Paul Lagassey

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 30, 2019

14157715 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Sep. 30, 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.
14/157,715 01/17/2014 Paul Lagassey 132247-US 8029
22242 7590 09/30/2019
FITCH EVEN TABIN & FLANNERY, LLP
120 SOUTH LASALLE STREET
SUITE 2100
CHICAGO, IL 60603-3406
EXAMINER
BYRD, UCHE SOWANDE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3624
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/30/2019 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
________________

Ex parte PAUL LAGASSEY
________________

Appeal 2018-008455
Application 14/157,715
Technology Center 3600
________________

Before ERIC B. CHEN, JEREMY J. CURCURI, and
DAVID J. CUTITTA II, Administrative Patent Judges.

CURCURI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 21–36 and 39–41. Final Act. 1. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
Claims 21–36 and 39–41 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as obvious over Bandy (US 6,625,464 B1; Sep. 23, 2003) and
Howard (US 2005/0132420 A1; Jun. 16, 2005). Final Act. 8–13.

1 The term “Appellant” is used herein to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Tamiras Per
Pte. Ltd., LLC. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2018-008455
Application 14/157,715

2
We affirm.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s invention relates to “presentation of interactive
advertisements.” Spec. 1:12. Claim 21 is illustrative and reproduced below:
21. A method comprising:
displaying at least one program display of a computer program and
interactive advertisements on a user interface of a user device;
the user device accessing at least one commands configuration file
that comprises speech-to-text commands related to the advertisements,
wherein the at least one commands configuration file is hosted by a
distributor computing device remotely located from the user device;
facilitating user interaction with the displayed advertisement and the
user device using the speech-to-text commands to process the user
interaction with the displayed advertisement;
wherein the display of the user interface is updated in response to the
user interaction; and
identifying an advertising sponsor of the displayed advertisement by
specifying a path for the at least one commands configuration file used by
the distributor computing device to facilitate collection of revenue to
subsidize costs related to the computer program.

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
identified by Appellant, and in light of the arguments and evidence produced
thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential).

ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds Bandy and Howard teach all limitations of claim
21. Final Act. 8–10; see also Ans. 4–6. The Examiner finds Bandy teaches
most limitations of claim 21. Final Act. 8–9. The Examiner finds Howard
Appeal 2018-008455
Application 14/157,715

3
teaches “facilitating user interaction with the displayed advertisement and
the user device using the speech-to-text commands to process the user
interaction with the displayed advertisement” as recited by claim 21. Final
Act. 9. The Examiner further finds Howard teaches “identifying an
advertising sponsor of the displayed advertisement by specifying a path for
the at least one commands configuration file used by the distributor
computing device” as recited by claim 21. Final Act. 9. The Examiner
reasons
[i]t would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in
the art at the time of the invention, to have modified Bandy,
which teaches detecting and communicating wirelessly for
displaying messages in view of Howard, to efficiently apply the
analysis of advertising to include transforming of spoken and
textual language.
Final Act. 10.
Appellant presents the following principal arguments:
i. “[W]hile the pagers of Bandy receive messages, Bandy fails to
disclose (1) a ‘interactive advertisement’ or (2) a ‘user device using the
speech-to-text commands,’ as recited in claim 21. Appeal Br. 15. “Nowhere
does Bandy disclose a ‘user device accessing at least one commands
configuration file that comprises speech-to-text commands related to the
advertisements’ or that the ‘commands configuration file is hosted by a
distributor computing device remotely located from the user device,’ as
recited in claim 21.” Appeal Br. 15.
Opting to receive messages is not analogous to: (1) “displaying
... [an] interactive advertisement; (2) “accessing at least one
commands configuration file that comprises speech-to-text
commands related to the advertisement; or (3) a “commands
configuration file [that] is hosted by a distributor computing
Appeal 2018-008455
Application 14/157,715

4
device remotely located from the user device,” as recited in
claim 21.
Appeal Br. 15; see also Reply Br. 1–3.
ii. “One of skill in the art would not modify Bandy to ‘display ... a
computer program and interactive advertisement on a user interface of a user
device,’ as recited in claim 21.” Appeal Br. 16; see also Reply Br. 3.
iii.
Though Howard discloses “capturing and processing speech
and other sounds of the human voice in order to effect
commands on the interactive television system,” (¶ [0009], 1.2–
4), it fails to disclose a “commands configuration file [that] is
hosted by a distributor computing device remotely located form
the user device” and “identifying an advertising sponsor of the
displayed advertisement by specifying a path for the at least one
commands configuration file used by the distributor computing
device to facilitate collection of revenue,” as recited in claim
21.
Appeal Br. 16. “[N]owhere does Howard discuss remuneration or collecting
revenue from advertising sponsors.” Appeal Br. 16; see also Reply Br. 4.
iv. “Neither reference is directed to tracking or remuneration from
advertising sponsors, let alone using file paths to identify advertising
sponsors to facilitate collection of revenue to subsidize costs related to the
computer program.” Appeal Br. 17; see also Reply Br. 5–6.
v. Howard “teaches away from such a configuration by employing
a peer-to-peer network configuration where the data is stored on customer
premises.” Appeal Br. 17.
We do not see any error in the contested findings of the Examiner.
We concur with the Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness.
Regarding Appellant’s argument (i), these arguments do not show any
error in the Examiner’s findings because Appellant’s arguments are directed
Appeal 2018-008455
Application 14/157,715

5
to Bandy but do not address the Examiner’s findings for the particularly
argued limitations that are based on Howard.
In particular, the Examiner finds Howard teaches “facilitating user
interaction with the displayed advertisement and the user device using the
speech-to-text commands to process the user interaction with the displayed
advertisement” as recited in claim 21. Final Act. 9 (citing Howard ¶¶ 39, 46,
52). We adopt this finding as our own. Thus, based on this finding,
Howard’s device accesses at least one commands configuration file that
comprises speech-to-text commands related to the interactive
advertisements. See Final Act. 9 (citing Howard ¶¶ 39, 46, 52); see also
Howard ¶ 39 (“interactive television content ... speech recognition processor
306 ... available commands based on the context of the interactive television
content being displayed”). Regarding the “commands configuration file is
hosted by a distributor computing device remotely located from the user
device” as recited in claim 21,” Howard teaches centralized speech
recognition, and thus teaches this claim limitation. See Howard Fig. 4a
(“Multiple Simultaneous Speech Recognition System”). Thus, Appellant’s
argument (i) does not persuade us of any error.
Regarding Appellant’s argument (ii), this argument does not show any
error in the Examiner’s findings and conclusion of obviousness because the
Examiner has provided a reason to combine the references that is rational on
its face and supported by evidence drawn from the record. See Final Act. 10
(citing Howard ¶¶ 49, 54, 55). Appellant have not presented any
particularized arguments as to why this reasoning is incorrect. Thus, we
adopt the Examiner’s reasoning as our own. Thus, Appellant’s argument (ii)
does not persuade us of any error.
Appeal 2018-008455
Application 14/157,715

6
Regarding Appellant’s argument (iii), this argument does not show
any error in the Examiner’s findings because Howard’s centralized speech
recognition teaches the “commands configuration file is hosted by a
distributor computing device remotely located form the user device” as
recited in claim 21. See Howard Fig. 4a (“Multiple Simultaneous Speech
Recognition System”).
Regarding “identifying an advertising sponsor of the displayed
advertisement by specifying a path for the at least one commands
configuration file used by the distributor computing device” as recited in
claim 21, the Examiner finds this limitation is taught by Howard. Final
Act. 9–10 (citing Howard ¶¶ 9, 33, 36) (“Howard teaches that the
interactions between a user and an interactive application will cause the
generation of several different optional steps, including the interaction with
advertiser/sponsor, which the Examiner is interpret these options as
different paths. Furthermore, Howard discloses that these steps can be
executed and control remotely through the service provider.”). We agree.
Regarding “facilitat[ing] collection of revenue” as recited in claim 21, the
Examiner finds this limitation is taught by Brandy. Final Act 9 (citing
Brandy col. 12, ll. 6–33). We agree. Appellant’s arguments are only
directed to Howard and do not address the Examiner’s findings based on the
combined teachings of Brandy and Howard. Again, the Examiner has
provided a reason to combine the references that is rational on its face and
supported by evidence drawn from the record. See Final Act. 10 (citing
Howard ¶¶ 49, 54, 55). Appellant had not presented any particularized
arguments as to why this reasoning is incorrect. Thus, Appellant’s argument
(iii) does not persuade us of any error.
Appeal 2018-008455
Application 14/157,715

7
Regarding Appellant’s arguments (iv) and (v), these arguments do not
show any error in the Examiner’s findings. We agree with and adopt the
Examiner’s finding as our own:
Howard teaches that the interactions between a user and an
interactive application will cause the generation of several
different optional steps, including the interaction with
advertiser/sponsor, which the Examiner is interpret these
options as different paths. Furthermore, Howard discloses that
these steps can be executed and control remotely through the
service provider.
Final Act. 9–10; see also Howard ¶¶ 9, 33, 36, Brandy col. 12, ll. 6–33.
Regarding teaching away, although an alternative may be inferior to
or less desirable than another, that alone is insufficient to teach away from
the inferior alternative unless the disclosure criticizes, discredits, or
otherwise discourages that alternative. In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1200–
01 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Here, Howard’s disclosure of a peer-to-peer network
does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage a distributor device.
See Howard ¶ 35.
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 21.
We also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 22–29, 39, and 40,
which depend from claim 21, and are not separately argued with
particularity.
Regarding claim 30, Appellant presents arguments for claim 30, but
these arguments are the same as the arguments presented for claim 21. See
Appeal Br. 17–18. Thus, we find these arguments unpersuasive of any error
for the same reasons discussed above when addressing claim 30.
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 30.
Appeal 2018-008455
Application 14/157,715

8
We also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 31–36 and 41,
which depend from claim 30, and are not separately argued with
particularity.

ORDER
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 21–36 and 39–41 is
affirmed.

CONCLUSION

In Summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
Basis Affirmed Reversed
21–36, 39–41 § 103(a) 21–36, 39–41
Overall
Outcome
21–36, 39–41

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1).

AFFIRMED