Ex Parte Chien et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 29, 201612242352 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 29, 2016) Copy Citation 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. 12/242,352 09/30/2008 Shu-Yao Chien 10033-2011800 8555 97531 7590 12/29/2016 Mauriel Kapouytian Woods LLP 15 W. 26th Street 7 th Floor New York, NY 10010 EXAMINER ORTIZ ROMAN, DENISSE Y ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3627 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/29/2016 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 PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte SHU-YAO CHIEN and LINDA S. LEE Appeal 2014-006177 Application 12/242,3521 Technology Center 3600 Before ANTON W. FETTING, BRUCE T. WIEDER, and SHEILA F. McSHANE, Administrative Patent Judges. McSHANE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL The Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner’s final decision to reject claims 1—20.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 According to the Appellants, the real party in interest is Yahoo! Inc. Appeal Brief filed December 27, 2013, hereinafter “Appeal Br.,” 2. 2 In Amendments to the Claims, filed June 26, 2013, the Appellants cancelled claims 21—24. Although the Final Action mailed on July 30, 2013, refers to claims 21—24, we treat reference to claims 21—24 in the Final Action as inadvertent error. We also note that the Appeal Brief does not address these claims. Appeal 2014-006177 Application 12/242,352 BACKGROUND The invention relates to generating marketing-based age range products based on at least inferred age range information. Abstract, Specification, hereinafter “Spec.,” 1 5. The invention can include combining different types of data for generating the age range populations and age range products. Spec. 1 52. Representative claim 1 is reproduced from page 14 of the Claims Appendix of the Appeal Brief (Claims App’x) as follows, with emphasis added to the relevant claim limitation: 1. A method for generating an age range product for online marketing, the method comprising: using one or more computers, accessing age-identifying data identifying an age for each of a first group of network users; using one or more computers, accessing user-activity data for a second group of network users, the user-activity data including data regarding the second group of network users’ actions on the network; using one or more computers, determining inferred age data for each of the second group of network users based at least on the user-activity data for each of the second group of network users; and using one or more computers, generating a marketing- related age range product for a particular age range based at least on (a) the age-identifying data for the first group of network users and (b) the inferred age data for the second group of network users. In a Final Rejection, the Examiner rejects claims 1—3 and 5—22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious under Bharat3 and Blasko4. Claims 4, 23, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Bharat, Blasko, 3 US Publication 2005/0131762 Al, published June 16, 2005. 4 US Publication 2001/0049620 Al, published December 6, 2001. 2 Appeal 2014-006177 Application 12/242,352 and Hedley5. Final Action, hereinafter “Final Act.,” 3—11, mailed July 30, 2013; see also, Answer, hereinafter “Ans.” 2, mailed February 28, 2014. DISCUSSION The Appellants argue independent claims 1,11, and 16 as a group, using claim 1 as representative. Appeal Br. 4—9. The Appellants contend that Hedley fails to cure the deficiencies of claim 1, and therefore dependent claim 4 stands or falls with claim 1. Id. at 12. We will address claim 4 together with representative claim 1. The Appellants also argue dependent claims 2, 3, 5—10, 12—15, and 17—20 on the same ground as the independent claims they depend from, and the Appellants also present additional arguments on claim 3, claims 5, 13, and 18, and claims 6, 7, 14, and 19, respectively. Id. at 9—12. We will address the claims in a similar manner. Claims 1, 4, 11, and 16 Independent claims 1,11, and 16 include the claim limitation of “generat[ing] a marketing-related age range product for a particular age range based at least on (a) the age-identifying data for the first group of network users and (b) the inferred age data for the second group of network users.” Claims App’x 14, 17, 19. The Examiner finds that Bharat discloses this claim limitation. Final Act. 3^4 (citing Bharat ]f]f 16, 56, 68, 95). More specifically, as to the use of separate groups of information, the Examiner finds that Bharat discloses the use of inputted user data and inferred user data (citing Bharat, Abstract), and to “combine inputted data of a first group and inferred data from a second group would have been an obvious variant.” Id. at 2. The Examiner also finds that Bharat discloses that this “[u]ser 5 US Patent No. 7,676,392 B2, issued March 9, 2010. 3 Appeal 2014-006177 Application 12/242,352 information” is “e.g., about an individual user or group of users associated with one or more client devices.” Id. (citing Bharat | 52). The Examiner also finds that “[i]t would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, to perform the same process done by Bharat to [a] group of users instead of one individual, because the result would be the same,” and “[ujsing a user or a plurality of user[s] will not change the process.” Ans. 2. The Appellants argue that Bharat discloses that user information may be ‘“about an individual user or group of users,’” but does not disclose “‘separating or combining groups of information. Appeal Br. 6 (citing Bharat | 52). The Appellants contend that Bharat fails to disclose the limitation related to data for a “first group” and data for a “second group.” Id. It is also alleged that the Examiner has failed to provide support for the statements that applying groups would be a technological upgrade or the result would be predictable. Id. More specifically, the Appellants allege that the Examiner has failed to explain how the “initial user profile information and the inferred user profile information” disclosed in Bharat renders obvious the limitation of “‘generating a marketing-related age range product for a particular age range based at least on (a) the age-identifying data for the first group of network users and (b) the inferred age data for the second group of network users.’” Id. at 8 (citing Bharat, Abstract). The Appellants also contend, counter to the Examiner’s findings, that “[t]he Examiner's Answer has not demonstrated that the process of Bharat is the same whether applied to a group instead of one individual.” Reply Brief, hereinafter “Reply Br.,” mailed April 28, 2014, 2. Upon consideration of the evidence on this record in light of the arguments advanced by the Appellants, we find that the Appellants have not 4 Appeal 2014-006177 Application 12/242,352 identified reversible error in the Examiner’s determination that representative claim 1 is unpatentable. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of this claim for the reasons set forth in the Final Action and the Answer. We add the following primarily for emphasis. Claim 1 does not identify how the “first group” or the “second group” of users are identified for inclusion in the respective groups. After the users are identified as being included in the respective groups, the claims direct that age-identifying data be accessed for the first group and user-activity data be accessed for the second group, (which is then used to determine inferred age data for the second group of users). Bharat discloses that its invention includes “[u]ser profile information for a user [that] may be determined by (a) determining initial user profile information for the user, (b) inferring user profile information for the user, and (c) determining the user profile information for the user using both the initial user profile information and the inferred user profile information.” Bharat, Abstract, 116. Bharat also teaches that the “user information” is “about an individual user or a group of users associated with one or more client devices.” Bharat 1 52. Under the teachings of Bharat, therefore, any of its users can have user profile data, inferred data, or both, determined for them, thus teaching the limitations of representative claim 1, because any of the users can be assigned to the respective groups and can have the claimed type of data determined for them, or, for a group of those users. Further, we note that under claim 1, any of Bharat’s users could be identified as being in the “first group,” “second group,” or, for that matter, any specific user could be included both groups. As such, we find no reversible error with the Examiner’s findings that “one of ordinary skill in the art” would view Bharat’s teachings to extend to groups of users instead of one individual. See Ans. 2. We also find no 5 Appeal 2014-006177 Application 12/242,352 reversible error with the Examiner’s finding that the use of the “combine[d] inputted data of a first group and inferred data from a second group would have been an obvious variant” {id. at 7), and therefore the use of combined data sets is suggested in Bharat. See Bharat 116. We therefore sustain the rejections of claims 1,4, 11, and 16. Claim 3 In addition to the issues presented for independent claim 1, the Appellants also allege that Bharat does not teach the additional limitations of ‘“the actual ages of one or more of the first sub-group of users having an identified age within the particular age range do not actually fall within the particular age range’” and “‘the actual ages of one or more of the second sub-group of users having a predicted age within the particular age range do not actually fall within the particular age range.’” Appeal Br. 10. The Examiner finds that although Bharat does not explicitly disclose these limitations, it refers to “‘initial user profile information and inferred user profile information,”’ and “[i]n view of this teaching, having errors on inferred information is made obvious.” Final Act. 5. The Examiner also finds that “[i]t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to consider data errors in the invention of Bharat in order to improve accuracy of the system.” Id. The Appellants argue that even if the Examiner’s findings address the “second sub-group,” there is a failure to address the limitation directed to the “first sub-group.” Appeal Br. 10. Our view of these findings is that the Examiner not only refers to errors in the inferred information, but also more broadly refers to the view of one of ordinary skill in the art concerning the overall accuracy of the system, 6 Appeal 2014-006177 Application 12/242,352 which would include the age-identifying data for the “first sub-group.” We therefore sustain the rejection of claim 3. Claims 5, 13, and 18 The Appellants refer to the limitation of claims 5, 13, and 186 of ‘“combining the identified first sub-group of network users having an identified age within the particular age range with the identified second sub group of network users having a predicted age within the particular age range.’” Appeal Br. 11. The Examiner finds that Bharat does not disclose combining the groups, however, Bharat discloses “‘[u]ser information (e.g. about an individual user or group of user associated with one or more client devices)’” and that teaching of combining the groups is obvious in the view of one of ordinary skill in the art and the result is predictable. Final Act. 5. The Appellants argue that the Examiner’s rationale fails to explain how user information about an individual user or groups of users renders the claim obvious. Appeal Br. 11. As we discussed above, we are not persuaded of reversible error with regard to the Examiner’s findings that under Bharat’s teachings the groups can be combined in the view of one of ordinary skill in the art. We therefore sustain the rejections of claims 5, 13, and 18. Claims 6, 7, 14, and 19 6 We note that there are errors in the recited claim dependencies referenced in claims 6—10, 12—15, and 17—20 (claiming dependencies from “claim 0”). See Claims App’x 16—20; see also Amendments to the Claims, filed June 26, 2013. We consider these to be typographical errors and that the dependencies reflected in the claims filed on January 22, 2013 apply, wherein claim 6 depends from claim 2, claims 7—10 depend from claim 1, claim 12 depends from claim 11, claims 13—15 depend from claim 12, claim 17 depends from claim 16, and claims 18—20 depend from claim 17. See Claims, filed on January 22, 2013. 7 Appeal 2014-006177 Application 12/242,352 The Appellants refer to claims 6, 14, and 19’s recitation of the limitation of‘“the first sub-group of network users at least partially overlaps with the second sub-group of network users.’” Appeal Br. 12. Claim 7 has a similar limitation. Id. The Examiner relies on the disclosure of Bharat for the teaching of this limitation. Final Act. 6 (citing Bharat | 63). The Appellants argue that paragraph 63 of Bharat discusses “user profile information,” but does not disclose or suggest a partial overlap of the first group with the second group of users. Appeal Br. 12. As discussed above, under Bharat’s teachings, specific users could be part of both the first and second groups, therefore Bharat’s disclosures fall under the claimed “overlap” of the groups. We therefore sustain the rejection of claims 6, 7, 14, and 19. SUMMARY The rejection of claims 1—20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) 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)(1). AFFIRMED 8 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation