2018009216 (P.T.A.B. May. 20, 2020)

Janaka Liyanage

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardMay 20, 2020

2018009216 (P.T.A.B. May. 20, 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. 13/212,076 08/17/2011 Janaka Liyanage 26295-18571 5538 87851 7590 05/20/2020 Facebook/Fenwick Silicon Valley Center 801 California Street Mountain View, CA 94041 EXAMINER DURAN, ARTHUR D ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3622 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/20/2020 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 JANAKA LIYANAGE ________________ Appeal 2018-009216 Application 13/212,076 Technology Center 3600 ________________ Before LINZY T. McCARTNEY, JASON J. CHUNG, and JOYCE CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judges. CHUNG, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals the Non-Final Rejection of claims 1–4, 6–10, 28–31, and 33–39.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. INVENTION The invention relates to approximating unique advertisement impressions on a social networking system. Spec. ¶ 1. Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and is reproduced below: 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. According to Appellant, Facebook, Inc. is the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 2. 2 Claims 5, 11–27, and 32 are cancelled. Appeal Br. 31, 32, and 34. Appeal 2018-009216 Application 13/212,076 2 1. A method comprising: providing an advertisement to a plurality of users of an online social networking system; determining a predetermined threshold number of unique user impressions for the advertisement; recording an impression count of unique user impressions of the advertisement for a subset of the plurality of users of the online social networking system, the recorded impression count comprising: an unsampled count comprising the predetermined threshold number of unique user impressions; and a sampled count of unique user impressions comprising a number of unique user impressions greater than the predetermined threshold number of unique user impressions, the sampled count determined using a sampling rate associated with the advertisement; determining an extrapolated impression count based on the sampling rate, the predetermined threshold number of unique user impressions, and the recorded impression count of unique user impressions; receiving a request for a unique impression metric for the advertisement, the unique impression metric representing an approximation of unique user views for the plurality of users of the online social networking system; determining, by a processor, the unique impression metric for the advertisement based on the extrapolated impression count, and information about a percent of users in the subset of a total number of the plurality of users of the online social networking system; and providing the unique impression metric for the advertisement in response to the request. Appeal Br. 29–30 (Claims Appendix) (emphases added). Appeal 2018-009216 Application 13/212,076 3 REJECTION3 The Examiner rejects claims 1–4, 6–10, 28–31, and 33–39 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Eldreth (US 2011/0119136 A1; published May 19, 2011), Mills (US 2011/0029319 A1; published Feb. 3, 2011), Anderson (US 2007/0022032 A1; published Jan. 25, 2007), and Gregory (Bird census and survey techniques; Richard D. Gregory, David W. Gibbons, and Paul F. Donald; May 12, 2004) (hereinafter “Gregory”). Non-Final Act. 6–23. ANALYSIS The Examiner finds Eldreth teaches a hybrid of raw/unsampled data and sampled raw historical data, but fails to teach a predetermined threshold number. Ans. 4; Non-Final Act (citing Eldreth ¶¶ 31, 32, 77, 86). The Examiner finds Mills teaches a maximum number of impression records, which the Examiner maps to the limitation “predetermined threshold number” recited in claims 1 and 28. Non-Final Act. 15 (citing Mills ¶ 47). The Examiner finds Gregory teaches a bird census survey that divides an area into 25 units and uses 5 of those units to sample the bird population within those 5 units, which the Examiner maps to the limitation “predetermined threshold number” recited in claims 1 and 28. Ans. 5; Non- Final Act. 18 (citing Gregory, Fig. 2.5). 3 In the event of further prosecution, we leave it to the Examiner to determine whether the claim passes muster under § 101. See USPTO, 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (Jan. 7, 2019). Although the Board is authorized to reject claims under 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b), no inference should be drawn when the Board elects not to do so. See Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) § 1213.02. Appeal 2018-009216 Application 13/212,076 4 Appellant argues Mills fails to teach the limitation “predetermined threshold number” because Mills teaches a maximum number, which is a global upper bound limit that means once the limit is reached, the count will not go up. Appeal Br. 15–16 (citing Mills ¶ 47); Reply Br. 5. Appellant argues Gregory fails to teach the limitation “predetermined threshold number” because Gregory’s 5 units are blocks of a grid that are more related to a sampling rate, not a raw count of the number of birds; and Gregory’s bird count is analogous to sampling, but the bird count is not “predetermined.” Appeal Br. 21–23 (citing Gregory, Fig. 2.5); Reply Br. 6– 7. We agree with Appellant. The cited portions of Mills fails to teach or suggest the limitation “greater than the predetermined threshold number” (emphasis added) because Mills merely teaches a maximum number that means once the maximum limit is reached, the sampled count will not go up. Appeal Br. 15–16 (citing Mills ¶ 47); Reply Br. 5. The cited portions of Gregory fail to teach or suggest the limitation “predetermined threshold number” because Gregory’s 5 units are blocks of a grid and are related to a sampling rate, not a raw count of the number of birds. Gregory also fails to teach or suggest that the bird count is “predetermined” as required by this limitation. Appeal Br. 21–23 (citing Gregory, Fig. 2.5); Reply Br. 6–7. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of: (1) independent claims 1 and 28; and (2) dependent claims 2–4, 6–10, 29– 31, 33–39 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Appeal 2018-009216 Application 13/212,076 5 CONCLUSION REVERSED Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1–4, 6–10, 28–31, 33– 39 103 Eldreth, Mills, Anderson, Gregory 1–4, 6–10, 28–31, 33– 39