then recites “activating the
reporting code and transmitting an approval request data stream” and
“activating the activation code.” The reporting code would be delivered to
user node 12 in step 32/44 of Wade. That reporting code needs to be
activated in order to send the approval request from user node 12 prior to
step 33/45 of Wade, because step 33/45 corresponds to recited activating
step f), which involves an activation code different from the reporting code.
Appeal 2010-001979
Application 10/113,114

7
Accordingly, recited approval steps d) and e) cannot occur simultaneously
with any of steps 31/43, 32/44, and 33/45. The only other option would be
for recited approval steps d) and e) to occur between steps 32/44 and 33/45
of Wade, however, Wade makes no such disclosure.
Thus, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claim 82, or its
dependent claims 83-86.
By contrast, independent claim 87 does not recite separate reporting
and activation codes. Step 31/43 of Wade corresponds to the recited “code
for generating an approval request data stream to obtain approval to
download the information packet data stream,” and the command message in
steps 32/44 and 33/45 of Wade corresponds to the recited “activation code
for initiating the download of an information packet data stream.”
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of independent claim 87.
Similarly, the approval request in recited step c) of independent claim
130 does not require use of the reporting code. Accordingly, step 31/43 of
Wade can simultaneously correspond to both recited steps a) and c) of
independent claim 130, and the transmittal of the command message in steps
32/44 and 33/45 of Wade correspond to the recited obtaining approval steps
b), d), and e). Thus, we also sustain the rejection of independent claim 130.

Independent Claims 79 and 128
We are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in asserting Figures 7
and 8 of Slotznick do not render obvious a “first network data stream
compris[ing] [an] activation code for requesting the download of an
information packet data stream independent of the first network data
Appeal 2010-001979
Application 10/113,114

8
stream,” as recited in independent claim 79, and similarly recited in
independent claim 128 (App. Br. 7-8). We adopt the Examiner’s reasoning,
as set forth on pages 12-13 of the Examiner’s Answer.

Dependent Claims 81, 89, 129, and 132
We are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in asserting that Wade
discloses the subject matter of dependent claims 81, 89, 129, and 132 (App.
Br. 8-9). Appellants assert that
the action fails to establish where Wade discloses or suggests
that “the reporting code includes information identifying ... the
first network data stream [or] the information packet data
stream.” Moreover, the cited portions of Wade fail to disclose
that the verification signal discussed in paragraphs 63 and 67 of
Wade includes information identifying the content received
from the host server 14 or the advertisement received from the
advertisement server 20.
(App. Br. 9) (emphasis removed). We adopt the Examiner’s reasoning, as
set forth on pages 13-14 of the Examiner’s Answer.

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 79, 81, 87-91, and 128-132 is
AFFIRMED.
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 82-86 is REVERSED.
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) (2007).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Appeal 2010-001979
Application 10/113,114

9
hh

INNOVAR, LLC
P.O. BOX 250647
PLANO, TX 75025