Ex Parte Steelberg et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 15, 2017

13015758 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 15, 2017)

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.
13/015,758 01/28/2011 Ryan Steelberg VTONE.003.X15 3223
95508 7590
One LLP
4000 MacArthur Blvd.
East Tower, Suite 500
Newport Beach, CA 92660
12/19/2017 EXAMINER
KUDDUS, DANIEL A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2154
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/19/2017 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):
IPdocke ting @ onellp. com
onellpdocketing @ onellp. com
P AIRgroup @ onellp. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte RYAN STEELBERG and CHAD STEELBERG
Appeal 2017-007139
Application No. 13/015,7581
Technology Center 2100
Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, MARC S. HOFF, and
SCOTT E. BAIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOFF, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a Final Rejection of
claims 1, 3, and 5—7. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
Appellants’ invention is a method of creating and delivering an on-
demand audio asset, such as an advertisement, to a social network website.
Steps include accessing a central processing environment, requesting at least
one recording of at least a portion of an audio transmission, generating at
least one audio asset, adding the audio asset to a pool of related assets stored
1 The real party in interest is Veritone, Inc.
Appeal 2017-007139
Application No. 13/015,758
in a vault connected to the central processing environment, selecting the
generated audio asset and at least one other related asset from the pool to
form a creative. The method the requests delivery of the creative to another
communication device, and delivers the creative to said other
communication device. See Abstract.
Claim 1 is exemplary of the claims on appeal:
1. A method for delivery of an advertisement to a
social network web site, comprising:
creating by a member of the social network web site,
using an advertising system in data communication with the
social network web site, a post to the social network web site of
information regarding a product or service as an advertisement,
with an endorsement of the advertised product or service from
the member to the followers, and an address link correspondent
to a location in a computing memory of the advertising system,
wherein:
the information posted is provided by a seller of
the product or service and stored in an advertisement database;
the location in the computer memory contains a
media asset relevant to the product or service in association
with the information of the product or service in the
advertisement database; and
providing the information, the endorsement, and the
address link to the followers of the member in the social
network web site via a computerized telecommunications
network, wherein the social network web site is responsive to
verifying a total number of the followers of the member by
accessing and crawling an account of the member on the social
network web site, and
wherein the member of the social network web site is
paid by the advertising system for providing the posted
information, the endorsement, and the address link to the
followers of the member.
2
Appeal 2017-007139
Application No. 13/015,758
Claims 1, 3, and 5—7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Kublickis2 and Marchese3.
Throughout this decision, we make reference to the Appeal Brief
(“App. Br.,” filed Nov. 30, 2016) and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,”
mailed Jan. 26, 2017) for their respective details.
ISSUE
Does the combination of Kublickis and Marchese teach or suggest a
social network web site that is responsive to verifying a total number of the
followers of the member by accessing and crawling an account of the
member on the social network web site?
ANALYSIS
Claims 1,3, and 5
Independent claim 1, the sole independent claim under appeal, recites
a method for delivery of an advertisement to a social network web site
including, inter alia, “wherein the social network web site is responsive to
verifying a total number of the followers of the member by accessing and
crawling an account of the member on the social network web site.”
Appellants state that paragraphs 95, 100, and 105 of the Specification
support this subject matter. While these paragraphs may not explicitly set
forth the entity that is tasked with the function of “verifying a total number
of followers of the member,” there is disclosure that there are limitations on
what an influencer may do (e.g. endorse a product or service, post
2 US 2007/0067297 Al, published Mar. 22, 2007
3 US 2008/0033776 Al, published Feb. 7, 2008
3
Appeal 2017-007139
Application No. 13/015,758
information) based upon the total number of followers of that influencer. See
Spec. 1100.
The Examiner suggests an interpretation of the phrase “total number
of the followers” as meaning simply “some plurality of users,” or “other
users.” See Ans. 5. Reading the phrase “verifying a total number of the
followers” in combination with the Specification’s disclosure that certain
activities are limited to influencers having sufficient followers, we cannot
agree with the Examiner’s interpretation. See Spec. 195, 100, 105. We find
that the phrase should be construed to mean making a quantitative
determination of the number of followers of an influencer or other account
holder.
The Examiner, after admitting that Kublickis does not explicitly teach
verifying a total number of followers, finds that Marchese teaches this
limitation. Ans. 4. The Examiner relies on paragraphs 13—14, 53—54, and 65
of Marchese in support of this finding. Ans. 4—5. We do not agree with the
Examiner’s finding. Paragraphs 13 and 14 provide a general overview of the
invention and are of no specific relevance to verification of the total number
of followers. Paragraph 53 of Marchese discloses requiring verification of
identity for anyone who wishes to become a social publisher on the BAC
social network. “[T]he membership qualification module 210 may utilize the
information to verify the existence of the social publisher by running a credit
check or some other type of verification algorithm.” Marchese 153.
Paragraph 54 discusses presenting various incentives to make prospective
members more willing to provide their verification data. Paragraph 65
discusses the campaign creation/management module.
4
Appeal 2017-007139
Application No. 13/015,758
We find, in agreement with Appellants, that “nowhere does Marchese
teach or suggest verifying the [total] number of followers of a member.”
App. Br. 11. We agree with Appellants that Marchese discloses verifying an
identity, which “is simply not the same as verifying the number of follower
(sic) of a member.” App. Br. 11. At most, Marchese discloses “verifying the
existence of the publisher.” App. Br. 12 (emphasis removed).
We find that the combination of Kublickis and Marchese does not
disclose all the elements of the invention recited in independent claim 1. We
do not sustain the Examiner’s § 103(a) rejection of claims 1, 3, and 5.4
Claims 6 and 7
Claims 6 and 7 depend from independent claim 1. As discussed supra,
we find that the combination of Kublickis and Marchese does not disclose
all the limitations of independent claim 1. Therefore, we do not sustain the
§ 103(a) rejection of dependent claims 6 and 7 over Kublickis and Marchese,
for the same reasons expressed supra with respect to independent claim 1.
CONCLUSION
The combination of Kublickis and Marchese does not disclose or
suggest a social network web site that is responsive to verifying a total
number of the followers of the member by accessing and crawling an
account of the member on the social network web site.
4 In the event of further proceedings, the Examiner may wish to consider
whether “wherein the social network web site is responsive to verifying a
total number of the followers of the member by accessing and crawling an
account of the member on the social network web site” is subject to multiple
interpretations, and as such whether a rejection of the claims for
indefmiteness under § 112 would be appropriate.
5
Appeal 2017-007139
Application No. 13/015,758
ORDER
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1,3, and 5—7 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) is reversed.
REVERSED
6