Ex Parte Lunt et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 27, 2016

11483690 (P.T.A.B. May. 27, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
111483,690 07/10/2006 Eric Lunt
26192 7590 06/01/2016
FISH & RICHARDSON P,C
PO BOX 1022
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55440-1022
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.
16113-0966001 8958
EXAMINER
HOAR, COLLEEN A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3621
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/01/2016 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):
P ATDOCTC@fr.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ERIC LUNT and BRENT HILL
Appeal2014-001373
Application 11/483,690 1
Technology Center 3600
Before ANTON W. PETTING, NINA L. MEDLOCK, and
ROBERT J. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
decision rejecting claims 1---6, 8-10, and 13-15. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Google, Inc. Appeal
Br. 1.
Appeal2014-001373
Application 11/483,690
ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
1. A method, comprising:
receiving, by one or more computers, a request for an
advertisement to present in an advertisement space of a data
item, the advertisement space being a portion of the data item in
which the advertisement will be presented;
identifying, by the one or more computers, the
advertisement space of the data item as an expired
advertisement space, the identification being based on content
of the data item being older than a threshold age; and
providing a blank advertisement in response to
identifying the advertisement space as an expired advertisement
space.
CITED REFERENCES
The Examiner relies upon the following references:
Nicholas et al. US 2006/0026067 Al Feb.2,2006
(hereinafter "Nicholas")
Yn.1ski et al. US 2007/0094081 AJ A.pr. 26, 2007
(hereinafter "Y ruski")
REJECTION
Claims 1--6, 8-10, and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Yruski in view of Nicholas.
FINDINGS OF FACT
The findings of fact relied upon herein appear in the Analysis below.
ANALYSIS
The claimed subject matter on appeal relates generally to the
management of advertisements in syndicated feeds. Spec. if 3. The content
received in a feed (and the arrangement of that content), as viewed by an end
2
Appeal2014-001373
Application 11/483,690
user, will vary- depending upon, for example, how frequently the end user
views the feed content. Id. i-fi-17-8. Thus, particular end users might not
view older content (located at the bottom of the end user's feed) and,
consequently, might not view any advertisements associated with such older
content. Id. i19.
The Specification states that "[a ]dvertisers do not want to pay for -
or want to pay less for - advertisements that are placed at the bottom of
feeds or that are in less desirable locations within a feed"; "[ w ]ith current
technology, however, there is no way to determine whether an advertisement
is viewed at the top of a feed or at the bottom of a feed." Id. i-f 10. The
Specification also states that inserting, into feeds, advertisements that will
not be viewed by end users "consumes valuable bandwidth and tends to
clutter feeds, resulting in reader dissatisfaction." Id.
The claimed subject matter addresses these matters, by taking
advantage of the way advertisements are added to feeds. Feeds contain
"advertisement spaces" that indicate where an advertisement should appear,
but the actual advertisements are not inserted into those advertisement
spaces until there is a request from an automated system to view the
advertisement associated with that advertisement space. Id. i-f 17. Rather
than simply inserting an advertisement into every advertisement space, as a
matter of course, the claimed invention first makes a determination as to
whether a particular advertisement space is "expired." See Appeal Br. 13,
14--15, 16 (Claims App.). If the advertisement space is "expired," then -
instead of inserting an advertisement- the invention inserts a "blank
advertisement" (see id. at 13, 15, 16, 17), which is typically just a single
pixel that is unlikely to be noticed by an end user (Spec. i133).
3
Appeal2014-001373
Application 11/483,690
According to independent claim 1, expiration of an advertisement
space is based upon the age of "content" in a "data item" that is associated
with the advertisement space:
identifying, by the one or more computers, the
advertisement space of the data item as an expired
advertisement space, the identification being based on
content of the data item being older than a threshold age.
According to independent claim 6, expiration of an advertisement
space is based upon whether the associated "data item" is not "included in a
current feed that is available from the publisher":
determining, by the one or more computers, that
the advertisement space is an expired advertisement
space, the determination being based on the data item not
being included in a current feed that is available from the
publisher.
The Appellants contend that the combination of Yruski and Nicholas
does not teach or suggest determining that an advertisement space has
expired using the technique of either claim 1 or claim 6. Appeal Br. 3, 10.
The Examiner finds that Yruski "does not specifically teach 'space or
slot expiration."' Final Action 4; Answer 3. Nor does the Examiner find
that Nicholas teaches the expiration of an advertising space. Nevertheless,
the Examiner determines that it would have been obvious to combine
Nicholas's assorted teachings of temporal limits (even though unrelated to
advertisement spaces) with Y ruski' s teachings of advertisement slot features
(even though unrelated to temporal limits), in order to arrive at the claimed
subject matter of claim 1 (see Answer 3) and claim 6 (see id. at 4--5).
However, the Examiner (see id. at 3, 4--5) has not shown how the
expiration of an advertisement space might be determined under such
4
Appeal2014-001373
Application 11/483,690
combinations of Yruski and Nicholas- let alone how the proposed
combinations might teach or suggest the specific techniques set forth in
either claim 1 (based upon the age of a data item associated with the
advertisement space) or claim 6 (based upon whether a data item, that is
associated with an advertisement space, is not included in a current feed).
In regard to claim 1, the Examiner (id. at 3) refers to Nicholas's
teachings of: the length of time since end user geographic data has been
updated (Nicholas i-f 179); advertisements to be shown during a certain
window of time (see, e.g., id. at Figs. 8, 9, 16-18, and 212); and the number
of advertisements shown over a certain period of time (id. i-f 316). None of
these examples relates to the age of any content of a data item, as recited in
claim 1, and none teaches or suggests the claimed identifying an
advertisement space as expired on such basis.
In regard to claim 6, the Examiner (Answer 4) cites to Nicholas's
teachings of: showing advertisements over a certain window of time
(Nicholas i-fi-1 120, 123); and advertisements being shown at a certain time of
day, day of week, time of year (id. i-f 288). None of these examples relates to
whether a data item is in a publisher's current feed, as claim 6 recites, and
none teaches or suggests the claimed determining that an advertisement
space is expired on such basis.
Thus, the rejection lacks the articulated reasoning and rational
underpinning needed to support a conclusion of obviousness. See In re
Kahn, 441F.3d977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ("[R]ejections on obviousness
2 The other figures ofNicholas (Figs. 6, 7, 10-12, 19, 20, 22, and 23)
identified by the Examiner (Answer 3) do not involve temporal parameters
of advertisements.
5
Appeal2014-001373
Application 11/483,690
grounds cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there
must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to
support the legal conclusion of obviousness.")
Because claims 2-5 depend from claim 1, the Examiner's rejection of
these claims is not sustained. The arguments provided for claim 1 also apply
to independent claim 10, as the Appellants contend. See Appeal Br. 9. For
the same or similar reasons set forth above, the Examiner's rejection of
claim 10 is not sustained.
Because claims 8 and 9 depend from claim 6, the Examiner's rejection
of these claims is not sustained. The arguments provided for claim 6 also
apply to independent claim 13, as the Appellants contend. See id. at 11. For
the same or similar reasons set forth above, regarding claim 6, the
Examiner's rejection of claim 13 is not sustained. Because claims 14 and 15
depend from claim 13, the Examiner's rejection of these claims is not
sustained.
DECISION
We REVERSE the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-6, 8-10,
and 13-15.
REVERSED
6