Ex Parte Bayouth

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 15, 2016

13452534 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 15, 2016)

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.
13/452,534 04/20/2012 Taylor Bayouth 2991.100US1 6356
21186 7590 12/19/2016
SCHWEGMAN LUNDBERG & WOESSNER, P.A.
P.O. BOX 2938
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402
EXAMINER
CHANNAVAJJALA, SRIRAMA T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2157
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/19/2016 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):
uspto@slwip.com
SLW @blackhillsip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte TAYLOR BAYOUTH
Appeal 2015-007358
Application 13/452,534
Technology Center 2100
Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., AMBER L. HAGY, and
AARON W. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges.
MOORE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2015-007358
Application 13/452,534
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1—20, which are all of the pending claims. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
THE INVENTION
The application is directed to “[a] system for managing search engine
campaigns.” (Spec. 13.) Claim 1, reproduced below, is exemplary:
1. A method comprising:
storing, in a database of a server, advertising campaign data
associated with a customer account;
generating a synchronization thread for an advertising
platform selected from a plurality of advertising platforms; and
synchronizing, using the synchronization thread, the
advertising campaign data with the advertising platform, wherein
synchronizing comprises:
selecting a proxy class associated with the advertising
platform, the proxy class stored on the server;
requesting from the advertising platform, via the proxy
class, a set of campaigns that are associated with the customer
account and the advertising platform;
receiving, from the advertising platform, the set of
campaigns associated with the customer account; and
updating the advertising campaign data stored in the
database based on the set of campaigns received from the
advertising platform and a set of campaigns stored in the
advertising campaign data.
1 Appellant identifies Hostopia.com Inc. as the real party in interest. (See
App. Br. 2.)
2
Appeal 2015-007358
Application 13/452,534
THE REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Collins etal. US 2007/0027754 A1 Feb. 1,2007
Collins etal. US 2007/0027756 A1 Feb. 1,2007
Xie et al. US 2007/0239528 A1 Oct. 11, 2007
THE REJECTIONS
1. Claims 1, 6—9, 14, 19, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Collins ’754 and Xie. (See Final Act. 6—10.)
2. Claims 2—5, 10—13, and 15—18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Collins ’754, Xie, and Collins ’756. (See
Final Act. 11—12.)
ANALYSIS
In the Final Office Action, the Examiner found that Collins ’754
“does not specifically teach ‘selecting a proxy class associated with the
advertising platform, the proxy class stored on the server’” but that Xie does.
(Final Act. 8.) In particular, the Examiner found that Xie “teaches [a] proxy
server identifying web pages to the browser, further continuous [monitoring
of] user activity with respect to the advertising campaign.” (Id.)
Appellant argues the rejections are in error because the cited portions
of Xie “fail to teach the claimed proxy class, and instead teach a proxy
server itself.” (See App. Br. 8—9.) In particular, Appellant argues that
“Claim 1 explicitly recites the proxy class is stored on the server,” that
“[t]here is no indication in [the cited] portion of Xie, or other portions, of
3
Appeal 2015-007358
Application 13/452,534
Xie that has a proxy class being stored on a server or that the proxy server is
a proxy class,” and that “[ijnstead, Xie discusses the use of a proxy server
itself.” (App. Br. 9, emphasis omitted.)
The Examiner responds that “Xie supports ‘proxy server’ fig 2
element 225 that generates, fetches requested data[, and] also scan[s] a proxy
site for external web site links and creating and adding to that campaign’s
proxy group [which] is [a] similar function of [the] ‘proxy class’ which
communicates with advertising platform, interacts with the user’s account
data and like.” (Ans. 4, emphasis omitted.)
Appellant replies that the “Examiner is attempting to reject the claims
using a proxy server of Xie despite the claims distinguishing between a
server and a proxy class—at least because the proxy class is stored on the
server,” that “[n]o explanation is given as to how the proxy server of Xie
could function as both the proxy class of the claims and also the server of the
claims,” and that “[t]he Answer similarly fails to detail how the proxy server
of Xie requests the claimed set of campaigns.” (Reply Br. 2—3, emphasis
omitted.)
The Examiner does not find that Xie’s proxy server is a proxy class;
instead, the finding is that Xie’s proxy server performs a “similar function of
‘proxy class’ which communicates with advertising platform, interacts with
the user’s account data and like.” (Ans. 4, emphasis omitted.) We do not
agree that the respective functions are similar.
Appellant’s claimed proxy class is used to request, from an
advertising platform, a set of campaigns associated with the customer
account. (See Claim 1 & Spec. 128 (“[Mjerchant campaign engine 116 may
use proxy class 120 to communicate with advertising platform 110 and
4
Appeal 2015-007358
Application 13/452,534
update the user’s account on advertising platform 110 to include the created
advertising campaign.”).) Xie’s “dynamic proxy server,” on the other hand,
“retrieves an advertiser web page referenced by [a] browser request,”
“dynamically edits the advertiser web page ... to create a proxied web page,
and sends the proxied page back to the browser.” (Xie Tflf 38—39.)
Essentially, Xie’s proxy server modifies web pages delivered to end users,
for example to change phone numbers or prices, while the proxy class of the
application is used by the merchant campaign engine to communicate with a
particular advertising platform.
Because the Examiner does not find that Xie’s proxy server is a proxy
class, and because we do not agree that the Xie’s proxy server is “similar” to
the claimed proxy class, we conclude the Examiner has not established a
prima facie case of obviousness and, therefore, do not sustain the rejections
of claims 1—20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Because this issue is fully
dispositive of the appeal, we do not reach Appellants’ other arguments.
DECISION
The rejections of claims 1—20 are reversed.
REVERSED
5