Google Inc.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardMay 1, 202014273104 - (D) (P.T.A.B. May. 1, 2020) 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. 14/273,104 05/08/2014 Damian Reeves 16113-5648001 8908 26192 7590 05/01/2020 FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. PO BOX 1022 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55440-1022 EXAMINER WAESCO, JOSEPH M ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3683 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/01/2020 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): PATDOCTC@fr.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte DAMIAN REEVES ____________________ Appeal 2019-003137 Application 14/273,104 Technology Center 3600 ____________________ Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, ROBERT E. NAPPI, and ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, Administrative Patent Judges. NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1 through 3, 5, 8 through 12, 14 through 17, 19, and 21. 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(a). According to Appellant, Google LLC is the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 1. Appeal 2019-003137 Application 14/273,104 2 INVENTION Appellant’s invention is directed to a method for creating and querying for audience data, the method involves receiving data associated with each firing of a pixel as a result of a display of a resource presented on a client computer. Spec. ¶ 4. Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and is reproduced below. 1. A method comprising: providing a pixel that causes a client device to traverse a document object model (DOM) of a resource provided by a given publisher when the resource is presented by the client device; collecting, from each particular client device among multiple different client devices that visit the resource, data extracted from the resource by the particular client device during the traversal of the DOM that occurs in response to the pixel firing when the resource is presented by the particular client device, wherein the data extracted specifies different content that was presented to the client devices over time; storing, for each pixel firing and in a data structure, the collected data including storing, data specifying content that is presented on the resource when the resource is presented by each of the client devices, an identifier for the publisher, a URL of the resource, and a given user identifier of the particular client device on which the resource of the given publisher was displayed when the pixel fired; determining, for each pixel firing, topics of the different content presented on resource over time based on the data specifying content that was presented on the resource that was extracted from the DOM by the pixel firing; associating, in the data structure and for each pixel firing, the given user identifier included in the data with one or more of the determined topics based on the given user identifier being included in the collected data that specified the content presented on the resource that was used to determine the topics; Appeal 2019-003137 Application 14/273,104 3 receiving a query from the publisher to identify a segment of an audience that has visited one or more pages of the publisher's website that are related to a given topic; in response to receiving the query: identifying one or more matching topics in the data structure that are relevant to the given topic specified by the query; identifying user identifiers that are associated with the matching topics in the data structure; and providing a given content item to users identified by the user identifiers that are associated with the matching topics in the data structure based on the association with the matching topic in the data structure and the query from the given publisher. EXAMINER’S REJECTION2 The Examiner rejected claims 1 through 3, 5, 8 through 12, 14 through 17, 19, and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Williams (US 2011/0246267 A1; published Oct. 6, 2011) and Harrison (US 2010/0228733 A1; published Sept. 9, 2010). Final Act. 8–15. ANALYSIS We have reviewed Appellant’s arguments in the Briefs, the Examiner’s rejections, and the Examiner’s response to Appellant’s arguments. Appellant’s arguments have persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s rejection of all of the disputed claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Appellant presents several arguments directed to the Examiner’s 2 Throughout this Decision, we refer to the Appeal Brief filed January 4, 2019 (“Appeal Br.”); Reply Brief, filed March 13, 2019 (Reply Br.); Final Office Action mailed July 12, 2018 (“Final Act.”); and the Examiner’s Answer mailed February 1, 2019 (“Ans.”). Appeal 2019-003137 Application 14/273,104 4 rejection of independent claims 1, 17, and 19 on pages 8 through 11 of the Appeal Brief and pages 2 and 3 of the Reply Brief. The dispositive issue presented by these arguments is whether the Examiner erred in finding that the combination of Williams and Harrison teach a pixel that causes the client computer to traverse a Document Object Model (DOM) of a resource and collecting data extracted from the resource by the particular client during traversal of the DOM. Appellant argues that Williams, the reference the Examiner relies upon to teach the disputed limitation, teaches a pixel that may collect and send data, but not the pixel extracting data from the resource during traversal of the DOM that occurs in response to the pixel firing when the resource is presented, as is recited in the independent claims. Appeal Br. 9–10. Appellant argues Williams does not teach the pixel traverses the DOM of a web page and “Williams does not even contemplate how the pixel would collect data about the resource itself, and other portions of Williams refer to the pixel collecting information about the users (not the content of web pages or other resources presented by the users).” Appeal Br. 9–10. The Examiner finds that Williams teaches a pixel which causes the client device to traverse a DOM of resource provided by a publisher of the resource, and collect and return data about the resource and the user. Final Act. 8, 9 (citing Williams ¶¶ 4, 40, 206, 366, 368, 369, 397, 399, 408); Answer 4–5 (citing Williams ¶¶ 26, 41 134, 397, 408). We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection, response to arguments, and the cited teachings of Williams, and are persuaded of error in the rejection by Appellant’s arguments. Claim 1 recites “providing a pixel that causes a client device to traverse a document object model (DOM) of a resource provided by a given publisher when the resource is presented by the Appeal 2019-003137 Application 14/273,104 5 client device” and “collecting . . . data extracted from the resource by the particular client device during the traversal of the DOM that occurs in response to the pixel firing.” Thus, claim 1 recites that the pixel transverses the DOM of a resource provided by a publisher and collects data about the resource. Independent claims 17 and 19 include similar limitations. We concur with the Examiner that Williams teaches that the pixel will execute to collect data when a web page is loaded, which meets the claimed providing a pixel extracting data when the resource is presented (see e.g., Williams ¶ 397. However, we do not find that Williams teaches that the data is collected from the DOM or that the data collected about the resource, rather as argued by Appellant, the data collected is about the user. Appeal Br. 9. Further, the Examiner has not found that Harrison teaches the pixel traverses the DOM to collect data about the resource as claimed. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of independent claims 1, 17, or 19 and the claims which depend thereupon. CONCLUSION We reverse the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1 through 3, 5, 8 through 12, 14 through 17, 19, and 21. Appeal 2019-003137 Application 14/273,104 6 DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1–3, 5, 8–12, 14 –17, 19, 21 103 Williams, Harrison 1–3, 5, 8–12, 14– 17, 19, 21 REVERSED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation