Ex Parte Rowe et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 23, 2016

12702665 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 23, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
121702,665 02/09/2010 Simon M. Rowe
26192 7590 02/25/2016
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.
16113-1876001 2530
EXAMINER
RYAN, PATRICK A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2427
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/25/2016 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 SIMON M. ROWE, ALASTAIR PETER WILLIAM MAW,
NICHOLAS S. ARINI, IAIN MERRICK, ANT OZTASKENT,
Y AROSLA V VOLOVICH, KYLE MADDISON, ANDREW GILDFIND,
and RAIMUNDO MIRISOLA
Appeal2014-003291
Application 12/702,665
Technology Center 2400
Before ERIC S. FRAHM, JOHN P. PINKERTON, and
NORMAN H. BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judges.
PINKERTON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 file this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1-21, which constitute all of the
claims pending in this application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ).
We affirm.
1 Appellants identify Google Inc. as the real party in interest. App. Br. 3.
Appeal2014-003291
Application 12/702,665
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants' invention is generally directed to providing customized
television advertisements. Abstract.2
Claim 1 is representative and reads as follows (with the
disputed limitations italicized):
1. A computer-implemented method performed by a data
processing apparatus, comprising:
accessing, by a data processing apparatus, television
advertising templates, each of the television advertising
templates for use in generating customized television
advertisements and including:
variable advertisement content elements, each
variable advertisement content element being selectable for
inclusion in a customized television advertisement
generated from the television advertising template;
targeting criteria specifying targeting conditions
for the television advertising template, the targeting conditions
being conditions for selecting the television advertisement
template for an advertisement availability; and
content selection criteria specifying availability
content that specifies a specific content of a television program
associated with a future advertisement availability for use in
selecting variable advertisement content elements for inclusion
in a customized television advertisement generated from the
television advertising template;
2 Our Decision refers to the Final Office Action mailed Dec. 27, 2012
("Final Act."), Appellants' Appeal Brief filed July 26, 2013 ("App. Br."),
the Examiner's Answer mailed Oct. 18, 2013 ("Ans."), and the original
Specification filed Feb. 9, 2010 ("Spec.").
2
Appeal2014-003291
Application 12/702,665
identifying, by the data processing apparatus, an
advertising availability that satisfies the targeting conditions for
one or more of the television advertising templates;
selecting, by the data processing apparatus, one of the
television advertising templates having targeting conditions
satisfied by the advertising availability;
identifying, by the data processing apparatus, availability
content based on the content selection criteria of the selected
television advertising template;
selecting, by the data processing apparatus, one or more
of the variable advertisement content elements of the selected
television advertising template;
generating, by the data processing apparatus, a
customized television advertisement from the selected
television advertising template and the selected variable
advertisement content elements; and
providing, by the data processing apparatus, the
customized television advertisement for airing during the
advertisement availability that satisfies the targeting conditions
of the selected television advertising template.
References
Murakami US 2010/0242065 Al Sept. 23, 2010
Haberman US 8,006,261 B 1 Aug. 23, 2011
Rejection on Appeal
Claims 1-21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Haberman and Murakami.
3
Appeal2014-003291
Application 12/702,665
Issues
Appellants' arguments in the Appeal Brief and the Examiner's
response in the Answer raise the following issues:
1. Does the combination of Haberman and Murakami teach or
suggest "the specific content of a television program associated
with a future advertising availability," as recited in claim 1, and
as similarly recited in independent claims 8, 13, 17, 19, and 21?
App. Br. 12-16.
2. Did the Examiner err in basing the rejection under§ 103(a) on
the combination of Haberman and Murakami?
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejection in light of Appellants'
arguments in the Appeal Brief that the Examiner has erred. We disagree
with Appellants' arguments. Unless otherwise noted, we adopt as our own
the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Office Action from
which this appeal is taken (Final Act. 5-36) and in the Examiner's Answer in
response to Appellants' Appeal Brief (Ans. 2---6), and we concur with the
conclusions reached by the Examiner. For emphasis, we consider and
highlight Appellants' arguments relating to the issues noted above.
Issue 1
Appellants contend the combination of Haberman and Murakami does
not teach or suggest "the specific content of a television program associated
with a future advertising availability," as recited in claim 1, and as similarly
recitedinindependentclaims8, 13, 17, 19,and21. App.Br.12-16. In
particular, Appellants argue Haberman teaches creating messages to deliver
4
Appeal2014-003291
Application 12/702,665
to specific groups or viewers based on a viewer profile and does not teach or
suggest that the viewer's profile includes viewing history. Id. at 13-14.
Appellants also argue Murakami teaches a system that, in response to a
viewer's content distribution request, selects an existing commercial to
display based on viewing history of the viewer. Id. at 14--15. Appellants
further argue selecting a commercial based on viewing history is not
selection of a commercial based on the specific content of a television
program in the future. Id. at 16. In this regard, Appellants argue, based on
the Specification, "specific content" of a television program "means
information that directly reflects to the subject matter of a particular
television program." Id. at 16.
We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments. Regarding
construction of the term "specific content of a television program," during
examination of a patent application, pending claims are given their broadest
reasonable construction consistent with the specification. In re Am. Acad. of
Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Under the broadest
reasonable interpretation standard, claim terms are given their ordinary and
customary meaning as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the
art in the context of the entire disclosure. In re Trans logic Tech., Inc., 504
F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). An applicant may, however, act as his or
her own lexicographer by providing a special definition for a claim term in
the specification with "reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision." In
re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed.Cir.1994).
The Examiner finds that viewing history, as taught in Murakami (see
i-f 27), is not explicitly excluded from the term "specific content of a
television program" and that the term could generally mean "information
5
Appeal2014-003291
Application 12/702,665
related to the television program." Ans. 4. The Examiner also finds
Murakami teaches content selection criteria including content metadata of
the requested distribution content, as described in paragraph 56, such as
"title," genre," and "performers," as described in paragraphs 37 and 67. Id.
The Examiner further finds Murakami teaches "specific content of a
television program" because "at least 'title,' 'genre,' and 'performers' are
information related to the television program." Id.
As discussed supra, Appellants rely on the Specification and argue the
term "specific content of a television program" "means information that
directly reflects the subject matter of a particular television program." Id. at
16. The Specification states "[a]s used in this description, 'specific content'
of the television programming refers to the specific subject matter of the
television program." Spec. 5, 11. 12-14. The Specification also states "the
general content of a television program, which is the topic or category to
which the program belongs - e.g., a travel related program, a sports related
program - does not always identify the specific content of the television
program." Spec. 5, 11. 18-22.
We conclude Appellants' descriptions in the Specification of the term
"specific content of the television program" do not constitute a special
definition of the term because the descriptions are not set forth with
"reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision." See Paulsen, 30 F.3d at
480. In that regard, the distinction between "specific" and "general" content
of a television program is not reasonably clear or precise. Regarding such
"general" content, the Specification states the "topic" or "category" of the
program does not always identify the specific content, which implies that in
certain circumstances it would. Accordingly, we conclude the broadest
6
Appeal2014-003291
Application 12/702,665
reasonable interpretation of the term "specific content of the television
program" to a person of ordinary skill in the art, considering the claim
language and the Specification in its entirety, at least includes the title of the
program. Thus, we agree with the Examiner's finding that Murakami
teaches or suggests the content selection criteria specifies a "specific content
of the television program" because it teaches the metadata of the requested
distribution content includes the "title." Ans. 4 (citing Murakami i-fi-137, 56).
Appellants also argue Haberman and Murakami do not teach or
suggest the specific content of a television program "associated with a future
advertising availability." App. Br. 13-15. The Examiner finds both
Haberman and Murakami teach the selection of targeted advertisements to
be displayed in the future:
For example, Haberman discloses Deliver Window
Specification 112 to define a time duration over which the
campaign will be executed (Col. 10 Lines 28-33; emphasis
added). Furthermore, Murakami discloses "the commercial
selection condition can be set so as to select the commercial
metadata having the 'commercial date and time (air date and
time)' which are closer to the distribution requested data and
time" (Paragraph [0065]) and "commercial selection condition
can be set so as to select the commercial metadata having a time
which is closer to the distribution-requested time as the time
information (commercial time or broadcast time) of the
'commercial data and time (air date and time)."' (Paragraph
[0066]).
Ans. 4--5.
Appellants did not file a reply brief and have not provided
persuasive evidence or arguments that the Examiner's findings are in
error. Accordingly, for the reasons stated by the Examiner, we agree
7
Appeal2014-003291
Application 12/702,665
with the Examiner's findings that Haberman and Murakami teach the
specific content of a television program "associated with a future
advertising availability." Thus, we find the Examiner did not err in
finding the combination of Haberman and Murakami teaches or
suggests "the specific content of a television program associated with
a future advertising availability," as recited in claim 1, and as
similarly recited in independent claims 8, 13, 17, 19, and 21.
Issue 2
Appellants contend Haberman and Murakami do not teach similar
techniques usable together because, in Haberman, the commercials are
composed "on-demand" or "on-the-fly," whereas in Murakami, the selection
of advertisements is based on viewer history information in response to a
viewer's content distribution request. App. Br. 14--15. Thus, according to
Appellants, "if Haberman's advertisements were distributed with
Murakami's' 'requested content,' Haberman's objective of flexible delivery
could not be met." Id. at 15.
We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments. The Examiner finds
Haberman and Murakami teach similar techniques for the creation and
distribution of targeted advertisement content. Ans. 5. We agree with this
finding because, as the Examiner finds, Haberman teaches the selection of
advertisement content based on information within the Viewer Profile
Database 22 and Murakami teaches content selection criteria includes end
user viewing history (see Murakami i-f 27) and the specific content of a
television advertisement (see Murakami i-f 37 and discussion supra regarding
content metadata including the "title" of the program). The Examiner also
finds, and we agree, "Haberman's advertisement content delivery system
8
Appeal2014-003291
Application 12/702,665
would benefit from the additional selection criteria of Murakami thereby
increasing the likelihood of an effectively targeted advertisement." Ans. 5.
Appellants did not file a reply brief and have not provided persuasive
evidence or argument to rebut the Examiner's findings. Thus, we do not
find error ( 1) in the Examiner's finding that the techniques of Haberman and
Murakami are usable together or (2) in the Examiner's conclusion that the
combination of Haberman and Murakami renders claim 1 obvious.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1, as well as
claims 8, 13, 17, 19, and 21, which Appellants argue are patentable for at
least the reasons provided regarding claim 1. See App. Br. 17. We also
sustain the Examiner's rejection of dependent claims 2-7, 9-12, 14--16, 18,
and 20, which are not argued separately. Id.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-21 under 3 5
U.S.C. § 103(a).
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
9