Ex Parte Humpleman et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 29, 2016

10177232 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 29, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
10/177,232 06/21/2002
24498 7590 10/03/2016
Robert D, Shedd, Patent Operations
THOMSON Licensing LLC
4 Research Way
3rd Floor
Princeton, NJ 08543
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Richard Humpleman
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.
MNI020007 3684
EXAMINER
SALCE, JASON P
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2421
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/03/2016 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@technicolor.com
pat. verlangieri@technicolor.com
russell. smith@technicolor.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte RICHARD HUMPLEMAN, DAN WATSON, and
MANUMEHTA
Appeal2015-005569
Application 10/177,232
Technology Center 2400
Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, MARC S. HOFF and
JOHNNY A. KUMAR Administrative Patent Judges.
NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1 through 30. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
INVENTION
The invention is directed to a method of providing credit to a viewer
for viewing targeted advertisement content. See page 6 of Appellants'
Specification.
Appeal2015-005569
Application 10/177 ,232
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and reproduced below:
1. A method of targeting interactive advertising
content, said method comprising:
providing a supply of targeted advertising content in a
content delivery system and supplying the targeted advertising
content to a user based on user profile information;
automatically selecting from the supply of targeted
advertising content, ad content matching the user profile
information, and storing the ad content;
automatically displaying program portions from the ad
content on a device of the user in accordance with the user
profile information including at least one of: usage information
from the user's past usage of previously earned coupons and
usage information from the user's acceptance of previous offers;
crediting the user with a first number of points for
displaying, via the device, the ad content related to an offer
associated with a product, wherein the first number of points is
added to a tangible data carrier medium via an interface located
at the device; and
crediting the user with an additional, second number of
points in response to the user performing an act that represents
a conversion of the offer, wherein the act includes the user
leaving a location associated with the device to perform the act,
conversion information is added to the tangible data carrier
medium at a location associated with the act in response to
performance of the act, and the user transfers the conversion
information from the tangible data carrier medium to the device
via the interface to receive credit for the second number of
points.
2
Appeal2015-005569
Application 10/177 ,232
REFERENCES AND REJECTIONS AT ISSUE
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 10, 15, 21, 23 through 25, and
27 through 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Zigmond
(US 6,698,020 Bl; Feb. 24, 2004), Candelore (US 6,057,872; iss. May 2,
2000), Eldering (US 2003/0149975 Al; pub. Aug. 7, 2003) and Mai (US
2002/0007313; pub. Jan. 17, 2002). Non-Final Act. 3-12. 1
The Examiner rejected claims 3, 12 through 14, and 22 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Zigmond, Candelore, Eldering,
Mai, and George (US 2003/0158818; pub. Aug. 21, 2003). Non-Final Act.
12-15.
The Examiner rejected claims 6 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Zigmond, Candelore, Eldering, Mai, and Von
Kohom (US 5,128,752; iss. July 7, 1992). Non-Final Act. 15-16.
The Examiner rejected claims 16 through 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Zigmond, Candelore, Narasimhan (US 6,237,145
Bl; iss. May 22, 2001), Eldering, and Mai. Non-Final Act. 16-22.
The Examiner rejected claim 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Zigmond, Candelore, Eldering, Mai, and Ozer (US
7,136,871 B2; iss. Nov. 14, 2006). Non-Final Act. 22-23.
The Examiner rejected claims 7 through 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Zigmond, Candelore, Alexander (US 6, 177 ,931; iss.
Jan. 23, 2001), Eldering, Mai, and Von Kohom. Non-Final Act. 23-28.
3
Appeal2015-005569
Application 10/177 ,232
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed Appellants' arguments in the Brief, the Examiner's
rejections and the Examiner's response to the Appellants' arguments.
Appellants' arguments have not persuaded us of error in the Examiner's
rejections of claims 1 through 30.
With respect to the Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 10, 15,
21, 23 through 25, and 27 through 30, Appellants argue that independent
claim 1 involves a two-step process that involves adding information to the
tangible data carrier medium and the user transferring the conversion
information from the tangible carrier medium to a device that awarded the
first points, "in order to actually receive credit for the additional second
number of points." App. Br. 9. Appellants argue that in Mai, the
reference relied upon by the Examiner as teaching this feature, "the
awarding of additional credits to a user is performed by the dealer," which is
alleged to be different from the claimed invention. App. Br. 11, 12. Further,
the Appellants argue that in Mai, the card, tangible "data carrier medium" is
not required to store the additional second number of points in order for the
user to receive credits for such points. App. Br. 12.
In response to Appellants' arguments, the Examiner identifies that the
claims do not recite the manner of crediting, and as such considers
Appellants' argument directed to Mai's teaching of the dealer crediting the
points to be moot. Answer 3-4. We concur with the Examiner. Appellants'
1 Throughout this Opinion we refer to the Appeal Brief dated November 6,
2014, Non-Final Office Action mailed July 18, 2014, and the Examiner's
Answer mailed on February 23, 2015.
4
Appeal2015-005569
Application 10/177 ,232
arguments directed to dealer crediting are not commensurate with the scope
of the claim.
Further, the Examiner finds that Mai's teaching of using a card which
contains identification information, conversion information, teaches the
disputed limitation. Answer 4 (citing i-fi-177 and 84). We concur with the
Examiner. Mai teaches that the credits on the card can be reloaded and the
card is scanned by the client 18 (a user device that displays broadband pay
preview content if the user has sufficient credit). See Mai i-fi-1 84, 27, 31, and
32. Further, we note that Mai teaches that the client item 18 is used to view
an offer associated with the product. Mai i176. We consider this teaching
that the user must scan the card by the client to use the credits and as such
meets the limitation directed to transferring the conversion information from
the tangible data carrier medium to the device. Thus we find ample
evidence to support the Examiner's finding that Mai teaches the disputed
limitation and are not persuaded of error by Appellants' arguments.
Accordingly we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1 and claims 2, 4,
5, 10, 15, 21, 23 through 25, and 27 through 30 grouped with claim 1.
Appellants' arguments directed to the rejections of claims 3, 6 through
9, 11through14, 16 through 20, 22, and 26 rely upon the arguments
presented with respect to claim 1. Accordingly, we similarly sustain the
Examiner's rejections of claims 3, 6 through 9, 11through14, 16 through
20, 22, and 26.
DECISION
We sustain the Examiner's rejections of claims 1 through 30 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a).
5
Appeal2015-005569
Application 10/177 ,232
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
6