Adobe Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 22, 2021

2020005123 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 22, 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.
13/669,155 11/05/2012 William Brandon George 058083-0857905
(2574US01)
9220
72058 7590 01/22/2021
Adobe / Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP
Mailstop: IP Docketing - 22
1100 Peachtree Street, Suite 2800
Suite 2800
Atlanta, GA 30309-4530
EXAMINER
ANSARI, AZAM A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3682
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/22/2021 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):
KTSDocketing2@kilpatrick.foundationip.com
ipefiling@kilpatricktownsend.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte WILLIAM BRANDON GEORGE and KEVIN G. SMITH
____________

Appeal 2020-005123
Application 13/669,155
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, NINA L. MEDLOCK, and
KENNETH G. SCHOPFER, Administrative Patent Judges.

MEDLOCK, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
final rejection of claims 1, 14, 22, 29, 31, 32, 34–38, 40–44, and 46. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 We use the term “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42. Our decision references Appellant’s Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.,”
filed February 24, 2020) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed June 24, 2020),
and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed April 30, 2020) and Final
Office Action (“Final Act.,” mailed July 22, 2019). Appellant identifies
Adobe, Inc. as the real party in interest (Appeal Br. 1).
Appeal 2020-005123
Application 13/669,155

2
CLAIMED INVENTION
The claimed invention concerns “creating an association of a user
identifier linked to a mobile device with the presentation of content”
(Spec. ¶ 3).
Claims 1, 14, and 41 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1,
reproduced below with bracketed notations added, is illustrative of the
claimed subject matter:
1. A method for using a mobile device to associate
media content presentations with purchase-related events of a
user of the mobile device, the method comprising:
[(a)] detecting by a software application executed by a
mobile device, a plurality of presentation events, each
presentation event indicating a connection between a user
identifier linked to the mobile device and a presentation of a
respective different media content presentation on one or more
televisions, each media content presentation promoting a
respective different product or service and provided by a
respective different retailer, wherein the software application
identifies each media content presentation by matching audio
content emitted by one of the televisions and received via a
microphone of the mobile device to stored audio data accessible
by the software application;
[(b)] transmitting, by the software application to a
network server, a plurality of presentation event messages, each
presentation event message identifying one of the presentation
events and including the user identifier and a media content
identifier of the media content presentation indicated by the
presentation event;
[(c)] transmitting, by the software application to the
network server, a plurality of predefined event messages, each
event message identifying one of a plurality of geofence areas
encountered by the mobile device and the user identifier, each
geofence area being at a respective different retail establishment,
and wherein each geofence area is detected by a location-
Appeal 2020-005123
Application 13/669,155

3
tracking system executed by the mobile device, and wherein each
geofence area is defined by the respective different retailer;
[(d)] associating, by an analytical application executed
on the network server, each of the predefined event messages
with one or more of the presentation event messages by matching
the user identifier included in each of the predefined event
messages with the user identifier included in each of the one or
more presentation event messages; and
[(e)] determining, by the analytical application, that an
association between each of the predefined event messages and
the one or more presentation event messages indicates whether
the user viewing or listening to a selected one of the media
content presentations visited the retail establishment of the
retailer of the product or service promoted by the selected media
content presentation and whether the user viewing or listening to
the selected media content presentation visited one or more other
retail establishment of one or more other retailers of products of
services promoted by one or more others of the media content
presentations.
REJECTION
Claims 1, 14, 22, 29, 31, 32, 34–38, 40–44, and 46 are rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Kent (US 2014/0032304 A1,
published Jan. 30, 2014), Liu et al. (US 9,451,308 B1, issued Sept. 20, 2016)
(“Liu”), and Voda (US 2013/0041761 A1, published Feb. 14, 2013).
ANALYSIS
We are persuaded by Appellant’s argument that the Examiner erred in
rejecting independent claims 1, 14, and 41 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) at least
because Kent, on which the Examiner relies, does not disclose or suggest
detecting by a software application executed by a mobile
device, a plurality of presentation events, each presentation event
indicating a connection between a user identifier linked to the
mobile device and a presentation of a respective different media
Appeal 2020-005123
Application 13/669,155

4
content presentation on one or more televisions, each media
content presentation promoting a respective different product or
service and provided by a respective different retailer, wherein
the software application identifies each media content
presentation by matching audio content emitted by one of the
televisions and received via a microphone of the mobile device
to stored audio data accessible by the software application; [and]
transmitting, by the software application to a network
server, a plurality of presentation event messages, each
presentation event message identifying one of the presentation
events and including the user identifier and a media content
identifier of the media content presentation indicated by the
presentation event[,]
i.e., limitations (a) and (b), as recited in claim 1, and similarly recited in
claims 14 and 41 (Appeal Br. 8–12).2
Kent is directed to a system and method for linking an online
campaign with offline store purchases, i.e., determining a correlation
between the presentation of a content item, e.g., an advertisement, and a
transaction by a user at a point of sale terminal (Kent ¶ 1). Kent, thus,
discloses, with reference to Figure 3, that when a content item is served, e.g.,
via a content selection server, to a client device, e.g., a laptop, tablet, the
client device emits a signal, e.g., a code, to a mobile computing device,
where the information is stored (id. ¶ 54). Thereafter, when the mobile
device is used at a retail store, the mobile device provides the code to the
point of sale terminal, which, in turn, provides the code to the content
selection server; the server may then determine that the content item
provided to the client device correlates to the transaction at the point of sale
terminal (id. ¶¶ 55, 56).

2 The pages of Appellant’s Appeal Brief beyond page 1 are unnumbered; we
refer to those pages as though consecutively numbered.
Appeal 2020-005123
Application 13/669,155

5
In rejecting independent claims 1, 14, and 41 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a), the Examiner cited paragraphs 49, 68, and 77 of Kent as disclosing
the argued limitations (Final Act. 3–4). We, however, agree with Appellant
that there is nothing in the cited portions of Kent that discloses or suggests
that a software application running on a user’s mobile device transmits, to a
network server, a plurality of presentation event messages, where (1) each of
the presentation event messages identifies a presentation event and includes
a user identifier and a media content identifier of the media content
presentation indicated by the presentation and (2) the media content
presentation promotes a product or service provided by a retailer, as called
for in independent claims 1, 14, and 41.
Kent discloses in paragraph 49 that a client identifier is sent to a
content selection server when the user of the client device performs a
particular type of online action, e.g., selecting displayed online content. But
there is no indication that a message is sent to the server that identifies a
presentation event and a connection between a user identifier linked to a
mobile device and a media content presentation on one or more televisions,
as required by Appellant’s claims. Instead, it is clear from the preceding
paragraph 48, that the client identifier is sent to the server to track the
webpages that the user visits (Kent ¶ 48 (“In some implementations, client
identifier 210 may be used by content selection server 104 to store history
data for client 102, with the permission of the user of client 102. For
example, content request 208 may include data relating to which webpage
was requested by client 102, when the webpage was requested, and/or other
history data.”)).
Appeal 2020-005123
Application 13/669,155

6
It also is significant here, as Appellant observes, that the client
identifier in Kent is used by the content selection server to select a content
item, e.g., an advertisement, to be presented to the user (Appeal Br. 11
(citing Kent ¶ 50 (“For example, content selection server 104 may select
content 212 based on client identifier 210 and/or on a user identifier
associated with client identifier 210.”))). Thus, in Kent, the message, i.e.,
the user identifier, is transmitted to the server before the user’s exposure to
the content item, e.g., the advertisement, and used to select the particular
content item, as distinguished from the claimed invention where the message
sent to the network server identifies the advertisement to which the user has
already been exposed. As such, we agree with Appellant that Kent cannot
be interpreted properly to disclose or suggest “detecting . . . a plurality of
presentation events, each presentation event indicating . . . a presentation of
a respective different media content presentation on one or more televisions,
each media content presentation promoting a respective different product or
service and provided by a respective different retailer” and then
“transmitting . . . to a network server, a plurality of presentation event
messages, each presentation event message identifying one of the
presentation events,” as claimed (id.).
The Examiner’s reliance on paragraphs 68 and 77 of Kent is similarly
misplaced. Paragraph 68 describes that a user may view content on a client
computer, which triggers transmission of a signal from the client computer
to the user’s mobile computing device — a signal, which, as described
above, is used by the mobile device when completing a transaction at a point
of sale terminal. Paragraph 77 similarly refers to the signal transmitted from
the user’s computing device to the user’s mobile as including content
Appeal 2020-005123
Application 13/669,155

7
identifier data that identifies a content item from an online campaign
displayed on the computing device. In both paragraphs, the referenced
signal is sent to the user’s mobile device, not to a network server, as called
for in the independent claims.
In view of the foregoing, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection
of independent claims 1, 14, and 41 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). For the same
reasons, we also do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of dependent
claims 22, 29, 31, 32, 34–38, 40, 42–44, and 46. Cf. In re Fritch, 972 F.2d
1260, 1266 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (“dependent claims are nonobvious if the
independent claims from which they depend are nonobvious”).
CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 14, 22,
29, 31, 32,
34–38, 40–
44, 46
103(a) Kent, Liu, Voda 1, 14, 22,
29, 31, 32,
34–38, 40–
44, 46
REVERSED