Ex Parte Schuster et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 7, 2019

13541023 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 7, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/541,023 07/03/2012
86548 7590 03/11/2019
Garlick & Markison (IH)
100 Congress A venue, Suite 2000
Austin, TX 78701
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Bobbi D. Schuster
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.
260-LAN-06-2012 1089
EXAMINER
BANTAMOI, ANTHONY
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2423
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/11/2019 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):
MMurdock@TEXASPATENTS.COM
bpierotti@texaspatents.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte BOBBI D. SCHUSTER, KOHINOOR BASU, MATTHEW M.
FERRY, DAVID C. JELLISON JR., STEVEN GABLE,
and DAVID R. MURRAY
Appeal2018-000029
Application 13/541,023
Technology Center 2400
Before JEAN R. HOMERE, BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER,
and PHILLIP A. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOMERE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 23--43, which constitute all claims pending in this application. 1 App.
Br. 2. Claims 1-23 have been canceled. Claims App'x. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We reverse.
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as iHeartMedia Management
Services, Inc. App. Br. 3.
Appeal2018-000029
Application 13/541,023
Introduction
According to Appellants, the claimed subject matter relates to a media
distribution method and system (100) for enabling media content providers
( e.g. advertisers) to select available advertisement spots in a commercial
schedule received from nationally distributed media outlets ( e.g., radio, TV),
(118). Fig. 1, Spec. 2:2-5. In particular, upon receiving from the media
outlets (118) unperfected station logs containing an inventory of available
advertising spots (avails), as well as an anticipated broadcast schedule
(programming surrounding avails) of the media outlets, an electronic hub
(112) filters the unperfected logs, and transmits the filtered unperfected logs
to the advertisers via a media content provider interface (120). Id. at 7-26.
Upon receiving from an advertiser a selection of a desired advertisement slot
from the filtered log, the electronic hub (112) transmits the selected spot to
the corresponding media outlet to broadcast the advertiser's commercial. Id.
2
Appeal2018-000029
Application 13/541,023
Figure 1, reproduced below, depicts the elements of Appellants'
system 100:
Fig. 1 shows an integrated media content distribution system for real-
time insertion and reporting of media content.
Representative Claim
Claims 24, 31, and 3 8 are independent. Independent claim 24 is
representative and is reproduced below with the limitations at issue
italicized:
24. A method for use in a media distribution system including an
electronic hub and a plurality of media outlets, the method
compnsmg:
receiving, from the plurality of media outlets at an electronic
hub via a communication network, a plurality of unperfected station
logs associated with the plurality of media outlets, wherein the
unperfected station logs include both avails and programming
surrounding the avails;
filtering the unperfected station logs to generate filtered
unperfected logs;
3
Appeal2018-000029
Application 13/541,023
transmitting the filtered unperfected logs to a media content
provider interface;
receiving, at an electronic hub from the media content provider
interface, an advertiser selection[,] the advertiser selection indicating:
a selection of at least one of the unperfected station logs;
a selection of at least one media outlet inventory item
associated with the at least one of the unperfected station
logs;
creating, at the electronic hub, a perfected version of an
unperfected station log based on the advertiser selection; and
transmitting playout instructions associated with the perfected
version of the unperfected station log to a media delivery system.
Forsythe et al.
Schu
Prior Art Relied Upon
US 2005/0171897 Al
Rejection on Appeal2
Aug. 4, 2005
Claims 24--43 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being
anticipated by Forsythe. Final Act. 8-18.
ANALYSIS 3
Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in finding Forsythe
anticipates claims 23--43. App. Br. 8. In particular, Appellants argue
Forsythe does not describe "receiving, from a plurality of media outlets, ... at
a plurality of unperfected station logs associated with the plurality of media
outlets, wherein the unperfected station logs include both avails and
programming surrounding the avails and filtering the unperfected station
2 The Examiner withdrew the obviousness type double patenting previously
entered against claims 23--43. Ans. 11.
3 We refer to the Final Office Action ( mailed January 10, 2017) ("Final
Act."), the Appeal Brief (filed May 8, 2017) ("App. Br."), and the Answer
(mailed August 24, 2017) ("Ans."), the Reply Brief (filed September 27,
2017) ("Reply Br."), and for the respective details.
4
Appeal2018-000029
Application 13/541,023
logs to generate filtered unperfected logs," as recited in independent
claim 24. Id. at 8-9.
According to Appellants, Forsythe's rate submission pages simply
relate to rates provided by personnel of media outlets, and do not describe
the claimed unperfected station logs. Id. ( citing Forsythe ,r,r 44--48). Further,
Appellants argue Forsythe's rate-centric efficacy method to fill advertising
slots and schedules are created by the purchasing system, whereas the
claimed unperfected station logs originate from the media outlets' own
desired schedule and programming priorities. Id. at 9-12 (citing Forsythe
,r 48). Appellants' arguments are persuasive.
Figure 1 of Forsythe, reproduced below, depicts a user/server
environment for selecting and purchasing media advertising
System 1°0
Advertiser IC)/ Media Outlet 1ca
Ad~sr Provides Buying Criteria &
Custnmor Data tnrough ...
Siog Au is Crna!ed
•
-+ c~~t.es Rate Request I J ;a?
1"1
... S.nd• Sook Applicablo Ratao
1 ll
Figure 1 depicts a system for selecting and purchasing media
advertising
5
Appeal2018-000029
Application 13/541,023
As shown in Figure 1 above, Forsythe discloses a media selection and
purchasing system (100) for allowing advertisers (101) to purchase
advertisement slots at desired media outlets (103) via a website. Forsythe
Abstract, ,r 3 7, Fig. 1. In particular, upon receiving buying criteria from
advertisers, the website forwards the collected information to a suitable
media outlet (103), which returns to the website the applicable rates for the
advertiser's request. Id. ,r,r 13, 55, 58. The website then creates and
transmits an advertising schedule to the advertiser ( 101) for subsequent
purchase and for reserving the scheduled advertisement. Id.
Although we agree with the Examiner that the cited portions of
Forsythe teach creating a schedule of available media outlet advertisement
slots, the Examiner has not demonstrated that the schedule of available
media slots are received from the media outlets themselves. Ans. 12, 13. As
persuasively argued by Appellants, Forsythe teaches creating the schedule of
available slots at the website itself based on the rates received from the
media outlets in response to the advertiser's rate inquiry. At best, Forsythe
describes a website hub that creates the schedule of available advertisement
slots based on rate data received from the media outlets. However, Forsythe
falls short of disclosing that the website hub receives the unperfected station
logs including avails and programming surround avails (i.e. programming
schedules and available media slots) received from the media outlets.
Because Appellants have shown at least one reversible error in the
Examiner's rejection, we need not reach Appellants' remaining arguments.
Accordingly, we are persuaded or error in the Examiner's anticipation
rejection of claim 23.
6
Appeal2018-000029
Application 13/541,023
Because claims 24--43 recite the disputed limitations of claim 23
discussed above, we do not sustain the Examiner's anticipation rejection of
the cited claims for the same reason set forth above.
DECISION
For the above reasons, we reverse the Examiner anticipation rejection
of claims 23--43 as set forth above.
REVERSED
7