Ex Parte Stern et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 21, 2016

11601993 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 21, 2016)

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.
11/601,993 11/20/2006 Benjamin J. Stern 2006-0019 7658
83727 7590 11/21/2016
AT & T LEGAL DEPARTMENT - Canavan
ATTN: PATENT DOCKETING
ROOM 2A-207, ONE AT & T WAY
BEDMINSTER, NJ 07921
EXAMINER
KURIEN, CHRISTEN A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2427
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/21/2016 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 BENJAMIN J. STERN, MAZIN GILBERT, and
NARENDRA GUPTA
____________________

Appeal 2016-001737
Application 11/601,993
Technology Center 2400
____________________

Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, NATHAN A. ENGELS, and
CARL L. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

ENGELS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 41–47 and 49–55. Claims 48 and 56 are cancelled. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

Appeal 2016-001737
Application 11/601,993

2
ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
Appellants’ claimed invention relates to techniques for “selecting
advertisements for placement in video content,” including “analyzing the
content of a program segment to associate the program content with
commercial advertisement placement.” App. Br. 2. Claim 41, reproduced
below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
41. A non transitory computer readable medium having
recorded thereon a computer program comprising code means
for, when executed on a computer, instructing the computer to
control steps in a method for analyzing the content of a program
segment to associate the program content with commercial
advertisement placement comprising:
storing a plurality of predefined advertising categories;
receiving a training segment comprising actual historical
channel programming having video and audio program content
and video and audio advertising content, the advertising content
having been placed within the channel programming using
manual placement, the placement having been proven effective;
extracting one or more advertising feature set values
from the advertising content for an advertising feature set
wherein each advertising feature set value characterizes an
aspect of the training segment advertising content;
classifying the one or more advertising feature set values
from the training segment as one or more advertising-content-
correlated advertising categories using a correlation model
wherein the correlation model weights each feature set value
and applies adaptable rules that correlate the one or more
feature set values with one or more of the predefined
advertising categories;
storing the training segment advertising content with its
one or more advertising-content-correlated advertising
categories;
extracting one or more program feature set values from
the training segment program content for a program feature set
wherein each program feature set value characterizes an aspect
of the training segment program content;
Appeal 2016-001737
Application 11/601,993

3
classifying the one or more program feature set values
from the training segment as one or more program-content-
correlated advertising categories using the correlation model;
comparing the one or more training segment program-
content-correlated advertising categories with the training
segment advertising-content-correlated advertising categories
wherein disparities between the one or more training segment
program-content-correlated advertising categories and training
segment advertising-content-correlated advertising categories
tune the correlation model weights;
receiving a program segment having video and audio
program content;
extracting one or more feature set values from the
program segment program content;
classifying the one or more feature set values from the
program segment as one or more correlated advertising
categories using the correlation model;
based on the one or more correlated advertising
categories, selecting one or more prerecorded advertisements
for the program segment; and
placing the one or more selected prerecorded
advertisements into the program segment.

APPELLANTS’ CONTENTIONS
Appellants contend the Examiner erred in rejecting “independent
claims 41 and 49, together with the corresponding dependent claims,” under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable in view of Zigmond et al. (US
6,698,020 B1; Feb. 24, 2004), Verhaegh et al. (US 2009/0150230 A1; June
11, 2009), Gutta et al. (US 2004/0073919 A1; Apr. 15, 2004), and Finseth et
al. (US 7,552,458 B1; June 23, 2009). App. Br. 3.

Appeal 2016-001737
Application 11/601,993

4
ANALYSIS
Appellants argue the Examiner erred in the rejections of independent
claims 41 and 49 because “Gutta et al. does not extract feature values from
program content” (App. Br. 4) nor does Gutta describe performing “a
comparison between program-content-correlated advertising categories and
advertising-content-correlated advertising categories” (App. Br. 5).
According to Appellants, Gutta teaches recommending commercials based
on a viewer’s behavior during prior broadcasts of commercials and “does not
utilize any features of the program content in placing advertisements.” App.
Br. 4; see also Reply Br. 1–4.
Having considered the Examiner’s rejection in light of Appellants’
arguments and the evidence of record, we disagree with Appellants. As an
initial matter, the Examiner’s rejection of claim 41 relies on the combined
teachings of the prior art (Final Act. 3–6), but Appellants’ arguments only
address Gutta (see App. Br. 4–6; Reply Br. 1–4).
Notably, in addition to findings relating to Gutta, the rejection
includes findings that each of Zigmond, Verhaegh, and Finseth includes
teachings relating to feature values of program content. See Final Act 3
(citing Zigmond, Abstract as teaching “analyzing the content of a program
segment to associate the program content with commercial advertisement
placement”), 5 (citing Verhaegh, Abstract, ¶¶ 21, 23 as teaching “extracting
one or more predefined values from the training segment program content
for a feature set wherein each feature set value characterizes an aspect of the
training segment program content”), and 5–6 (citing Finseth as teaching
“classifying the one or more feature set values from the training segment as
one or more correlated advertising categories using a correlation model . .
Appeal 2016-001737
Application 11/601,993

5
.[and] using a correlation model wherein the correlation model weights each
feature set value”).
Appellants’ arguments addressing Gutta individually fail to
substantively address the combination of prior art as cited by the Examiner
(see Final Act. 3–6) and are, therefore, unpersuasive of error in the
Examiner’s rejection. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981)
(“one cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually
where, as here, the rejections are based on combinations of references”).
Moreover, interpreting the plain language of claims 41 and 49 in light
of Appellants’ Specification, we agree with the Examiner that Gutta teaches
the disputed limitations. Appellants’ Specification broadly describes a
“feature set” extractor that “extracts values for a set of characteristic features
from [a] segment[,]” including “the time and date that the segment is to be
broadcast or transmitted” (Spec. ¶ 23), “past advertising effectiveness for
ads placed in the segment, or a movie rating” (Spec. ¶ 22). Accord App. Br.
9 (claim 44 further defining the program segment of claim 41 to include
metadata such as “past advertising effectiveness for ads placed in the
segment” and “a rating”; claim 45 further defining the “feature set values” of
claim 41 represent “segment release date, segment broadcast date and time,”
among other things).
Indeed, interpreting the plain language of claim 41 in light of
Appellants’ Specification, we agree with the Examiner (Ans. 4–5 (citing
Gutta ¶¶ 40–44)) that Gutta’s teachings that “[p]rogram category
information,” “temporal or contextual information,” and a program signature
“associated with a particular show name and rating” teach or suggest the
disputed limitations, including the claimed “feature set values.” See Gutta
Appeal 2016-001737
Application 11/601,993

6
¶¶ 40 (additional explaining “temporal or contextual information may be
taken into account in the comparison process”; “[f]or example, shows for
children are generally run during early morning time slots and would most
likely have different commercials than an evening program such as Monday
Night Football”), 41–44, 79–93 (teachings comparison of a program’s
broadcast time and channel as factors in comparing potential
advertisements).
Accordingly, on this record, and by a preponderance of the evidence,
Appellants have not persuaded us the Examiner erred in the rejections of
claims 41 and 49. We agree with and adopt as our own, the Examiner’s
findings, conclusions, and reasons consistent with the above. We sustain the
rejections of independent claims 41 and 49, as well as the rejections of
dependent 42–47 and 50–55, which are not argued individually.
Reply Brief
To the extent Appellants advance new arguments in the Reply Brief
not in response to a shift in the Examiner’s position in the Answer, we note
arguments raised in a Reply Brief that were not raised in the Appeal Brief or
are not responsive to arguments raised in the Examiner’s Answer will not be
considered except for good cause. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(2).

DECISION
For the above reasons, we affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims
41–47 and 49–55.
Appeal 2016-001737
Application 11/601,993

7
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended. 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED