Ex Parte Brandenburg

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 25, 2016

13546603 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 25, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/546,603 07 /11/2012
130011 7590 03/29/2016
Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP,
(AOL Inc.)
Intellectual Property Department
2555 Grand Blvd.
Kansas City, MO 64108-2613
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
John C. Brandenburg
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.
AOLI.246039 1622
EXAMINER
JAMSHIDI, GHODRAT
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2493
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/29/2016 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):
IPDOCKET@SHB.COM
IPRCDKT@SHB.COM
tquick@shb.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JOHN C. BRANDENBURG
Appeal2014-005561
Application 13/546,603
Technology Center 2400
Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, DEBRA K. STEPHENS, and
KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, Administrative Patent Judges.
SZPONDOWSKI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 1-22. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We affirm.
Appeal2014-005561
Application 13/546,603
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant's invention is directed to a methods and systems for
processing ad server transactions for internet advertising. (Spec. i-f 2).
Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A computer system for processing ad server transactions, the
computer system comprising:
a processor; and
a memory coupled to the processor, the memory storing
instructions to cause the processor to perform operations comprising:
determining an application to execute on an Internet-
connectable device in response to a user interaction with an
advertisement displayed on the Internet-connectable device;
communicating instructions to the Internet connectable
device, wherein the instructions cause the Internet-connectable
device to execute the application;
receiving a security token from the Internet connectab 1 e
device, wherein the security token is necessary for the user to
initiate at least one transaction using the application;
using the security token to process at least one
transaction on behalf of the application in response to the user
initiating the at least one transaction using the application; and
communicating results of the at least one transaction to
the Internet connectable device.
2
Appeal2014-005561
Application 13/546,603
REJECTIONS
Claims 1-8, 10-13, and 15-22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Banerjee et al. (US 2010/0276484 Al;
published Nov. 4, 2010).
Claims 9 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Banerjee and Ali et al. (US
2012/0054741 Al; published Mar. 1, 2012).
ANALYSIS
Appellant contends Banerjee does not disclose "determining an
application to execute on an Intemet-connectable device in response to a
user interaction with an advertisement displayed on the Intemet-connectable
device" as recited in claim 1. (App. Br. 10-12). Specifically, Appellant
argues no determination of an application to be executed, is performed in
Banerjee. (App. Br. 12). Rather, Appellant contends the browser in
Banerjee is already running on the customer's mobile device, so Banerjee
merely results in the retrieval and display of merchant information, or
initiation of a business transaction within the same browser. (App. Br. 12).
We are not persuaded by Appellant's arguments. Banerjee describes
retrieving a list of merchants, where the merchant list includes
advertisements from each merchant. (Banerjee i-fi-1 8, 9, 104, 105, Figs. 20,
24). Such ads may be listed in hierarchical order and are displayed on the
consumer's device. (Banerjee i-f 104, Fig. 20). The user may then select one
of the displayed ads in the list. (Banerjee i-fi-18, 9, 104, 105, Figs. 20, 24).
We agree with the Examiner that such selection constitutes user interaction
with an advertisement displayed on the Intemet-connectable device, as
3
Appeal2014-005561
Application 13/546,603
claimed. (Ans. 5). Upon selecting the ad, the user may receive a token to
conduct a transaction, displayed on the user's device, and may also receive
advertisements for other goods or services sold by the selected merchant.
(Banerjee i-fi-18, 9, 104, 105, 108, 113, Figs. 20, 21, 26).
Appellant's arguments that the browser application is already being
executed (App. Br. 11-12) are not persuasive because they are not
commensurate with the scope of the claim language. The claim does not
require that a new or different application be executed. Moreover, in their
Specification, Appellant describes that an application "may be any software
application capable of initiating advertisement requests and/or displaying
advertisements." (Spec. i126). Under a broad but reasonable interpretation
in light of the Specification, we agree with the Examiner that the browser
application described in Banerjee discloses the disputed limitation. (Ans. 4--
5; see Banerjee i-fi-132, 89, 108, Figs. 26, 29b ).
Appellant further argues Banerjee does not disclose a "security token
to process at least one transaction on behalf of the application
[determined in response to a user interaction with an advertisement
displayed on an Internet-connectable device]," as recited in claim 1.
(App. Br. 14). For the same reasons as discussed supra, and as set forth by
the Examiner (Ans. 6), we are not persuaded by Appellant's arguments.
For the foregoing reasons, we sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) rejection of independent claims 1, 12, and 22. Appellant does not
separately argue dependent claims 2-8, 10, 11, 13, and 15-21, so we sustain
the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of those claims for the same
reasons.
4
Appeal2014-005561
Application 13/546,603
With respect to dependent claims 9 and 14, Appellant argues that Ali
does not cure the deficiencies for Banerjee. (App. Br. 16). Accordingly, we
sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejections of claims 9 and 14 for
the same reasons as described supra.
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-22 is
affirmed.
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
5