Justin Yoo. Choi et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Aug 26, 2019

14133437 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Aug. 26, 2019)

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.
14/133,437 12/18/2013 Justin Yoo Choi NATIP001A 2405
21912 7590 08/26/2019
VAN PELT, YI & JAMES LLP
10050 N. FOOTHILL BLVD #200
CUPERTINO, CA 95014
EXAMINER
ANSARI, AZAM A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3682
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/26/2019 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):
usptocorrespondence@ip-patent.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte JUSTIN YOO CHOI and BRETT JOSEPH WESTPHALL
____________

Appeal 2018-007058
Application 14/133,4371
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, ALLEN R. MacDONALD, and
NABEEL U. KHAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

KHAN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection
of claims 1, 2, 4–16, and 18–20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We affirm.

1 Appellants identify Nativo Inc. as the real-party-in-interest. App. Br. 2.
Appeal 2018-007058
Application 14/133,437

2
BACKGROUND
THE INVENTION
Appellants describe the invention as follows:
PostRelease has built a “PubAnalyzer” tool that automates
the process of implanting the design of a native ad placement to
match the look and feel of a publication. The template automates
the reformatting of ad content elements such as headlines,
images, and text to match the appearance of the site so that it
matches the appearance of the non-advertising content. The
template may be used to reformat ad content elements, which
may be served from the PostRelease ad content server or other
server that can deliver these content elements, to provide a
properly formatted native ad based on the template. The
PubAnalyzer allows the publisher to set up the native ads faster
without the need for programming resources.
Spec. ¶ 13.
Exemplary independent claim 1 is reproduced below.
1. A method, comprising:
receiving a selection of a website for which a native ad
template is to be created;
analyzing code associated with the website to determine
one or more article brief blocks of the website;
rendering a visual representation of the website, wherein
the visual representation of the website includes the one or more
article brief blocks;
receiving via a user interface a selection of an article brief
block from the one or more article brief blocks rendered on the
visual representation of the website, the article brief block
including article brief elements that are associated with an
appearance of an article brief portion of the website;
copying the article brief elements of the selected article
brief block to create a copy of the article brief; and
Appeal 2018-007058
Application 14/133,437

3
creating the native ad template using the copy of the article
brief, wherein a native ad created using the native ad template
includes one or more HTML elements included in the selected
article brief block of the visual representation of the website.

REFERENCES AND REJECTIONS
1. Claims 1, 2, 4–6, 9–11, 13–16, 19, and 20 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Rajkumar (US 2014/0201615 A1, publ. July 17,
2014), Allaire (US 2012/0233235 A1, publ. Sept. 13, 2012), and Krysiuk
(US 2011/0099525 A1, publ. Apr. 28, 2011). Final Act. 3–15.2
2. Claims 7, 8, 12, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
over Rajkumar, Allaire, Krysiuk, and Wu (US 8,949,370 B1, iss. Feb. 3,
2015). Final Act. 16–18.
DISCUSSION
Claims 1, 15, and 20
Appellants argue Krysiuk does not disclose the limitations “receiving
via a user interface a selection of an article brief block from the one or more
article brief blocks rendered on the visual representation of the website,”
“copying the article brief elements on the selected article brief block to
create a copy of the article brief,” and “creating the native ad template using
the copy of the article brief” where “the article brief block including article
brief elements that are associated with an appearance of an article brief
portion of the website,” as recited in independent claim 1, and similarly
recited in independent claims 15 and 20. See App. Br. 11–12; see also
Reply Br. 3. According to Appellants, although Krysiuk discloses visual

2 The header of the rejection erroneously includes claims 3 and 17, but the
body of the rejection clarifies that claims 3 and 17 have been cancelled. See
Final Act. 3, 11.
Appeal 2018-007058
Application 14/133,437

4
components, Krysiuk is completely silent regarding receiving via a user
interface a selection of a video component from one or more visual
components rendered on a visual representation. See Reply Br. 2–3.
We are unpersuaded by Appellants’ arguments. As a threshold
matter, the Examiner does not rely upon Krysiuk for teaching “copying the
article brief elements on the selected article brief block to create a copy of
the article brief.” Instead, the Examiner relies upon Allaire for teaching the
aforementioned limitation. See Final Act. 4, 6.
Further, as the Examiner correctly found, Krysiuk discloses a visual
controller API that receives a request specifying an identifier for visual
content, where the visual content is visualized on a web page via a visual
object, and where the request is made using functions associated with a
selected visual component. See Final Act. 7–8 (citing Krysiuk ¶¶ 24, 31);
see also Krysiuk ¶ 35. Krysiuk also discloses the request includes
information associated with the selected visual component (e.g., a software
library) that is utilized to generate the visual object, and also discloses the
visual content includes advertisement data that is displayed within the visual
object. See Krysiuk ¶¶ 23, 32. As further disclosed by Krysiuk, the visual
controller API is used to interface with the visual object via functions
included in the visual component, and the visual controller API receives
descriptions of the data the visual object wishes to display via
communications from the visual object using the visual component. See
Krysiuk ¶ 24. Based on these findings, we agree with the Examiner that
Krysiuk teaches “receiving via a user interface a selection of an article brief
block from the one or more article brief blocks rendered on the visual
Appeal 2018-007058
Application 14/133,437

5
representation of the website,” and “creating a native ad template using the
copy of the article brief,” as recited in claim 1. See Ans. 5–6.
Neither claim 1, nor Appellants’ Specification, provides a definition
of “article brief block” that distinguishes from the visual component
disclosed in Krysiuk. Similarly, neither claim 1, nor Appellants’
Specification, provides a definition of “native ad template” that distinguishes
from the visual object disclosed in Krysiuk. Thus, considering the broadest
reasonable meaning of these terms, Appellants’ argument does not
persuasively rebut the Examiner’s finding that Krysiuk teaches the
aforementioned limitations of claim 1. See Ans. 5–6.
Appellants also argue “Allaire is silent regarding the limitations
‘receiving via a user interface a selection of an article brief block from the
one or more article brief blocks rendered on the visual representation’ . . .
‘copying the article brief elements on the selected article brief block to
create a copy of the article brief,’ and ‘creating the native ad template using
the copy of the article brief’ where ‘the article brief block including article
brief elements that are associated with an appearance of an article brief
portion of the website,’” as recited in claim 1, and similarly recited in claims
15 and 20. App. Br. 11. Appellants further argue the claimed “selected
article brief block” has antecedent basis to the limitation “receiving . . . a
selection of an article brief block from the one or more article brief blocks
rendered on the visual representation of the website.” See Reply Br. 4.
According to Appellants, Allaire discloses that content items are selected
from a content database on a server, which is different from being selected
from content items rendered on a visual representation of a website. See id.
Appeal 2018-007058
Application 14/133,437

6
This argument is unpersuasive as well because this argument attacks
Allaire individually rather than addressing the Examiner’s rejection as a
whole. The Examiner does not rely on Allaire for teaching either the
claimed “selected article brief block” or the limitation “receiving . . . a
selection of an article brief block from the one or more article brief blocks
rendered on the visual representation of the website.” See Final Act. 7; see
also Ans. 5. Rather, the Examiner relies upon Krysiuk for teaching both the
claimed “selected article brief block” and the aforementioned limitation. See
Final Act. 7–9; see also Ans. 5–6. The Examiner relies upon Allaire for
teaching copying article content of an application. See Final Act. 4, 6; see
also Ans. 5. Appellants’ argument does not address the Examiner’s specific
finding regarding Allaire and, thus, is not persuasive.
Appellants further argue “Rajkumar does not disclose the limitations
‘receiving via a user interface a selection of an article brief block from the
one or more article brief blocks rendered on the visual representation’
. . .‘copying the article brief elements on the selected article brief block to
create a copy of the article brief,’ and ‘creating the native ad template using
the copy of the article brief’ where ‘the article brief block including article
brief elements that are associated with an appearance of an article brief
portion of the website,’” as recited in claim 1, and similarly recited in claims
15 and 20. App. Br. 10. Appellants also argue that although Rajkumar
discloses using a template to generate a page, the manner in which Rajkumar
generates the template is different from the claim limitations. See id.
Further, Appellants argue that although Rajkumar discloses including a
previously rendered article in the generated page, Rajkumar’s previously
rendered article is different than the claimed “article brief block.” See id.
Appeal 2018-007058
Application 14/133,437

7
We are not persuaded by this argument because, similar to
Appellants’ argument regarding Allaire, the argument attacks Rajkumar
individually rather than addressing the Examiner’s rejection as a whole. The
Examiner does not rely on Rajkumar for teaching either the claimed “article
brief block” or the aforementioned limitations of claim 1. See Final Act. 4,
7; see also Ans. 4–5. Rather, the Examiner relies upon the combination of
Allaire and Krysiuk for teaching both the claimed “article brief block” and
the aforementioned limitations of claim 1. See Final Act. 4–9; see also
Ans. 5–6. The Examiner relies upon Rajkumar for teaching a HTTP request
for content initiated by a user of a web site. See Final Act. 4; see also
Ans. 4. Appellants’ argument does not address the Examiner’s specific
finding regarding Rajkumar and, thus, is not persuasive.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent
claims 1, 15, and 20.
Claim 7
Claim 7 depends from claim 1 and recites “positioning the native ad
template near the selected article brief.” The Examiner finds Wu teaches the
aforementioned limitation of claim 7 because Wu discloses displaying a
mobile application for a website on a mobile device, where the mobile
application displays an advertisement along with news article previews, and
where the advertisement is placed near the news article previews. See Final
Act. 16; see also Ans. 6 (citing Wu, Fig. 4).
Appellants argue Wu fails to disclose the aforementioned limitation of
claim 7 because the advertisement disclosed in Wu is different than the
claimed “native ad template.” See App. Br. 12–13; see also Reply Br. 6.
Appellants also argue the claimed “native ad template” of claim 7 has
Appeal 2018-007058
Application 14/133,437

8
antecedent basis to the limitation “a native ad template” in claim 1, claim 1
recites that the “native ad template” is created using the copy of the article
brief, and claim 1 further recites “copying the article brief elements of the
selected article brief block to create a copy of the article brief.” See Reply
Br. 6. According to Appellants, Wu does not disclose that the advertisement
is created using a copy of the news article previews. See id.
We are unpersuaded by this argument as well. Similar to Appellants’
argument regarding Rajkumar, this argument attacks Wu individually rather
than addressing the Examiner’s rejection as a whole. The Examiner does not
rely on Wu for teaching the claimed “native ad template.” Instead, the
Examiner relies upon Krysiuk for teaching the claimed “native ad template.”
See Final Act. 7–9; see also Ans. 5–6. The Examiner further relies upon Wu
for teaching positioning an advertisement near news article previews within
a mobile application, and thus, relies on the combination of Krysiuk and Wu
(as well as the other cited references) for teaching the aforementioned
limitation of claim 7. See Final Act. 16; see also Ans. 6. Appellants’
argument does not address the Examiner’s specific findings regarding
Krysiuk and Wu, and, thus, is not persuasive.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 7.
Conclusion
For the aforementioned reasons, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection
of independent claims 1, 15, and 20, and dependent claim 7, under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a). Appellants do not present separate arguments for patentability of
any of the remaining pending claims, and, thus, we sustain the rejection of
these claims as well.

Appeal 2018-007058
Application 14/133,437

9
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1, 2, 4–16, and 18–20 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) are affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended. See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED