Ex Parte Eldering et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 22, 2016

10759620 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 22, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
101759,620 01/16/2004
84212 7590 02/24/2016
The Belles Group, P,C,
1608 Walnut Street, Suite 1302
Philadephia, PA 19103
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Charles A. Eldering
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.
T708-14 1665
EXAMINER
CHIN, RICKY
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2423
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/24/2016 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@thebellesgroup.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CHARLES A. ELDERING, GREGORY C. FLICKINGER,
and
JEFFREYS. HAMILTON
Appeal2013-008483
Application 10/759,620
Technology Center 2400
Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, CARLA M. KRIVAK, and
JEFFREY A. STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judges.
KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1, 3, 5-8, 10-18, 22, 23, and 25. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Appeal2013-008483
Application 10/759,620
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' invention is directed to an Ad Management System for
managing sales and insertion of targeted advertisements (ads) into
advertising opportunities (Abstract).
Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is exemplary of the subject
matter on appeal.
1. A method for managing selection and insertion of
advertisements, the method comprising:
determining an avail bandwidth and subscriber
characteristics for an advertisement opportunity within a
program stream;
receiving, from a plurality of advertisers, a plurality of
requests for advertisement presentation, each request associated
with an advertisement and including a maximum bid,
advertisement characteristics comprising intended target market
characteristics and minimum bandwidth requirements, wherein
the minimum bandwidth requirements identify a required
amount of bandwidth available within the program stream for
the advertisement to be inserted, wherein each of the plurality
of requests may be fulfilled by inserting the associated
advertisements into one of a plurality of available advertisement
opportunities;
selecting a targeted advertisement from the plurality of
requests for insertion into the advertisement opportunity based
at least in part on the maximum bid, the minimum bandwidth
requirements and a correlation between the intended target
market characteristics and the subscriber characteristics,
wherein a price for inserting the targeted advertisement is
calculated based on the correlation; and
compressing, based at least in part on the avail
bandwidth, the selected targeted advertisement such that the
minimum bandwidth requirements are satisfied.
2
Appeal2013-008483
Application 10/759,620
REFERENCES and REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 3, 5-8, 10-18, 22, 23, and 25 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon the teachings of Carles (US 5,661,516; iss.
Aug. 26, 1997), Bryant (US 5,652,615; iss. July 29, 1997), Hane (US
2006/0041921 Al; pub. Feb. 23, 2006), Safadi (US 6,487,721 Bl; iss. Nov.
26, 2002), and Dedrick (US 5,754,787; iss. May 19, 1998).
ANALYSIS
Appellants contend the Examiner erred in finding the combination of
Carles, Bryant, Hane, Safadi, and Dedrick teaches or suggests the limitations
recited in Appellants' independent claim 1 (Br. 10-19). We do not agree.
We agree with and adopt the Examiner's findings as our own (Ans.
14--22). Particularly, we agree with and address the Examiner finding the
combination of Bryant and Safadi teaches compressing, based at least in part
on the avail bandwidth, the selected targeted advertisement such that the
minimum bandwidth requirements are satisfied, as recited in claim 1 (Ans.
17-19).
The Examiner finds Bryant teaches an ad whose minimum bandwidth
requirements match an avail bandwidth (Final Act. 5, 8-9; Bryant, col. 4 11.
37--45, col. 4, 1. 64--col. 5, 1. 9, Fig. 3), and Safadi teaches compressing an ad
based on avail bandwidth (Final Act. 11-12; Safadi, col. 5, 11. 13-34).
Based on these teachings, we agree with the Examiner's conclusion that it
would have been obvious to improve bandwidth use and efficiency by
applying Safadi' s compression, based on avail bandwidth, to an ad whose
minimum bandwidth requirements match the avail bandwidth as taught by
Bryant, thereby improving avail bandwidth use by fitting ads to the allocated
3
Appeal2013-008483
Application 10/759,620
avail (Ans. 19; Final Act. 12). Safadi's compression to fit the avail
bandwidth would satisfy the ad's minimum bandwidth requirements as
claimed because Bryant teaches selecting an ad with minimum bandwidth
requirements that are compatible with the avail bandwidth (Final Act. 5, 8-
9; Bryant, col. 4 11. 37--45, col. 4, 1. 64---col. 5, 1. 9, Fig. 3; see also Br. 11
("In other words, the 'minimum bandwidth' in Bryant is the bandwidth
required to be available in a stream to effectively transport a video segment
(e.g., advertisement) with the stream" (emphasis omitted)).
Appellants argue Bryant's ads do not require Safadi' s compression
because Bryant's ads "fit exactly into a set bandwidth signal" (Br. 1 7).
Therefore, according to Appellants, "compression of any kind [for Bryant's
ads] would bring the bandwidth below the minimum bandwidth" and not
satisfy the minimum bandwidth requirements as recited in claim 1 (Br. 17).
We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument because Bryant teaches ads
may be MPEG compressed. 1 Thus, minimum bandwidth requirements are
satisfied for Bryant's compressed ads (Ans. 18).
Appellants also argue Safadi does not teach compressing an ad based
on avail bandwidth as claimed, because Safadi' s traditional television
technology compresses based on program bandwidth that is different from
the avail bandwidth in "claim 1 [which] considers an 'avail bandwidth,' that
is independent of (e.g., need not be the same as) the program bandwidth"
(Br. 15-16). Appellants' argument is not commensurate with the scope of
1 Bryant provides that ''fill segments 320 . .. are generally short and disjoint,
for example advertisements . .. segments 310 and 320 can be encoded
according to an industry standard, for example, MPEG" (Bryant col. 411.
51-56, col. 5 11. 45-47 (emphasis added)).
4
Appeal2013-008483
Application 10/759,620
claim 1, which does not recite avail bandwidth is independent of or variable
in relation to program bandwidth; claim 1 merely recites "wherein the
minimum bandwidth requirements identify a required amount of bandwidth
available within the program stream for the advertisement to be inserted."
It is noted Appellants also argue the Examiner's final rejection
improperly includes new rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112 and
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon Hamilton (US 2009/0067510 Al) (Br. 19).
As the Examiner explains, new rejections were not applied in the final
rejection; rather, the Examiner presented findings supporting his claim
interpretation and the fact that his findings regarding compression were well
known in the art at the time of Appellants' invention (Ans. 21).
We therefore find no error in the Examiner's reasoning for modifying
Bryant based on Safadi (Ans. 18-19; Final Act. 11-12), which Appellants
have not rebutted in a Reply Brief. Thus, we sustain the Examiner's
rejection of independent claim 1, independent claims 22 and 25 for which
Appellants provide substantially the same arguments (Br. 17, 19), and
dependent claims 3, 5-8, 10-18, and 23 for which no separate arguments are
provided (Br. 19).
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 3, 5-8, 10-18, 22, 23,
and 25 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