Ex Parte McElfresh et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 22, 2016

13175023 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 22, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/175,023 07 /01/2011
56020 7590
EGL/Yahoo! Overture
P.O. BOX 10395
CHICAGO, IL 60610
09/22/2016
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Charles McElfresh
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.
9623-799 Y00904US04 1837
EXAMINER
STIBLEY, MICHAEL R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3688
MAILDATE 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
Appeal2014-007246
Application 13/175,023 1
Technology Center 3600
Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, HUBERT C. LORIN, and
ANTON W. PETTING, Administrative Patent Judges.
LORIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
An oral hearing was held on Sep. 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).
SUMMARY OF DECISION
We REVERSE.
1 The Appellants identify Yahoo! Inc. as the real party in interest. App. Br.
2.
Appeal2014-007246
Application 13/175,023
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
by an advertiser-accessible interface, providing to an
advertiser or an advertising client information about particular
performance data relating to advertisements that have been
displayed, the particular performance data based on
performance data retrieved from the database.
THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence of
unpatentability:
Merriman US 2002/0099600 Al Jul. 25, 2002
"The Maximum Performance Ad Network8M,"
httn://web.archive.org/web/199801300927 46/www.aaddzz.com/pages
lb-highlights (hereinafter "aaddzz")
2
Appeal2014-007246
Application 13/175,023
The following rejections are before us for review:
1. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being
anticipated by Merriman.
2. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Merriman and aaddzz.
ISSUES
Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102( e) as being anticipated by Merriman?
Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Merriman and aaddzz?
ANALYSIS
The rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S. C. § 102(e) as being anticipated
by' 111,,f erriman.
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 Appeal Br. (independent claims 1, 15, 20). The Examiner finds that
Merriman describes said arrangement. 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 described, expressly or inherently. Accordingly, the rejection is not
sustained.
3
Appeal2014-007246
Application 13/175,023
The rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Merriman and aaddzz.
Similar to the 102 rejection, 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. 13.
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.
CONCLUSIONS
The rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being
anticipated by Merriman is reversed.
The rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Merriman and aaddzz is reversed.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-20 is reversed.
REVERSED
4