Facebook, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 30, 2020

14473981 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 30, 2020)

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.
14/473,981 08/29/2014 Jacob Andrew Brill 26295-27079/US 4955
87851 7590 03/30/2020
Facebook/Fenwick
Silicon Valley Center
801 California Street
Mountain View, CA 94041
EXAMINER
CROSS, MICHAEL J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3621
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/30/2020 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):
fwfacebookpatents@fenwick.com
ptoc@fenwick.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JACOB ANDREW BRILL, FRANCISCO LEONARDO
FRANCO GONZALEZ, JANE FRANCIS, SARAH ROTMAN EPPS, and
GIANLUCA IANNACCONE
Appeal 2019-004951
Application 14/473,981
Technology Center 3600
Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, and
BRADLEY B. BAYAT, Administrative Patent Judges.
BAYAT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–9 and 11–21, which constitute all the
claims pending in this application. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Facebook, Inc.
Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2019-004951
Application 14/473,981

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant’s invention relates to “allowing an online system user to
modify characteristics used by the online system to select content for
presentation to the user.” Spec. ¶ 1. Independent claim 1, reproduced
below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method comprising:
receiving, at an online system, an advertisement (“ad”) request
including advertisement content and targeting criteria, the
targeting criteria identifying one or more characteristics of
users of the online system eligible to be presented with the
advertisement content;
identifying an opportunity to present advertising to a user of the
online system;
identifying characteristics associated with the user by the online
system;
selecting the advertisement content included in the ad request for
presentation to the user based on the identified
characteristics satisfying at least a threshold amount of the
targeting criteria included in the ad request;
selecting one or more characteristics of the user satisfying the
targeting criteria included in the ad request;
generating a display menu that comprises:
1) an identification of the selected one or more
characteristics, and
2) an option to prevent subsequent presentation of
additional advertisement content associated with
targeting criteria satisfied by the selected one or
more characteristics;
presenting the display menu to the user;
receiving an input from the user to the option for preventing
subsequent presentation of the additional advertisement
content associated with targeting criteria satisfied by the
selected one or more characteristics; and
in response to the received input, identifying additional ad
requests including targeting criteria satisfied by the
Appeal 2019-004951
Application 14/473,981

3
selected one or more characteristics as ineligible for
presentation to the user.

REJECTION2
The Examiner rejects claims 1–9 and 11–213 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Mathur (US 2014/0244386 A1, published Aug. 28, 2014)
and Kiet at al. (US 2014/0136314 A1, published May 15, 2014) (“Kiet”).
OPINION
Independent claim 1 recites, in part:
selecting one or more characteristics of the user satisfying the
targeting criteria included in the ad request; [and]
generating a display menu that comprises:
1) an identification of the selected one or more
characteristics, and
2) an option to prevent subsequent presentation of additional
advertisement content associated with targeting criteria
satisfied by the selected one or more characteristics.
Independent claim 13 recites, in part:
selecting one or more characteristics of the user satisfying the
targeting criteria associated with the selected advertisement
content; [and]
presenting a description of the selected one or more
characteristics to the user.

2 The Examiner indicates that a previous rejection of claims 1–21 under
35 U.S.C. § 101 is withdrawn, based on a claim amendment, but does not
explain the reasoning behind the withdrawal. Final Act. 4.
3 Claim 10 was canceled in an Amendment filed on February 21, 2018.
Appeal 2019-004951
Application 14/473,981

4
Independent claim 19 recites, in part:
select one or more characteristics of the user satisfying the
targeting criteria associated with the selected advertisement
content; [and]
present a description of the selected one or more characteristics
to the user.
Appellant’s Specification discloses, “Referring to FIG. 4B, if the user
selects the option 405A to view one or more reasons the advertisement
content 400 was presented, an interface 410 describing the one or more
reasons is presented.” Spec. ¶ 46. The Specification provides that
interface 410 includes a description 415 identifying a
characteristic of the user satisfying targeting criteria associated
with the advertisement content 400, with the characteristic
selected as described above in conjunction with FIG. 3.
Additionally, the interface presents an option allowing the user
to prevent subsequent user of the characteristic identified in the
description 415 by the online system 140 to select content for the
user.
Id. The Specification and claims distinguish between an advertisement, and
the user characteristics that are used to select an advertisement for a user.
Figure 4B shows “characteristics” such as “Golf,” “Tennis,” “Baseball,”
“Football,” “Hockey,” “Archery,” and “PGA tour.”
For each of independent claims 1, 13, and 19, the Examiner initially
finds the claim language above disclosed in Mathur at paragraphs 7, 24, 36,
42, and 48–51. Final Act. 8, 13, 16. Further, the Examiner finds:
Mathur does not disclose the presentation of the characterization
data to the user for subsequent advertising presentation
decisions. However, Kiet discloses a method of conversational
marketing in mobile devices that received swipes left or right to
determine the applicability or interest of the viewing user in the
Appeal 2019-004951
Application 14/473,981

5
content (Abstract, 0012, claims 1 and 5), which may be
combined with the metrics disclosed by Mathur to determine ad
presentation decisions.
Final Act. 8, 13, 16.
Appellant argues, as to claim 1, that “neither Mathur nor Kiet generate
the display menu as articulated in the claims with the selected one or more
characteristics and the option to prevent subsequent presentation of ad
associated with targeting criteria satisfied by the selected one or more
characteristics.” Appeal Br. 8. Appellant also argues the combination of
Mathur and Kiet fail to disclose, from claims 13 and 19, “presenting a
description of the selected one or more characteristics to the user.” Id.
at 8–9.
In response, the Examiner clarifies that “Mathur . . . is relied upon to
disclose the advertising system and the use of metrics to determine
(positively or negatively) which advertisements will be displayed.”
Answer 3. The Examiner asserts “Kiet . . . is relied upon to disclose the
presentation of data to the user, the interaction between that data and the
user (positive or negative) and the re-introduction of that interaction data
into the process of Mathur to determine which content will, or will not, be
provided to the user.” Id.
Appellant replies: “Kiet discloses the presentation of individual ads
for which a user can express interest or disinterest – not presentation of
actual characteristics used to select ads along with an option to allow the
user to prevent future ad selection based on those characteristics.” Reply Br.
3. We agree with the Appellant.
The Examiner finds Mathur uses “metrics” to select advertisements,
and Kiet discloses “the presentation of data” to the user, but does not
Appeal 2019-004951
Application 14/473,981

6
articulate whether either reference, alone or in combination, discloses
displaying “characteristics” to a user as called for in the claim. Mathur
discloses “selection module 360 selects an advertisement for presentation to
the viewing user based on the one or more common characteristics
determined by the user characteristic selector 355.” Mathur ¶ 49. Mathur
describes and defines the “characteristics” that are used for advertisement
selection. Id. ¶ 48.
Kiet discloses:
The apparatus delivers digital visual advertising on the user’s
mobile device as part of an App’s function. When the advertising
message window appears, the user can dismiss the advertising
message by touching the ad with a finger and swiping it left or
right, depending on whether the user finds the ad content
interesting or not.
Kiet, Abstract; see also id. ¶ 12. Claims 1 and 5 of Kiet recite displaying
advertising in a window and recording the user’s dismissal of the window as
either a positive or negative response. But, we are not apprised of any
disclosure, in either Mathur or Kiet, of displaying “characteristics” to a user,
either by menu (claim 1) or description (claims 13, 19), for a response by the
user to the characteristics. Because of this deficiency, the Examiner has not
established that the combination of Mathur and Kiet disclose or suggest
presenting user characteristics, which are used for advertisement selection,
to a user for response, as required by the claims. For this reason, we do not
sustain the rejection of claims 1–9 and 11–21 as unpatentable over Mathur
and Kiet.

Appeal 2019-004951
Application 14/473,981

7
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–9 and 11–21 is REVERSED.
DECISION SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–9, 11–21 103 Mathur, Kiet 1–9, 11–21

REVERSED