Ex Parte Hosea et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 23, 2012

11057759 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 23, 2012)

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.
11/057,759 02/14/2005 Devin F. Hosea 60136.0154USC1 7086
94140 7590 10/24/2012
Merchant & Gould - Cox
PO Box 2903
Minneapolis, MN 55402
EXAMINER
DEBROW, JAMES J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2176
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/24/2012 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 DEVIN F. HOSEA, RICHARD SCOTT ZIMMERMAN,
ARTHUR P. RASCON, ANTHONY SCOTT ODDO, and
NATHANIEL JOHN THURSTON
____________

Appeal 2011-006091
Application 11/057,759
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before THU A. DANG, GREGORY J. GONSALVES, and
ANDREW J. DILLON, Administrative Patent Judges.

GONSALVES, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-006091
Application 11/057,759

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of
claims 1-11, 13-16, and 18-20 (App. Br. 2). Claims 12 and 17 were
cancelled (Ans. 2). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
The Invention
Exemplary Claim 1 follows:
1. A method for adapting a web page to be published for
a user, comprising:

profiling a web page to create a web page profile by
parsing the web page to extract different types of content
components and associating a classification of a plurality of
classifications with each one of the different types of content
components, wherein the plurality of classifications for each
parsed content component comprises psychographic categories,
the web page profile being distinct from and stored separately
from the web page;

providing a user profile having a plurality of
psychographic categories, each psychographic category having
an affinity rating and a confidence value;

comparing the psychographic categories of the web page
profile to the psychographic categories of the user profile to
identify psychographic categories of the user profile matching
psychographic categories of the web page profile; and

producing a modified web page by rearranging,
transparent to the user via a proxy server, the parsed content
components of the web page according to psychographic
categories determined to match psychographic categories of the
user profile in an order based on the affinity rating and a
confidence value of the psychographic categories of the user
profile;
Appeal 2011-006091
Application 11/057,759

3
wherein the affinity rating and confidence value of the
psychographic categories of the user profile are derived from
tracking the user’s actual web surfing activity associated with a
plurality of web sites.

Claims 1-11, 13, 16, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
as being anticipated by Hosea (U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No.: 2002/0059094 A1,
May 16, 2002) (Ans. 4-10).
Claims 14 and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Hosea in view of Miyasaka (U.S. 6,766,362 B2, Jul. 20,
2004) (Ans. 10-12).
Claims 19 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Hosea in view of Hoffman (U.S. 6,640,240 B1, Oct. 28,
2003) (Ans. 12-14).

FACTUAL FINDINGS
We adopt the Examiner’s factual findings as set forth in the Answer
(Ans. 3, et seq.).

ISSUE
Appellants’ responses to the Examiner’s positions present the
following issue:
Did the Examiner err in finding that Hosea discloses “profiling a web
page profile by parsing the web page to extract different types of content
components and associating a classification of a plurality of classifications
with each one of the different types of content components,” as recited in
independent claim 1 and as similarly recited in independent claim 18?

Appeal 2011-006091
Application 11/057,759

4
ANALYSIS
Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting independent
claims 1 and 18 as anticipated because Hosea does not disclose “creating a
web page profile by parsing a web page to extract different types of content
components” (App. Br. 9). Appellants argue that “because Hosea fails to
disclose parsing and extracting content from a web page, Hosea cannot
associate a classification to the different types of content components (that
were parsed and extracted)” (id.).
The Examiner found, however, that Hosea meets these claim
limitations because it “discloses extracting the actual URL request and the
URL data” (Ans. 14). The Examiner also reasoned “that in extracting the
URL request, wherein the HTML pointed to by the URL is parsed, the
different types of components which are typically contained on a web page,
are retrieve[d] from the HTML page (id. at 15).
We agree with the Examiner. Hosea discloses that web pages may
include different types of content components “such as text, graphics,
images, sound, video, etc.” (¶ [0036]). Hosea also discloses that web pages
may also contain “links to other servers and files” (id.). Hosea also discloses
that the client machine has “an HTML-compatible browser” (¶ 0037]). That
is, Hosea’s client machine, because it has a browser, extracts the different
components of a web page such as text, graphics, images, sound, video and
links to other web pages. Moreover, Hosea discloses associating
classification information with URLs that “may include demographic or
psychographic data” (¶ [0042]). In other words, Hosea discloses profiling
web pages by associating classifications with the various URL links to other
web pages.
Appeal 2011-006091
Application 11/057,759

5
Appellants also contend that Hosea does not disclose “comparing the
psychographic categories of the web page profile . . . to the psychographic
categories of a user profile” (App. Br. 10). In addition, Appellants contend
that Hosea does not disclose “rearranging the parsed content components of
the web page in an order based on the affinity rating and confidence value of
the psychographic categories of the user profile determined to match the
psychographic categories of the web page” (App. Br. 12 (emphasis
omitted)).
The Examiner found, however, that Hosea satisfies this claim
limitation because it discloses that “program data extracted from the set top
box concerning the user’s web surfing interactions includes . . . different
types of content component on the web pages that the user visited” (Ans.
15). The Examiner also reasoned that Hosea discloses creating a user profile
from the user’s web surfing interactions and rearranging components on a
user’s display based on a comparison of the web page and user profiles (id.
at 15-16 ).
We agree with the Examiner. Hosea discloses storing the URLs of the
web pages that a user has visited in an interaction database and building “a
user profile 27 based on the information in the interaction database” (¶
[0041] and [0042]). Hosea further discloses that “[t]he profiles include a
rating in each category that reflects the interest in the category of persons
who access the . . . Web site” (¶ [0205]). Hosea also discloses that “[e]ach
rating is accompanied by a confidence measure, which is an estimate of the
accuracy of the rating” (¶ [0206]). Moreover, Hosea also discloses a URL
display component that uses the user and web page profile “to ensure that
the content placement (i.e., the pop-up advertisement) and timing is . . .
Appeal 2011-006091
Application 11/057,759

6
effective” (¶ [0205]). That is, Hosea discloses rearranging the components
of a web page such as its advertisements according to how well they match a
user’s profile.
Accordingly, we find no error in the Examiner’s anticipation rejection
of independent claims 1 and 18. We also find no error in the Examiner’s
rejections of the other claims on appeal (i.e., claims 2-11, 13-16, 19, and 20)
because Appellants did not set forth any separate patentability arguments for
those claims (see App. Br. 13-14).

DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-11, 13-16, and
18-20 as anticipated or obvious.
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)(iv).

AFFIRMED

Vsh