Payam Zamani

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 2, 2021

2021000363 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 2, 2021)

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.
13/037,177 02/28/2011 Payam Zamani 353952-991004 6374
26379 7590 12/02/2021
DLA PIPER LLP (US )
2000 UNIVERSITY AVENUE
EAST PALO ALTO, CA 94303-2248
EXAMINER
DESAI, RESHA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3628
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/02/2021 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):
paloaltopatentdocket@us.dlapiper.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte PAYAM ZAMANI
___________

Appeal 2021-000363
Application 13/037,177
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before JASON V. MORGAN, ERIC B. CHEN, and
MONICA S. ULLAGADDI, Administrative Patent Judges.

CHEN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON REQUEST FOR REHEARING

Appeal 2021-000363
Application 13/037,177

2
Appellant requests rehearing under 37 C.F.R. § 41.52 of our Decision
on Appeal entered July 21, 2021 (“Decision” or “Dec.”), in which we
affirmed the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1–20.
The Request for Rehearing is denied.

OPINION
Appellant argues that “the additional claim elements ignored by the
Board (the ping campaign server that matches and notifies [)] improves a
technical field or technology and/or has important claim element.” (Req. for
Reh’g 3.) In particular, Appellant argues the following:
In the present case, the technical field is the
auctioning/sales process that happens to be used to click leads.
The technical problem is explained in the background in the
instant specification in which Applicant explains the
differences/improvement over the known systems and the
benefits of the claimed improvements.
(Id.)
The technical improvement provided by the claims
include: the ability to: 1) perform a server to server request for
a price (clearly technical); 2) provides a notification to the lead
buyer that the one or more parameters of the ping buying
campaign; and 3) allows the lead buyer to bid on the lead that
matches the ping buying campaign. The benefits of these
technical solutions are discussed in the specification.
(Id. at 3–4.)
However, Appellant’s Appeal Brief presents the following arguments:
The technical field improvement is provided by “a ping
campaign server computer that performs a server to server
request for a price that the Lead Buyer is willing to pay for each
lead and provides a notification to the Lead Buyer that the first
lead matches the one or more parameters of the ping buying
campaign wherein the notification includes one of consumer and
Appeal 2021-000363
Application 13/037,177

3
transaction information associated with the first lead and that
allows the Lead Buyer to bid on the first Lead that matches the
ping buying campaign” that improves the lead generation
technical field. Thus, the abstract idea is integrated into a
practical application and thus patent eligible.
. . . .
Specifically, the claims are directed to a technology
improvement in the area of lead generation and selling and
improves the known systems (like the prior art cited by the
examiner during the prosecution of this case). Specifically, the
claims recite the ping campaign unit that provides a notification
to the Lead Buyer that the first lead matches the one or more
parameters of the ping buying campaign wherein the notification
includes one of consumer and transaction information associated
with the first lead and that allows the Lead Buyer to bid on the
first Lead that matches the ping buying campaign.
(Appeal Br. 7.)
The claims also add meaningful limitations that amount to
more than generally linking the alleged abstract idea to a
particular technological environment. For example, the claims
recite the ping campaign unit that provides a notification to the
Lead Buyer that the first lead matches the one or more
parameters of the ping buying campaign wherein the notification
includes one of consumer and transaction information associated
with the first lead and that allows the Lead Buyer to bid on the
first Lead that matches the ping buying campaign that are more
than generally linking the alleged abstract idea to a particular
technological environment. Specifically, this ping campaign unit
recites providing a notification to the Lead Buyer that the first
lead matches the one or more parameters of the ping buying
campaign wherein the notification includes one of consumer and
transaction information associated with the first lead and
allowing the Lead Buyer to bid on the first Lead that matches the
ping buying campaign which is more than generally linking to
the particular technology environment.
Appeal 2021-000363
Application 13/037,177

4
(Id. at 7–8.) Thus, Appellant’s Appeal Brief merely provides conclusory
statements that the additional limitation of “a ping campaign server
computer” is directed at a “technical field improvement” (or “technology
improvement”) with neither a sufficient analysis and nor an explanation as to
why this additional limitation reflects an improvement in the functioning of
a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field. For
example, Appellant’s arguments in the Appeal Brief do not provided
citations to the Specification to demonstrate that the claimed invention is an
improvement of an existing technology or demonstrated a deficiency in the
prior art. See Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1337 (Fed.
Cir. 2016) (“Moreover, our conclusion that the claims are directed to an
improvement of an existing technology is bolstered by the specification’s
teachings that the claimed invention achieves other benefits over
conventional databases, such as increased flexibility, faster search times, and
smaller memory requirements”) 
Thus, Appellant’s arguments detailing the purported “technical
improvement provided by the claims” with a generalized citation to the
Specification (Req. for Reh’g 3–4) are new arguments not raised in the
Briefs before the Board, because the original arguments were merely
conclusory statements that the additional limitation of “a ping campaign
server computer” is directed at a “technical field improvement” (or
“technology improvement”). Such new arguments will not be considered.
(“Arguments not raised, and Evidence not previously relied upon, pursuant
to §§ 41.37, 41.41, or 41.47 are not permitted in the request for rehearing
except as permitted by paragraphs (a)(2) through (a)(4) of this section.” 37
Appeal 2021-000363
Application 13/037,177

5
C.F.R. § 41.52(a)(1)). Appellant has not identified a reason for meeting one
of these exceptions.

CONCLUSION
The Request for Rehearing has been considered and is denied.

Outcome of Decision on Rehearing:
Claims 35 U.S.C.
§
Reference/Basis Denied Granted
1–20 101 Eligibility 1–20

Final Outcome of Appeal after Rehearing:
Claims 35
U.S.C. §
Reference/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–20 101 Eligibility 1–20

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)(iv).

DENIED