Ex Parte Muller et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 17, 2018

11851243 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 17, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
11/851,243 09/06/2007
64494 7590 07/19/2018
GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP (SV)
c/o: Greenberg Traurig LLP - Chicago Office
77 West Wacker Drive, Suite 3100
Intellectual Property Department
Chicago, IL 60601
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Sean Muller
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.
104128-200901/US 8931
EXAMINER
JASMIN, LYNDA C
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3629
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/19/2018 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):
gtipmail@ gtlaw .com
clairt@gtlaw.com
rupickd@gtlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SEAN MULLER, RICHARD ROSENBLATT, JOEY C. PEREZ,
DENNIS A. AMEEN, LARRY FITZGIBBON, GREG GRIFFIN,
LAURENT GHERARDI, JON R. JURGENS JR., BRIAN HA VENER,
GLENN MORAN, DEAN BUSENBARK, MARK JONES,
ADAM YOUNGERS, and EWAN GODLEY 1
Appeal2017---000675
Application 11/851,243
Technology Center 3600
Before ANTON W. PETTING, CYNTHIA L. MURPHY, and
ROBERT J. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
PETTING, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE2
Sean Muller, Richard Rosenblatt, Joey C. Perez, Dennis A. Ameen,
Larry Fitzgibbon, Greg Griffin, Laurent Gherardi, Jon R. Jurgens Jr., Brian
1 Real party in interest Demand Media, Inc.
2 Our decision will make reference to the Appellants' Appeal Brief ("App.
Br.," filed May 17, 2016) and Reply Brief ("Reply Br.," filed October 10,
2016), and the Examiner's Answer ("Ans.," mailed August 9, 2016), and
Final Action ("Final Act.," mailed December 21, 2015).
Appeal2017-000675
Application 11/851,243
Havener, Glenn Moran, Dean Busenbark, Mark Jones, Adam Youngers, and
Ewan Godley (Appellants) seek review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of a final
rejection of claims 1, 3-9, 11-12, 21-28, 30, and 31, the only claims
pending in the application on appeal. We have jurisdiction over the appeal
pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
According to the Appellants, they invented a way of enabling an author
to create content that is usable across different formats, and to receive
compensation for such content that is published for online use. Specification
1:10-12.
An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of
exemplary claim 1, which is reproduced below (bracketed matter and some
paragraphing added).
1. A system, comprising:
a processor; and a tangible storage medium storing thereon
program logic for execution by the processor, the program logic
compnsmg:
publishing logic executed by the processor for a publishing
platform that performs actions, including:
ranking a content provider based on ratings received, via
an automated feedback system, from users regarding
contributions of content of the content provider,
the ratings comprising ranking of an article
provided by the content provider and the ratings
being variable for each respective user,
wherein the users are different from the content
provider;
receiving, from the content provider, content in a first
format and layout;
2
Appeal2017-000675
Application 11/851,243
and
automatically reformatting the received content into a
second different format and layout;
selecting at least one advertisement from a third-party
advertisement provider,
where the selection of the at least one
advertisement is based on the ranking of the
content provider;
selecting a website for publication of the reformatted
content,
where the selection of the website is influenced by
the third-party advertisement provider;
publishing the reformatted content onto at least one
webpage of a website,
the at least one webpage comprising the
reformatted content and the at least one
advertisement;
automatically reformatting the received content into a
third format and layout associated with a different
communication medium other than web pages;
and
publishing the reformatted content using the third format
and layout through the different communication medium;
compensation logic executed by the processor for a
compensation platform that is configured to perform actions,
including:
determining compensation to the content provider based
on the publication of the content, based on a plurality of
factors, comprising at least one of frequency of views,
popularity of content among other users, or
advertisement related clicks;
inhibiting at least some compensation based on a
detected fraudulent click activity;
and
3
Appeal2017-000675
Application 11/851,243
providing the compensation to the content provider.
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art:
Dunham US 2003/0216930 Al Nov. 20, 2003
Jerome US 2004/0143667 Al July 22, 2004
Meggs US 2007/0112622 Al May 17, 2007
Ebanks US 2007/0198510 Al Aug. 23, 2007
Zhuang US 2008/0070209 Al Mar. 20, 2008
eHow, History of eHow and wikiHow, wwwehow.com, Aug. 11, 2005
(ehow)
Associated Content, Frequently Asked Questions, www.
AssociatedContent.com, Dec. 30, 2005 (AssociatedContent)
Claims 1, 5, 7-9, 21, 26, 28, and 31 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ I03(a) as unpatentable over ehow, AssociatedContent, Ebanks, Meggs and
Zhuang. 3
Claims 3, 4, 6, 11, 12, 22-25, and 27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ I03(a) as unpatentable over ehow, AssociatedContent, Ebanks, Meggs,
Zhuang, and Dunham.
Claim 30 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable over
ehow, AssociatedContent, Ebanks, Meggs, Zhuang, and Jerome.
3 Ebanks is not included in the heading for the rejections, but is included in
the analysis. Appellants recognize and respond to the inclusion of Ebanks in
the Briefs.
4
Appeal2017-000675
Application 11/851,243
ISSUES
The issues of obviousness tum primarily on whether the art describes
"selecting at least one advertisement from a third-party advertisement
provider, where the selection of the at least one advertisement is based on
the ranking of the content provider" followed by "publishing the reformatted
content onto at least one webpage of a website, the at least one webpage
comprising the reformatted content and the at least one advertisement."
Claim 1.
FACTS PERTINENT TO THE ISSUES
The following enumerated Findings of Fact (FF) are believed to be
supported by a preponderance of the evidence.
Facts Related to the Prior Art
ehow
01.Ehow is directed to explaining wikiHow. ehow 2:Title.
02. WikiHow is a wiki, which is a website that anyone can write and
anyone can edit. Ehow5: What is wikiHow?
03. WikiHow requires a specific wikiHow format. Pages entered are
reformatted to correspond to that format.
Ehow26: Category: Format.
04.WikiHow converts its content from the wikiHow format to an
email or print format. Ehow23 :Commands at Top of Page.
AssociatedContent
5
Appeal2017-000675
Application 11/851,243
05.AssociatedContent is directed to explaining Associated Content as
an entity. AssociatedContent 2:About Us.
06.Associated Content generates revenue from users who take
advantage of and click on the advertising that runs alongside its
content. AssociatedContent 2: How does Associated Content
make money?.
07. AssociatedContent content producers are assigned a clout index
that measures number of page views and submissions.
AssociatedContent 6:Making Money.
Ebanks
08.Ebanks is directed to assigning customer influence ranking scores
to on-line users such as Internet users of social networking sites
and user generated media sites. Ebanks para. 3.
09.Ebanks describes how it is advantageous for sellers such as
manufacturers of goods to have knowledge of which on-line users
have the most influence on other users. An on-line user having a
high customer influence ranking score is an ideal candidate for
word-of-mouth campaigns of sellers. As such, the sellers would
entitle such users to special offers and discounts because of their
status. Accordingly, assigning customer influence ranking scores
to on-line users, who are in tum consumers or potential
consumers, enables sellers such as companies to make offers to
the consumers who are really interested in receiving them as well
as reaching those consumers who have the most on-line influence
on other on-line consumers. Ebanks para. 22.
6
Appeal2017-000675
Application 11/851,243
10. Ebanks describes a score provider that determines the reach
(relevance) of on-line publishing generated by the user. This
component, which is indicative of the reach (relevance) of on-line
publishing generated by the user, is a measure of the user's
"publishing" connectivity. This component reflects the ability of
the user to publish public content that has a wide distribution.
This component is measured or determined by using publicly
available ranking scores for user generated media (e.g., blog
rankings, website rankings, etc.). Alternatively or additionally,
Ebanks may register its bulletin board and blog provider services
with score provider to provide the on-line user generated
publishing information associated with the user to the score
provider. In a manner similar to web search algorithms, web
crawlers can aggregate this information periodically. The on-line
user generated publishing information associated with a user is
based on several sub-components such as number of posts;
relative popularity of blog posts or user reviews (user ratings,
relative popularity ofblogs); the relative popularity of the blogs of
the other users who link to those blogs; relative popularity of user
reviews (uses ratings and rankings); personal website Alexa
rankings; blog page views; and relative popularity of these
forums. Again, these on-line user generated publishing sub-
components are measured based on publicly available ranking
scores for user generated media ( e.g., blog rankings, website
rankings )--all of the blog information and rankings are publicly
available. Ebanks para. 44.
7
Appeal2017-000675
Application 11/851,243
Zhuang
I I .Zhuang is directed to identifying an influential persons set so that
it may be used by advertisers to maximize the targeting coverage
of the social network. Zhuang para. 8.
Meggs
12.Meggs is directed to providing an incentive to network users.
Meggs para. 1.
13. Internet vendors are less susceptible to click-fraud with Meggs.
Click-fraud is a problem in the prior art because internet users can
repeatedly click hyperlinks and thereby fraudulently deprive
vendors of money. An embodiment of the present invention
prevents click-fraud because each Internet user agrees to register,
and thereby provide his/her personal information, before using the
network. Thus, an Internet user cannot repeatedly interact with an
Internet vendor's website, and thereby fraudulent deprive the
vendor of money, without revealing his/her identity to the
administrator. Because the administrator can monitor all Internet
user's activity, the administrator can either stop the user
continuing click fraud and/or reimburse the vendor of fraudulently
induced donations. Further, the administrator can implement an
algorithm to disable a user's account if the user's ratios of click-
thrus to leads to qualified leads indicate click-fraud. Meggs
para. 52.
8
Appeal2017-000675
Application 11/851,243
ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 5, 7-9, 21, 26, 28, and 31 rejected under 35 US.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over ehow, AssociatedContent, Ebanks, Meggs, and Zhuang
We are persuaded by Appellants' argument that "Ebanks does not teach
or suggest selecting an advertisement based on a ranking of a content
provider, as claimed. Instead, as discussed below, Ebanks merely describes
assigning a ranking to users of a networking site, and merely providing these
ranking scores to a third-party." App. Br. 7. The limitation at issue is
"selecting at least one advertisement from a third-party advertisement
provider, where the selection of the at least one advertisement is based on
the ranking of the content provider" followed by "publishing the reformatted
content onto at least one webpage of a website, the at least one webpage
comprising the reformatted content and the at least one advertisement."
Claim 1. Thus, Appellants contend that the art fails to describe selecting an
advertisement for placement in a web page based on a ranking of a content
provider.
The Examiner cites AssociatedContent 5 describing how Associated
Content generates revenue from users who take advantage of and click on
the advertising that runs alongside its content. Final Act. 6-7. The cited
portion does not describe advertising selection for inserting into a
publication, but rather a consumer selecting to click an already published
advertisement. Examiner then cites Ebanks para. 22 which describes sellers
tailoring their offers to the consumers who are really interested in receiving
them as well as reaching those consumers who have the most on-line
influence on other on-line consumers. Final Act. id. This paragraph
9
Appeal2017-000675
Application 11/851,243
describes advertising design but not advertising selection as such, and is
based on consumer influence rather than the content provider ranking.
Claims 3, 4, 6, 11, 12, 22-25, and 27 rejected under 35 USC§ 103(a) as
unpatentable over ehow, AssociatedContent, Ebanks, Meggs, Zhuang, and
Dunham
These claims depend from the independent claims and are not separately
argued.
Claim 30 rejected under 35 USC§ 103(a) as unpatentable over ehow,
AssociatedContent, Ebanks, Meggs, Zhuang, and Jerome
This claim depends from the independent claims and is not separately
argued.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The rejection of claims 1, 5, 7-9, 21, 26, 28, and 31 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over ehow, AssociatedContent, Ebanks, Meggs,
and Zhuang is improper.
The rejection of claims 3, 4, 6, 11, 12, 22-25, and 27 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over ehow, AssociatedContent, Ebanks, Meggs,
Zhuang, and Dunham is improper.
The rejection of claim 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
ehow, AssociatedContent, Ebanks, Meggs, Zhuang, and Jerome is improper.
10
Appeal2017-000675
Application 11/851,243
DECISION
The rejection of claims 1, 3-9, 11-12, 21-28, 30, and 31 is reversed.
REVERSED
11