Ex Parte McElfresh et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 22, 2016

13175014 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 22, 2016)

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.
13/175,014 07/01/2011 Charles McElfresh 9623-800 Y00904US05 1820
56020 7590 09/22/2016
BGL/Yahoo! Overture
P.O. BOX 10395
CHICAGO, IL 60610
EXAMINER
STIBLEY, MICHAEL R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3688
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/22/2016 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 CHARLES McELFRESH,
PAUL MINEIRO, and
MICHAEL RADFORD
__________

Appeal 2014-008651
Application 13/175,0141
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, HUBERT C. LORIN, and
ANTON W. FETTING, Administrative Patent Judges.

LORIN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
An oral hearing was held on September 13, 2016.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Charles McElfresh, et al. (Appellants) seek our review under 35
U.S.C. § 134 of the final rejection of claims 1–20. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2002).

1 The Appellants identify Yahoo! Inc. as the real party in interest. App. Br.
2.
Appeal 2014-008651
Application 13/175,014

2
SUMMARY OF DECISION
We REVERSE.

THE INVENTION
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on
appeal.
1. A computer-implemented method of providing
placement of a plurality of advertisements on a page accessible
by a user, the page having positions for receipt of the
advertisements, each advertisement having at least one link to
information, the link being invoked by an event identifying the
advertisement by a computer pointing device, the method
comprising:
by a server, storing in a database and retrieving from the
database performance data associated with a likelihood of the
event occurring for each advertisement;
by the server, in response to a request for advertisements
from a web site, simultaneously arranging the plurality of
advertisements relative to one another on the page using the
performance data;
delivering data relating to the arranged plurality of
advertisements for placement on the page; and
providing an advertiser-accessible interface through
which an advertiser or an advertising client can place
advertisements for access by the server.

THE REJECTION
The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence of
unpatentability:
Merriman

US 2002/0099600 A1 July 25, 2002
Appeal 2014-008651
Application 13/175,014

3
The Maximum Performance Ad Network SM,
http://web.archive.org/web/19980130092746/www.aaddzz.com/pages
/b-highlights (1997) (hereinafter “aaddzz”).

The following rejection is before us for review:
1. Claims 1–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Merriman and aaddzz.

ISSUE
Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 1–20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Merriman and aaddzz?

ANALYSIS
All the claims require arranging a plurality of advertisements relative
to one another on a page using performance data, which performance data is
associated with the likelihood of an event occurring for each advertisement.
See independent claims 1, 11, and 20. The Examiner finds that Merriman
discloses arranging a plurality of advertisements relative to one another on a
page using performance data, which performance data is associated with the
likelihood of an event occurring for each advertisement. See Final Act. 3.
We disagree for the reasons given in the Appeal Brief. Merriman is directed
to selecting a single advertisement. Arranging a plurality of advertisements
relative to one another on a page is not disclosed. Accordingly, the rejection
is not sustained.

Appeal 2014-008651
Application 13/175,014

4
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1–20 is reversed.

REVERSED