The Nielsen Company (US), LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Oct 29, 2020

2020002562 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 29, 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.
14/550,504 11/21/2014 Jan Besehanic 20004/104309US01 2898
81905 7590 10/29/2020
Hanley, Flight & Zimmerman, LLC (Nielsen)
150 S. Wacker Dr. Suite 2200
Chicago, IL 60606
EXAMINER
EL-BATHY, MOHAMED N
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3624
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/29/2020 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):
docketing@hfzlaw.com
jflight@hfzlaw.com
mhanley@hfzlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
________________

Ex parte JAN BESEHANIC
________________

Appeal 2020-002562
Application 14/550,504
Technology Center 3600
________________

Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, JASON J. CHUNG, and
BETH Z. SHAW, Administrative Patent Judges.

CHUNG, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals the Final Rejection
of claims 1–3, 7, 9–13, 17, 19–23, 27, 29, 30, and 67–69.2 We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
INVENTION
The invention relates to enhancing security of payment transactions.
Spec. 2:11–12. 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, The Nielsen Company (US),
LLC is the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 2.
2 Claims 4–6, 8, 14–16, 18, 24–26, and 31–66 are cancelled. Appeal Br. 21,
23–26.
Appeal 2020-002562
Application 14/550,504

2
1. A method to perform audience measurement, the
method comprising:
combining, by executing an instruction with a processor,
a first media identifier of first media with respective ones of a
plurality of different temporal data values corresponding to
respective, different future monitoring intervals to determine
respective, different combined data values;
hashing, by executing an instruction with the processor,
the respective, different combined data values to determine
respective, different hashed media identifiers to identify the
same first media during the respective future monitoring
intervals, a first one of the hashed media identifiers being
different from a second one of the hashed media identifiers;
sending, via a network, the first one of the hashed media
identifiers to a media provider to identify the first media during
a first monitoring interval; and
determining, by executing an instruction with the
processor, first audience measurement data associated with the
first media and the first monitoring interval based on first
reporting data received from a service provider different from
the media provider, the first reporting data including the first
one of the hashed media identifiers and demographic data
corresponding to a subscriber associated with a media device
that received the first media from the media provider.
Appeal Br. 20 (Claims Appendix) (emphases added).

REJECTION
The Examiner rejects claims 1–3, 7, 9–13, 17, 19–23, 27, 29, 30, and
67–69 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of
Hefferman (US 2012/0215621 A1; published Aug. 23, 2012) and Nordstrom
(US 2015/0248446 A1; continuation of application 11/375,067 filed on Mar.
14, 2006). Final Act. 3–13.

Appeal 2020-002562
Application 14/550,504

3
ANALYSIS
I. Claims 1, 2, 7, 9–12, 17, 19–22, 27, 29, 30, and 67–69 Rejected
Under 35 U.S.C. § 103
The Examiner finds Heffernan teaches corresponding hash values of
the campaign and/or published information, which the Examiner maps to the
limitation “hashing . . . to determine respective, different hashed media
identifiers to identify the same first media” recited in claim 1 (and similarly
recited in claims 11 and 21). Final Act. 3–5 (citing Heffernan ¶ 132); Ans.
3–4 (citing Heffernan ¶ 132). The Examiner finds Nordstrom teaches a
datapoint includes a datakey and a data interval; data interval 46 is a time
interval [t1, t2) associated with datapoint 40 such that t1 is a start point and
t2 is an end point and both intervals occur in the future, which the Examiner
maps to the limitation “combining . . . a first media identifier of first media
with respective ones of a plurality of different temporal data values
corresponding to respective, different future monitoring intervals to
determine respective, different combined data values” recited in claim 1 (and
similarly recited in claims 11 and 21). Final Act. 6–7 (citing Nordstrom
¶¶ 24, 39); Ans. 4–5.
Appellant argues Heffernan’s ¶ 132 teaches hash values of campaign
IDs, creative IDs, creative IDs, placement IDs, and published site IDs, but
fails to teach determining “respective, different hashed media identifiers to
identify the same first media during respective future monitoring intervals.”
Appeal Br. 10–11 (Heffernan ¶¶ 67, 132, 133, 135, 147, claim 1). Also,
Appellant argues Heffernan’s ¶¶ 46, 66, 134 teaches each campaign ID
having a corresponding ad campaign, which is a one-to-one mapping. Reply
Br. 1–6 (Heffernan ¶¶ 46, 66, 134). Appellant argues Nordstrom merely
teaches a datapoint includes a datakey, a data value, and a data interval that
Appeal 2020-002562
Application 14/550,504

4
may occur in the future, but fails to teach “combining . . . a first media
identifier of first media with respective ones of a plurality of different
temporal data values corresponding to respective, different future monitoring
intervals to determine respective, different combined data values” and
“hashing . . . to determine respective, different hashed media identifiers to
identify the same first media during the respective future monitoring
intervals.” Appeal Br. 12–15; Reply Br. 7–8. We disagree with Appellant.
First, Appellant’s argument is untimely. Appellant’s argument is
untimely and waived because the Examiner did not change the theory of
unpatentability in the Answer (compare Final Act. 3–5 (citing Heffernan ¶¶
67, 132, 133, 135, 147, claim 1, Figs. 1–3) with Ans. 3–4 (citing Heffernan
¶¶ 132, 133)), while Appellant proffered new arguments in the Reply Brief
(compare Appeal Br. 10–11 (Heffernan ¶¶ 67, 132, 133, 135, 147, claim 1)
with Reply Br. 1–6 (Heffernan ¶¶ 46, 66, 134)) without showing good cause.
See 37 C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(2).
Even assuming, arguendo, that this argument was not untimely, we
disagree with Appellant’s argument that Heffernan teaches each campaign
ID having a corresponding ad campaign, which is a one-to-one mapping.
Reply Br. 1–6 (Heffernan ¶¶ 46, 66, 134). Heffernan teaches corresponding
hash values (i.e., different hashed media identifiers) of the campaign (i.e.,
same first media) and/or published information, which teaches the limitation
“hashing . . . to determine respective, different hashed media identifiers to
identify the same first media” recited in claim 1 (and similarly recited in
claims 11 and 21). Heffernan ¶ 132 (cited at Final Act. 3–5; Ans. 3–4); see
also Heffernan ¶ 147, claims 4, 13, 22 (stating a plurality of hash values of a
campaign; claims 4, 13, and 22 teaches two embodiments (1) a one-to-one
Appeal 2020-002562
Application 14/550,504

5
mapping or (2) a many-to-one mapping).
Nordstrom teaches a datapoint includes (i.e., combining) a datakey
(i.e., first media identifier) and a data interval; data interval 46 is a time
interval [t1, t2) associated with datapoint 40 such that t1 is a start point and
t2 is an end point and both intervals occur in the future (i.e., different
temporal data values corresponding to respective, different future monitoring
intervals), which teaches the limitation “combining . . . a first media
identifier of first media with respective ones of a plurality of different
temporal data values corresponding to respective, different future monitoring
intervals to determine respective, different combined data values” recited in
claim 1 (and similarly recited in claims 11 and 21). Nordstrom ¶¶ 24, 39
(cited at Final Act. 6–7; Ans. 4–5); see also Nordstrom ¶¶ 35 (states datakey
is generated based on product ID, which teaches the claimed “identifier”), 94
(states audio/video file, which teaches the claimed “media”).
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner rejection of (1) independent
claims 1, 11, and 21; and (2) dependent claims 2, 7, 9, 10, 12, 17, 19, 20, 22,
27, 29, 30, and 67–69 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
II. Claims 3, 13, and 23 Rejected Under 35 U.S.C. § 103
The Examiner finds Heffernan teaches corresponding hash values of
the campaign and/or published information, which the Examiner maps to the
limitation “performing a first hashing operation . . . to determine the first one
of the hashed media identifiers . . . performing a second hashing operation
. . . to determine a second one of hashed media identifiers” recited in claim 3
(and similarly recited in claims 13 and 23). Ans. 5–6 (citing Heffernan
¶ 132); Final Act. 8–9 (citing Heffernan, claim 4). The Examiner finds
Nordstrom teaches a datapoint includes a datakey and a data interval; data
Appeal 2020-002562
Application 14/550,504

6
interval 46 is a time interval [t1, t2) associated with datapoint 40 such that t1
is a start point and t2 is an end point and both intervals occur in the future,
which the Examiner maps to the limitation “a first one of the combined data
values corresponding to the first media identifier and a first one of the
temporal data values . . . associated with the first monitoring interval” and “a
second one of the combined data values corresponding to the first media
identifier and a second one of the temporal data values . . . associated with a
second monitoring interval” recited in claim 3 (and similarly recited in
claims 13 and 23). Final Act. 9–10 (citing Nordstrom ¶¶ 24, 39); Ans. 10.
Appellant argues Heffernan merely teaches conditions under which
logged impressions may be reported and Nordstrom merely teaches a
datapoint that includes a datakey, a data value, and a data interval, but the
combination of Heffernan and Nordstrom fails to teach the limitations
recited in claims 3, 13, and 23. Appeal Br. 15–18; Reply Br. 9–11. We
disagree with Appellant.
Heffernan teaches corresponding hash values (i.e., performing a first
hashing operation and performing a second hashing operation) of the
campaign and/or published information, which teaches the limitation
“performing a first hashing operation . . . to determine the first one of the
hashed media identifiers . . . performing a second hashing operation . . . to
determine a second one of hashed media identifiers” recited in claim 3 (and
similarly recited in claims 13 and 23). Heffernan ¶ 132 (cited at Ans. 5–6);
Heffernan, claim 4 (cited at Final Act. 8–9). Nordstrom teaches a datapoint
includes (i.e., first one and second one of combined data values) a datakey
and a data interval; data interval 46 is a time interval [t1, t2) associated with
datapoint 40 such that t1 is a start point (associated with a first monitoring
Appeal 2020-002562
Application 14/550,504

7
interval) and t2 is an end point (associated with a second monitoring
interval) and both intervals occur in the future, which teaches the limitation
“a first one of the combined data values corresponding to the first media
identifier and a first one of the temporal data values . . . associated with the
first monitoring interval” and “a second one of the combined data values
corresponding to the first media identifier and a second one of the temporal
data values . . . associated with a second monitoring interval” recited in
claim 3 (and similarly recited in claims 13 and 23). Final Act. 9–10 (citing
Nordstrom ¶¶ 24, 39); Ans. 10. Nordstrom ¶¶ 24, 39 (cited at Final Act. 9–
10; Ans. 10); see also Nordstrom ¶¶ 35 (states datakey is generated based on
product ID, which teaches the claimed “identifier”), 94 (states audio/video
file, which teaches the claimed “media”).
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner rejection of claims 3, 13, and
23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.

CONCLUSION

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). See
37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–3, 7, 9–
13, 17, 19–
23, 27, 29,
30, 67–69
103 Hefferman,
Nordstrom
1–3, 7, 9–
13, 17, 19–
23, 27, 29,
30, 67–69