Ex Parte Etchegoyen

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 20, 2016

12492039 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 20, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/492,039
96051 7590
Uniloc USA Inc.
Legacy Town Center
7160 Dallas Parkway
Suite 380
Plano, TX 75024
0612512009
04/22/2016
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Craig S. Etchegoyen
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.
UN-NP-OA-005 6515
EXAMINER
STOLTENBERG, DAVID J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3682
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/22/2016 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):
sean. burdick@unilocusa.com
tkiatkulpiboone@unilocusa.com
kris.pangan@unilocusa.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CRAIG S. ETCHEGOYEN
Appeal2014-004479
Application 12/492,039
Technology Center 3600
Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, WILLIAM A. CAPP, and
ARTHUR M. PESLAK, Administrative Patent Judges.
PESLAK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
decision rejecting claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
1 Appellant submits the real party in interest is Uniloc Luxembourg S.A.
Br. 3.
Appeal2014-004479
Application 12/492,039
THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 1 and 15, reproduced below, are illustrative of the claimed
subject matter.
1. A computer-implemented method for determining efficacy of
online advertising, comprising:
in response to a user of a network device accessing a web
page on which an advertisement is displayed, (a) caching an
impression in a first database, and (b) receiving device data
regarding the network device, the device data comprising a
combination of user-configurable and non-user-configurable
machine parameters;
in response to the user clicking on the advertisement, (a)
caching a user click in the first database, and (b) directing
the user from the web page to a landing page;
generating a device identifier for the network device based
on the machine parameters;
associating the cached impression and the cached
conversion with the device identifier;
calculating device specific cached impressions and
device-specific cached clicks associated with the device
identifier; and
displaying information regarding at least one of the
device-specific cached impressions and the device specific
cached clicks.
15. A system for determining efficacy of online advertising,
compnsmg:
a processor module;
a non-transitory computer readable medium that is in
operative communication with the processor module;
a communications module that is in operative communication
with the processor module and the non-transitory computer readable
medium;
a first database that is in operative communication with
the non-transitory computer readable medium and that is adapted
to, in response to a user of a network device accessing a web
page on which an advertisement is displayed, (a) cache an
2
Appeal2014-004479
Application 12/492,039
impression and (b) cache device data regarding the network
device, the device data comprising a combination of user-configurable
and non-user-configurable machine parameters;
a redirector in operative communication with the first
database and adapted to, in response to the user clicking on the
advertisement, (a) report a user click to the first database,
and (b) direct the user from the web page to a landing page;
a conversion tracker in operative communication with the
first database and adapted to, in response to the user making a
purchase on the landing page, (a) report a conversion to the
first database, and (b) direct the user from the landing page to
a conversion page; and
a device identifier producer in operative communication
with the first database and adapted to generate a device identifier for
the network device based on the machine parameters.
REJECTIONS
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over McFadden (US 2005/0086105 Al, pub. Apr. 21, 2005) in
view of Rowland (US 7,428,587 B2, iss. Sept. 23, 2008). Final Act. 3.
DISCUSSION
Claims 1 -20- Obviousness - McFadden and Rowland
The Examiner found that McFadden discloses all the limitations of the
independent claims 1, 15, and 18 other than "generating a device identifier
for the network device based on the machine parameters." Final Act. 4, 6.
The Examiner found that "Rowland discloses generating a device identifier
for the network device based on the machine parameters." Id. The
Examiner concluded that it would have been obvious to combine the
teachings of McFadden and Rowland "to enhance the tracking of individual
user's activities with regard to advertisements and reduce fraud." Id.
3
Appeal2014-004479
Application 12/492,039
Appellant's sole contention is that neither McFadden nor Rowland
teach or suggest the limitation, recited identically in claims 1, 15, and 18,
that "in response to a user of a network device accessing a web page on
which an advertisement is displayed, (a) caching an impression in a first
database." Br. 12; 17. Appellant argues the claimed limitation requires the
impression to be cached even if the user does not click on the advertisement
while McFadden logs the impression "only after the user has clicked on the
advertisement ... and not in response to when the advertisement is
displayed on the URL." Id. at 13; see also Id. at 15, 17. The Examiner
relies on numerous portions of McFadden for disclosure of the limitation at
issue. See Final Act. 3, 9-12; Ans. 12-18.
Initially, we note that Appellant discloses that an impression occurs
"when a user sees an ad." Spec. i-14. The Examiner concurred that one of
ordinary skill in the art would understand this to be the meaning of an
impression. Ans. 14.
Based on our review of McFadden, we agree with the Examiner's
finding that it discloses caching an impression in a database in the absence
of a user clicking on the advertisement. McFadden discloses "[m]essage
retriever 121 monitors web browser 112 for the uniform resource locater
(URL) of web pages viewed by an end-user surfing on the internet."
McFadden, i-128 (emphasis added). Message retriever 121 then sends a data
packet to message server computer 140. Id. The data packet includes "one
or more log entries 323." Id. Log entry 323 "contains data indicative of an
end-user navigation to particular websites to receive particular web pages."
Id. at i-129. McFadden discloses a second discrete example when log entry
323 may be created, i.e., "when the end-user clicks on a hyperlink of an
4
Appeal2014-004479
Application 12/492,039
advertisement" which "allows for detection of whether the end-user
responded to the advertisement 116 by clicking on it." Id. (emphasis added).
McFadden's Figure 2 discloses that data packets 121, which include
log entries 323, are sent to database 142 in message server computer 140.
McFadden, Fig. 2. Appellant does not refer us to any disclosure in
McFadden to support the argument that log entry 323 relating to an end user
viewing the webpage is created and sent to database 142 only after the user
clicks on the webpage. In the absence of such a disclosure, Appellant's
argument is not persuasive.
The Examiner's finding that McFadden discloses the claim limitation
that "in response to a user of a network device accessing a web page on
which an advertisement is displayed, (a) caching an impression in a first
database" is supported by the requisite preponderance of the evidence. See
In re Caveney, 761F.2d671, 674 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (preponderance of the
evidence is the standard that must be met by the PTO in making rejections.).
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claims 1, 15,
and 18 as well as dependent claims 2-14, 16-17, and 19-20 under
35 U.S.C. §103(a).
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-20 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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
5