Ex Parte Zimmerman, Jr. et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 27, 2019

13919792 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jun. 27, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO.
13/919,792
71897
KPPBLLP
7590
FILING DATE
06/17/2013
07/01/2019
2190 S. Towne Centre Place
Suite 300
Anaheim, CA 92806
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Stephen John Zimmerman, Jr.
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.
D9-02844.CON 5479
EXAMINER
STOLTENBERG, DAVID J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3682
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/01/2019 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):
P AIR@KPPB.COM
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte STEPHEN JOHN ZIMMERMAN, ROBERT MANLY, MAGGIE
YEH CHEN, KELVIN LI, and DAVID SCHWARTZ
Appeal2017-006756
Application 13/919,792
Technology Center 3600
Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, ANTON W. PETTING and
CYNTHIA L. MURPHY, Administrative Patent Judges.
CRAWFORD, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner's
final decision rejecting claims 1-9 and 11-28. We have jurisdiction over the
appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
Appeal2017-006756
Application 13/919,792
BACKGROUND
Appellants' invention is directed to targeted search advertising and
more specifically to the creation of product advertising campaigns. (Spec. ,r
2)
Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A product target generation server system, comprising:
a processor;
a memory connected to the processor and storing a product
advertisement generation application;
product data storage storing product data, where the product data
comprises a plurality of attribute-value pairs describing a set of products;
semantic model storage storing semantic models comprising data
describing relationships between product targets, concepts described using
categories and attribute-value pairs, and target grouping data constituting a
set of groupings of product targets; and
performance data storage storing global performance data comprising
performance data for product targets and target grouping data across a
plurality of existing product advertising strategies, wherein: processor to:
the target grouping data describes groupings of product targets and
product data; and
the existing product advertising strategies comprise existing product
targets and existing target grouping data separate and distinct from the
product data; and wherein the product advertisement generation application
directs the
obtain the product data from the memory;
2
Appeal2017-006756
Application 13/919,792
identify at least one category in a portion of the product data based
upon the attribute-value pairs in the product data associated with the
category;
determine a product advertising structure based on the product data
and the identified at least one category, where the product advertising
structure includes one or more groupings of product data
match a portion of the groupings of product data with the product
targets within the global performance data based on the attribute-value pairs
of the product data associated within the portion of the groupings of product
data;
identify performance data within the global performance data based
on the matched product targets, wherein:
the identified performance data corresponds to the attribute-value
pairs in the matched portion of the groupings of product data; and
the identified performance data is associated with existing product
data associated with at least one existing product advertising strategy and
separate and distinct from the groupings of product data; and
identify a set of inferred attributes based on the identified performance
data, where the inferred attributes correspond to keywords identified as
being used in search queries based on search performance data;
generate at least one product target using the identified performance
data, the set of inferred attributes, the semantic model, and the product data,
wherein:
a product target comprises a set of product attribute-value pairs
identifying a portion of the product data based on the inferred attributes; and
at least one product target is augmented with at least one
attribute-value pair described in the semantic model selected based
on the set of inferred attributes; and
3
Appeal2017-006756
Application 13/919,792
generate a product advertising campaign comprising the product
advertising structure and the generated at least one product target; and
wherein the product advertising campaign is utilized by a search engine
provider to:
determine the context in which a product advertisement is to be
displayed based on the product advertising structure described by the
product advertising campaign and search query terms received by the search
engine provider;
generate a product advertisement based on the product targets and the
product advertising structure described by the product advertising campaign,
where the generated product advertisement is targeted toward the search
query terms received by the search engine provider; and
display the generated product advertisement alongside a set of search
results provided by the search engine provider.
The Examiner relies on the following prior art reference as evidence
of unpatentability:
Tirumala
Evankovich
V adlamani
Wang
US 2008/0097842 Al
US 2012/0095828 Al
US 2012/0303444 Al
US 2014/0046756 Al
Appellants appeal the following rejections:
April 24, 2008
April 19, 2012
Nov. 29, 2012
Feb.23,2014
Claims 1, 2, 7, 12-16, 21, and 25-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a)
as unpatentable over Tirumala, Vadlamani and Wang.
Claims 3---6, 8, 9, 17-20, and 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
4
Appeal2017-006756
Application 13/919,792
unpatentable over Tirmnala, Vadlamani, Wang, and Evankovich.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Tirumala, Vadlamani, Wang, and Official Notice.
FACTUAL FINDINGS
We adopt all of the Examiner's findings as our own. (Final Action
11-28).
ANALYSIS
We are not persuaded of error on the part of the Examiner by
Appellants argument that the Examiner improperly included a dictionary of
claim language. (Brief 5). The Examiner's dictionary of claim language is
part of a proper claim construction which is a first step in any obviousness
analysis. s~ee Medichem, S.A. v. Rolabo, S.L., 353 F.3d 928, 933 (Fed. Cir.
2003). Appellants argue that the construction of the Examiner reads
limitations from the Specification into the claims and is not the broadest
reasonable interpretation of the claims. (Brief 5). However, Appellants do
not address the constn1ction of the claims by the Examiner with any
specificity. In the absence of any arguments directed to the specific features
of the claims and the Examiner's claim constluction of those features, this
argument is not persuasive of error.
5
Appeal2017-006756
Application 13/919,792
\Ve are not persuaded of en-or on the part of the Examiner by
Appellants' argument that Tin1mala teaches away from the use of automated
advertising targeting. (Brief 6 ). Appellants argue that the teaching in
Tirumala at paragraph l 05 that (1) an "automated engine or computer cannot
readily discern the goal and automatically determine what steps to take to
execute such a campaign" and (2) "a human being is actively involved in the
process by saying he or she wants to promote these sorts of products"
teaches away from using automated advertising targeting.
Under the proper legal standard, a reference will teach away when it
suggests that the developments flowing from its disclosures are unlikely to
produce the objective of the applicant's invention." Syntex (US.A.) LLC v.
Apotex, Inc., 407 F.3d 1371, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (citations omitted).
\Ve agree with the Examiner that the portion of Tirumala relied on by
Appellants is simply stating a well-known truth to persons of ordinary skill
in the art that at some level, a human is involved in the establishment and
overall direction of an advertising campaign. (Ans. 5 ). Human direction,
such as the establishment of initial campaign automation and execution such
as budgets, campaign duration and the establishment of a particular product
or a product category to be promoted, is required regardless of the amount of
automation. The teaching in Tiruma1a that the goal of the campaign and the
steps to take to execute such a campaign involves the actions ofhmnans
does not suggests that the developments flowing from using automation in
the process in addition to human direction is unlikely to produce the
objective of the invention.
\Ve are also not persuaded of error on the part of the Examiner by
Appellants' argument that Tiruma1a is limited to utilizing a single product
6
Appeal2017-006756
Application 13/919,792
feed to generate a merchandisable universe of products or MUP. We find
that Tirumala clearly discloses at paragraph 49 that more than a single
product feed is used by disclosing that millions of products are used in
catalogs to select the Jv1UP.
We are further not persuaded of error on the part of the Examiner by
Appellants' argument that \Vang uses previously generated advertising to
parse and identify n-grams because \Vang discloses at paragraph 11 that the
data sources for identifying n-grams also includes catalogues, inventory
databases, merchant databases, and aggregated data feeds.
Appellants' argument that Tirumala has no reference to keywords is
also not persuasive because keywords are clearly taught by Tin1mala at
paragraphs 48 and 49.
\Ve are also not persuaded of error on the part of the Examiner by
.Appellants' argument that if the teachings of Tinunala were combined with
the teachings of Vadlamani it would result in an inoperable system.
Appellants reason that the query expansion teachings of Vadlamani requires
the ability to query previously-generated advertising while the combination
requires the modification of attributes or keyvvords to generate the
advertising. (Brief 10). We agree with the Examiner that
Tirmnala semantically analyzes product related data and
provides targeted advertisements for semantically related
products in accordance with an advertising campaign while the
expansion of advertisement selections is disclosed by the
addition of the disclosures of Vadlamani with respect to
advertisement selection in accordance with expanded or
"lateral" concepts. Though the disclosure of Vadlamani is not
addressed to the analysis of product relationships from a
product feed or catalogue, the Vadlamani reference in
7
Appeal2017-006756
Application 13/919,792
combination with Tirumala enables a person of ordinary skill in
the art to select advertisements in response to a user's queries to
a web page or search engine, in a way that includes a greater
universe of terms than included in a product catalog or feed ...
Answer 16
In view of the foregoing, we will sustain the Examiner's rejection of
claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). \Ve will also sustain this rejection as it is
directed to claim 15 because Appellants argue claims 1 and 15 as a group.
(Brief 4). \Ve will also sustain this rejection as it is directed to the remaining
claims because Appellants have not argued the separate patentability of
these claims.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner is affirmed.
TIME PERIOD
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l) (2009).
ORDER
AFFIRMED
8