Ex Parte LI et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 23, 2017

12701031 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 23, 2017)

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.
12/701,031 02/05/2010 Wei Li 12729-1071 (Y05982US00) 9156
56020 7590
BGL/Yahoo! Overture
P.O. BOX 10395
CHICAGO, IL 60610
EXAMINER
LASTRA, DANIEL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3622
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/23/2017 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 WEI LI, RUOFEI (BRUCE) ZHANG, YING CUI, and
JIANCHANG (JC) MAO
Appeal 2014-006869
Application 12/701,031
Technology Center 3600
Before ANTON W. FETTING, BIBHU R. MOHANTY, and
ROBERT J. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
MOHANTY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the final
rejection of claims 1—18 which are all the claims pending in the application.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
SUMMARY OF THE DECISION
We REVERSE.
Appeal 2014-006869
Application 12/701,031
THE INVENTION
The Appellants’ claimed invention is directed to optimizing the
selection of low and high performance ranked advertisements for display
(Spec. 5). Claim 1, reproduced below with the numbering in brackets added,
is representative of the subject matter on appeal.
1. A computer-implemented method to optimize selection
of low performance ranked messages and high performance
ranked messages for display on a network location, the method
comprising:
[1] presenting a group of online messages ranked
according to performance scores that measure an effectiveness
of the online messages;
[2] processing, by the computer, the ranked group of
online messages by:
[3] dividing the ranked group of online messages
into a plurality of lists comprising at least a first list and a
promotion set, wherein each message in the first list is
associated with a performance score that is greater than
each performance score of messages in the promotion
set;
[4] moving a message within the promotion set to
a third list as a function of a confidence value that
measures a probability that the message will achieve its
performance score;
[5] processing an experiment event on a message
within the third list wherein the event output comprises at
least one of a success and a failure;
[6] moving a message from the third list to the first
list if the event output is a success; and
[7] transmitting over a network, from a computer,
at least one message in the first list for display at a
recipient computer.
2
Appeal 2014-006869
Application 12/701,031
THE REJECTION
The following rejection is before us for review:
Claims 1—18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Gerakos (US 2008/0300977 Al, pub. Dec. 4, 2008) and Ferber (US
7,822,636 Bl, iss. Oct. 26, 2010).
FINDINGS OF FACT
We have determined that the findings of fact in the Analysis section
below are supported at least by a preponderance of the evidence1.
ANAFYSIS
The Appellants argue that the rejection of claim 1 is improper because
Ferber fails to disclose claim limitation [4] cited in the claim above (App.
Br. 7).
In contrast, the Examiner has determined that the cited claim
limitation is shown in Ferber in the Abstract, column 2, lines 40-46, column
2, lines 60-62, column 3, lines 1—29, column 4, lines 13—19, and column 6,
lines 56—57 (Ans. 6—10, 15, 16).
We agree with the Appellants. Here, claim limitation [4] requires:
moving a message within the promotion set to a third list as a function
of a confidence value that measures a probability that the message
will achieve its performance score.
The above citations to Ferber fail to disclose this. For instance, Ferber in the
Abstract, does disclose optimal ad selection based on click probability
1 See Ethicon, Inc. v. Quigg, 849 F.2d 1422, 1427 (Fed. Cir. 1988)
(explaining the general evidentiary standard for proceedings before the
Patent Office).
3
Appeal 2014-006869
Application 12/701,031
estimates and uncertainties, but there is nothing of moving a message within
the promotion set to a third list as a function of a confidence value that
measures a probability to achieve its performance score. The other citations
to Ferber fail to disclose this as well. For this reason the rejection of claim 1
and its dependent claims is not sustained. The remaining claims contain a
similar limitation and the rejection of these claims is not sustained for the
same reasons given above.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
We conclude that Appellants have shown that the Examiner erred in
rejecting the claims as listed in the Rejections section above.
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—18 is reversed.
REVERSED
4