Ex Parte Doe

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 23, 2016

13078574 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 23, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/078,574 04/01/2011
81905 7590 03/25/2016
Hanley, Flight & Zimmerman, LLC (Nielsen)
150 S. Wacker Dr. Suite 2200
Chicago, IL 60606
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Peter Campbell Doe
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
20004/76883US01 7804
EXAMINER
HUYNH, AN SON PHI
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2426
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/25/2016 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):
jflight@hfzlaw.com
mhanley@hfzlaw.com
docketing@hfzlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte PETER CAMPBELL DOE
Appeal2014-005371 1
Application 13/078,574
Technology Center 2400
Before JEAN R. HOMERE, JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, and
SHARON PENICK, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOMERE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner's final rejection of claims 1---6, 9-16, and 18-23. Claims 7, 8, and
17 have been canceled. Appeal Br. 15-21. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
1 Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Nielsen Company, LLC.
Appeal Br. 2
Appeal2014-005371
Application 13/078,574
Appellant's Invention
Appellant invents a method and system for estimating local market
audiences of media content. Spec. if 1, Fig. 1. In particular, upon measuring
the population data associated with a first geographic area and a second
geographic area, a processor computes a factor including a ratio of a first
audience metric and a second audience metric, the metrics corresponding to
the first and second geographic areas, respectively. The processor
subsequently processes the weighted data associated with the geographic
areas based on the computed factor to thereby estimate the local market data.
Spec. iii! 20, 22, 29-34.
Illustrative Claim
Independent claim 1 is illustrative, and reads as follows:
1. A method comprising:
weighting, using a processor, audience measurement data
associated with a first geographic area based on population data
associated with a second geographic area different from the first
geographic area to form weighted data;
determining, using the processor, a factor comprising a ratio of
( 1) a first audience metric determined from set-top box return
path tuning data associated with the second geographic area
and (2) a second audience metric determined from a cutback
portion of the audience measurement data identified to be
associated with monitored sites in the first geographic area
having first set-top box characteristics that correspond with
second set-top box characteristics of set-top box equipment that
provided the set-top box return path tuning data; and
2
Appeal2014-005371
Application 13/078,574
processing, using the processor, the weighted data based on the
factor to determine an audience exposure metric estimating
exposure to media in the second geographic area.
Rejections on Appeal
Appellant requests review of the following Examiner's rejections:
Claims 1-8, 9-16, 18, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Bovenschulte et al. (US 2007/0136753 Al,
published June 14, 2007).
Claims 20-23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Bovenschulte.
ANALYSIS
Anticipation Rejection
Dispositive Issue: Under 35 U.S.C. § 102, did the Examiner err in
finding Bovenschulte discloses determining a factor including a ratio of a
first audience metric associated with a second geographic area, and a
second audience metric associated with a first geographic area, as required
by independent claim 1 ?
Appellant argues Bovenschulte does not describe the disputed
limitations emphasized above. Appeal Br. 7-11, Reply Br. 2-10. In
particular, Appellant argues Bovenschulte discloses determining a difference
between the baseline popularity ratings information and the predictive
popularity ratings information. Appeal Br. 8 (citing Bovenschulte i-f 120).
According to Appellant, the difference in ratings information disclosed by
Bovenschulte does not describe the claimed ratio between the ratings
3
Appeal2014-005371
Application 13/078,574
information because a ratio involves a division operation, whereas a
difference involves a subtraction operation. Id. In response, the Examiner
finds the difference in ratings information disclosed by Bovenschulte
describes the disputed claim limitations, under the broadest reasonable
interpretation, because a difference comports with the definition of a ratio as
a relation in degree or number between two similar things. Ans. 13 (citing
the freedictionary.com). We do not agree with the Examiner.
At the outset, we note Appellant's Specification defines the factor (Fi)
as a ratio of the set top box (STB) audience metric (Si) and the cutback
audience metric (Ci), otherwise expressed as Fi= Si/Ci. Spec. i-f 29. We find
persuasive Appellant's argument that one of ordinary skill would not define
a ratio to somehow encompass a difference because they involve disparate
mathematical operations. Reply Br. 5-7. Because Appellant has shown at
least one reversible error in the Examiner's rejection, we need not reach
Appellant's remaining arguments. Accordingly, Appellant has shown the
Examiner erred in finding Bovenschulte anticipates claim 1.
Because claims 2---6, 9-16, 18 and 19 also recite commensurate
limitations to those of claim 1 discussed above, we similarly find error in the
Examiner's rejection of those claims.
Obviousness Rejection
We do not sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejection of claims 20-
23 over Bovenschulte for the foregoing reasons because they recite the
limitations of claim 1 discussed above.
4
Appeal2014-005371
Application 13/078,574
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (a) of
claims 1---6, 9-16, and 18-23 as set forth above. 2
REVERSED
2 In the event of further prosecution of this application, the Examiner may
wish to review the pending claims for compliance under 35 U.S.C. § 101 in
light of the issued guidance on patent eligible subject matter. See, e.g., July
2015 Update on Subject Matter Eligibility, 80 Fed. Reg. 45,429 (July 30,
2015), available at
Subject Matter Eligibility, 79 Fed. Reg. 74,618 (Dec. 16, 2014), available at:
l1!!12~;l~~~l~:J}~l~~,~~t~~~l£~f,~LlI~~1;i~t£~1:~1;~~~~~{~ILI!i~~~lS~§~~~{l~l~L:~1~~J~~~::{~,~L~i~~~::1lJ":±::~~:::z:~:t~L~:t~~~f ~,tt1,~:L::
iKtts~1:11x1_:1S~li:~l~K[}_~~-~~::~2KL::It~~!~~X1t::_§111li-~~~~!::X~JJ~iiS~I::_~~Jj_~~i-~2iLi!~Y~.
5