Ex Parte Gadhia et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 19, 2016

13605495 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 19, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/605,495 09/06/2012
130011 7590 09/21/2016
Shook, Hardy & Bacon L.L.P.
(AOL Inc.)
Intellectual Property Department
2555 Grand Blvd.
Kansas City, MO 64108-2613
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Hemang N. Gadhia
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.246041 1075
EXAMINER
ANDERSON, SCOTT C
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3688
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/21/2016 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
kspringer@shb.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte HEMANG N. GADHIA,
RISHI KUMAR,
HELLMUT ADOLPHS,
andMATTHEWM. SAUNDERS
Appeal2014-003538
Application 13/605,495 1
Technology Center 3600
Before ANTON W. PETTING, NINA L. MEDLOCK, and
BART A. GERSTENBLITH, Administrative Patent Judges.
PETTING, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
1 The Appellants identify "Millennial Media, Inc." as the real party in
interest. Br. 2.
Appeal2014-003538
Application 13/605,495
STATEMENT OF THE CASE2
Hemang N. Gadhia, Rishi Kumar, Hellmut Adolphs, and Matthew M.
Saunders (Appellants) seek review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of a final rejection
of claims 1-22, the only claims pending in the application on appeal. We
have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
The Appellants invented a way of providing mobile advertising using
data networks based on intelligence data associated with Intemet-
connectable devices derived using graph data models. Spec., para. 3.
An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of
exemplary claim 1, part of which is reproduced below (bracketed matter and
some paragraphing added). 3
1. ...
[1] representing the Intemet-connectable device as a device
node in a graph data model;
[2] receiving from the Intemet-connectable device a first
location event captured by the Intemet-connectable device;
[3] determining a place of interest of a user of the Intemet-
connectable device based on at least the first location event;
[ 4] representing the place of interest as a place node in the
graph data model;
[5] representing a relationship between the device node and the
place node as a device-place edge in the graph data model;
[ 6] determining an audience category associated with the place
of interest, wherein the audience category represents a brand or
subject matter of a brand associated with the place of interest;
2 Our decision will make reference to the Appellants' Appeal Brief ("Br.,"
filed August 5, 2013) and the Examiner's Answer ("Ans.," mailed
November 12, 2013), and Final Action ("Final Act.," mailed March 5,
2013).
3 Claims 1 and 12 are the independent claims on appeal.
2
Appeal2014-003538
Application 13/605,495
[7] representing the audience category as a category node in the
graph data model;
[8] representing a relationship between the place node and the
category node as a place-category edge in the graph data model;
[9] receiving from the Intemet-connectable device a second
location event captured by the Intemet-connectable device;
[ 10] determining the second location event is associated with
the place of interest;
[11] determining that the user of the Intemet-connectable
device has an affinity to the audience category based on the first
location event and the second location event by traversing the
graph data model, wherein traversing the graph data model
comprises examining at least the place node, category node,
device-place edge, and place-category edge;
[12] representing a relationship between the device node and
the category node as a device-category edge in the graph data
model based on the determination that the user of the Intemet-
connectable device has an affinity to the audience category;
[13] determining the audience value for the user of the Intemet-
connectable device by traversing the graph data model, wherein
traversing the graph data model comprises examining at least
the category node and the device-category edge, wherein the
audience value represents an audience segment to which the
user of the Intemet-connectable device belongs, wherein the
audience segment comprises a group of Intemet-connectable
device users defined based on at least one criterion common
among the group of Intemet-connectable device users;
[ 14] representing the audience value as an audience value node
in the graph data model;
and
[ 15] representing a relationship between the device node and
the audience value node as a device-audience value edge in the
graph data model; ...
3
Appeal2014-003538
Application 13/605,495
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art:
Grannan US 2007 /0244750 Al Oct. 18, 2007
Claims 1-22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by
Grannan.
ISSUES
The issues of anticipation tum primarily on whether Grannan
describes the graph data structure recited in the claims.
FACTS PERTINENT TO THE ISSUES
The following enumerated Findings of Fact (FF) are supported by a
preponderance of the evidence.
Facts Related to the Prior Art
Grannan
01. Grannan is directed to providing selected advertising to send to
a recipient. Grannan, para. 2.
02. Grannan makes no reference to graphs, edges or nodes as part
of a graph. In particular, Grannan does not describe a data
structure representative of a graph into which the data the
Examiner refers to are stored.
4
Appeal2014-003538
Application 13/605,495
ANALYSIS
We are persuaded by Appellants' argument that
it is stated in the Final Office Action that "language from the
mathematical field of graph theory, such as references to nodes
and edges and the traversing of graphs, graph data model, etc.,
is considered but given no patentable weight as it represents a
mere labeling of ordinary data storage and data access methods
common throughout all of computing." Final Office Action,
p. 7. Applicants disagree, at least because claim 1 utilizes graph
theory to perform a specific process and is not merely a labeling
of ordinary data storage and data access methods.
Br. 15. The Examiner finds that "[t]he application under consideration here
uses the terminology of a branch of mathematics called graph theory, and as
it is a rather arcane subject, known to but a few, a brief explanation will help
clarify the Examiner's reasoning." Ans. 5. The claims at issue rely only on
the most basic elements of graph theory as applied to data structures, taught
in undergraduate level introductory data structure and computer algorithm
classes. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the computer program design arts
would be intimately knowledgeable of the data structures recited in the
claims.
More importantly, the Examiner finds that
the term "graph data model" appears in the Claims. This term
does not mean anything specific; nearly anything stored in a
computer can be interpreted as a graph data model, and many
things outside a computer. Without any stretching at all, a
spreadsheet, a family tree or a map of Philadelphia could be
considered a graph data model. This is a descriptive term of
how people interpret data, and does not impart structure or
functionality to a computer system.
Ans. 6. We agree with the Examiner's finding as to the breadth of the scope
of a graph data model, but we find the description of a graph as not
5
Appeal2014-003538
Application 13/605,495
imparting logical structure or functionality to not be supported by a
preponderance of the evidence. A graph stored in a computer is a data
structure. 4 We find that the claim requires some graph data structure into
which the recited values are stored.
The Examiner makes no finding as to any such data structure in
Grannan. Although we agree with the Examiner that the labels recited for
the data that are inserted into the data structure are undeserving of patentable
weight, the existence of the data structure itself is a specific recited
implementation for how the data are stored, imparting a logical structure
among those data values, and must be afforded patentable weight.
To the extent the Examiner implies that storing anything in a
computer is storing in a graph, the claim is not that broad. Merely finding
that a memory architecture is structured as some form of graph per se is
insufficient. The Examiner must show the logical relationships between the
values stored as recited in the claims. The Examiner has failed to make a
prima facie case in not finding the recited data structure in what is supposed
to be an anticipatory reference.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The rejection of claims 1-22 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated
by Grannan is improper.
DECISION
The rejection of claims 1-22 is reversed.
4 See, e.g., http://www.tutorialspoint.com/
data_structures_algorithms/graph_data_structure.htm.
6
Appeal2014-003538
Application 13/605,495
REVERSED
7