Ex Parte Swaminathan et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardNov 28, 201713608820 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 28, 2017) Copy Citation 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. 13/608,820 09/10/2012 Viswanathan Swaminathan 2341US01 5295 108982 7590 Wolfe-SBMC 116 W. Pacific Avenue Suite 300 Spokane, WA 99201 EXAMINER NGUYEN, MERILYN P ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2153 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 11/30/2017 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): docket@sbmc-law.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte VISWANATHAN SWAMINATHAN and HERMAN S. SAHOTA Appeal 2017-006809 Application 13/608,820 Technology Center 2100 Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, BETH Z. SHAW and SHARON FENICK, Administrative Patent Judges. MacDONALD, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2017-006809 Application 13/608,820 STATEMENT OF CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 1—21. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. Exemplary Claims Exemplary Claim 1 under appeal reads as follows (emphasis, brackets, and formatting added): 1. A computer-implemented method, comprising: [A.] for each of a plurality of users, determining that the user has opted-in indicating that respective content consumption activity is to be tracked with respect to a content publisher, the indication evidenced by previous contact received from the user; [B.] for each of the plurality of users, responsive to the determination that the user has opted-in to having their activity tracked by the content publisher, [i.] receiving, by a ratings service, usage information specifying one or more attributes of the user’s content consumption activity with respect to network-based content from one or more different content publishers without the user opting into having the user’s activity tracked with the one or more different content publishers, [ii.] the user’s content consumption activity comprising playing the network-based content within an application and the ratings service independent from the content publisher and the one or more different content publishers; [C.] determining, by the ratings service, a subset of the plurality of users that share one or more characteristics; and 2 Appeal 2017-006809 Application 13/608,820 [D.] generating, by the ratings service, a report based on a portion of the received usage information that is specific to the subset of the plurality of users, the report specifying one or more aggregate attributes of the subset's content consumption activity. 7. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the previous contact received from the user indicating that their content consumption activity is to be tracked comprises tracking data for [(a)] one or more domains of the content publisher and the one or more different content publishers and [(b)] one or more domains of the ratings service existing on a system which runs the application. Rejections The Examiner rejected claims 1—21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Ramer et al. (US 2012/0215640 Al; pub. August. 23, 2012) and Borggaard et al. (US 2012/0278329 Al; pub. Nov. 1, 2012).1 Issues on Appeal Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 1 and 7 as being obvious? ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’ arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants’ conclusions. 1 Separate patentability is not argued for claims 2—6 and 8—21. Except for our ultimate decision, this rejection of these claims is not discussed further herein. 3 Appeal 2017-006809 Application 13/608,820 A Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because: Claim[ 1] recite[s] in pertinent part (emphasis added): • responsive to the determination that the user has opted-in to having their activity tracked by the content publisher and without further action by the user, receiving, by a ratings service, usage information specifying one or more attributes of the user's content consumption activity with respect to network-based content from one or more different content publishers. App. Br. 14 (Appellants’ emphasis omitted, panel emphasis added).The above block quote is not a direct quote of the claim language but rather the Appellants’ characterization thereof. The portion of claim 1 argued by Appellants, actually reads (emphasis added): responsive to the determination that the user has opted-in to having their activity tracked by the content publisher, receiving, by a ratings service, usage information specifying one or more attributes of the user’s content consumption activity with respect to network-based content from one or more different content publishers without the user opting into having the user’s activity tracked with the one or more different content publishers. As to Appellants’ assertion, we disagree. Appellants’ “without further action by the user” argument is not commensurate with the scope of the claim language. Claim 1 is not explicitly so limited, and Appellants do not explain how claim 1 would be inherently so limited. Nor do we find alternative language in claim 1 that would similarly mandate this argued limitation. Rather, claim 1 recites “without the user opting into having the user’s activity tracked with the one or more different content publishers.” 4 Appeal 2017-006809 Application 13/608,820 This claim language does not preclude further action by the user, e.g. by opting into a non-publisher server and client data tracking as shown in Borggaard (or preclude further action by opting into a rating entity as shown in Appellants’ Specification at paragraphs 24—25). B Appellants also contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because: Ramer and Borggaard, alone or in combination, do not teach or suggest “previous contact received from the user indicating that their content consumption activity is to be tracked comprises tracking data for one or more domains of the content publisher and the one or more different content publishers and one or more domains of the ratings service existing on a system which runs the application,” as recited in claim[ 7]. App. Br. 17. As to Appellants’ above assertions, we are not persuaded of error. Appellants merely recite the particular language of claim 7 and assert the cited prior art reference does not teach or suggest the claim limitations. Without more, this fails to constitute an argument on the merits. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv); In reLovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011). C Appellants also contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because: Borggaard cannot provide a basis for tracking data for both advertising systems and individual content providers, much less using them to determine that a user has indicated that their content consumption activity is to be tracked. App. Br. 18 (Appellants’ emphasis omitted, panel emphasis added). 5 Appeal 2017-006809 Application 13/608,820 As to Appellants’ assertion, we disagree. Appellants’ argument, that “Borggaard cannot provide a basis for tracking data for both advertising systems and individual content providers” (App. Br. 18), is not commensurate with the scope of the claim language. Claim 7 is not explicitly limited to “advertising systems,” and Appellants do not explain how claim 7 would be inherently so limited. Nor do we find alternative language that would similarly mandate this argued limitation. CONCLUSIONS (1) The Examiner has not err in rejecting claims 1—21 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). (2) Claims 1—21 are not patentable. DECISION The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—21 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is affirmed. 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 6 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation