Ex Parte Kamath et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Nov 23, 2018

12884828 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Nov. 23, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/884,828 09/17/2010
72058 7590 11/27/2018
Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP
Adobe Systems, Inc. 58083
Mailstop: IP Docketing - 22
1100 Peachtree Street, Suite 2800
Atlanta, GA 30309-4530
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
AnilKamath
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.
058083-0857858
(2313US02)
CONFIRMATION NO.
7479
EXAMINER
MUNSON, PATRICIA H
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3622
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/27/2018 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):
ipefiling@kilpatricktownsend.com
KTSDocketing2@kilpatrick.foundationip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ANIL KAMA TH and ABHISHEK P ANI
Appeal2018-007758
Application 12/884,828 1
Technology Center 2400
Before KAL YANK. DESHPANDE, NABEEL U. KHAN, and
KARA SZPONDOWSKI, Administrative Patent Judges.
KHAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Non-Final
Rejection of claims 42-55, 58, 59, 61---63, and 65-70. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
1 Appellants identify Adobe Systems Incorporated as the real party in
interest. App. Br. 1.
Appeal2018-007758
Application 12/884,828
BACKGROUND
THE INVENTION
According to Appellants, the invention relates to "generating bids for
multi-channel advertising environments, including in embodiments,
generating a multi-channel advertising model." Abstract.
Exemplary independent claim 42 is reproduced below.
42. A computer-implemented method for modifying the use of
electronic communication channels based on a bidding strategy
that is determined based on tracked interaction data from a
multichannel advertising environment, the method comprising:
tracking, by a computing device, interactions with a
plurality of advertising channels using the interaction data,
wherein the interactions are performed by computing devices
associated with advertisees that access electronic advertisements
provided via the plurality of advertising channels, wherein the
interaction data is automatically generated and transmitted in
response to the interactions with the electronic advertisements by
the computing devices;
determining, by the computing device, contributions of the
plurality of advertising channels, respectively, toward revenue-
generating events associated with the advertisees, wherein the
contributions comprise non-revenue-generating events in a first
advertising channel influencing the revenue-generating events in
a second advertising channel, wherein determining the
contributions comprises:
deriving implicit attributes of the advertisees from
the interaction data, wherein each of the implicit attributes
indicates behavior or characteristics of an advertisee in
addition to behavior or characteristics indicated by the
interaction data,
grouping subsets of the advertisees into clusters
based on the implicit attributes that are derived from the
interaction data,
calculating, for the clusters, probabilities of
additional interactions m the first advertising channel
2
Appeal2018-007758
Application 12/884,828
resulting in additional revenue-generating events in the
second advertising channel, and
identifying the contributions from the calculated
probabilities; and
modifying, by the computing device, access to additional
electronic advertisements via the plurality of advertising
channels by modifying the bidding strategy, wherein the bidding
strategy comprises an allocation of bids among the plurality of
advertising channels and is modified based on the determined
contributions of the plurality of advertising channels toward the
revenue-generating events.
REFERENCES AND REJECTIONS
1. Claims 42-55, 58, 59, 61---63, and 65-70 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to a judicial exception to patentable subject
matter. Final Act. 2---6.
2. Claims 42--45, 48, 49, 51-54, 58, 61-63, and 66-70 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable over Collins (US
2008/0255915 Al, Oct. 16, 2008), Lin (US 2005/0071218 Al, Mar. 31,
2005), and Demir (US 2011/0047025 Al, Feb. 24, 2011). Final Act. 6-28.
3. Claims 46, 47, 55, and 65 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ I03(a) as unpatentable over Collins, Lin, Demir, Chen (US 2010/0306161
Al, Dec. 2, 2010) and Liberty (US 2007/0214133 Al, Sept. 13, 2007). Final
Act. 28-31.
DISCUSSION
REJECTIONUNDER35 U.S.C. § 101
Under 35 U.S.C. § 101, a patent may be obtained for "any new and
useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new
3
Appeal2018-007758
Application 12/884,828
and useful improvement thereof." The Supreme Court has "long held that
this provision contains an important implicit exception: Laws of nature,
natural phenomena, and abstract ideas are not patentable." Alice Corp. Pty.
Ltd. v. CLS Bankint'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2354 (2014) (quotingAss'nfor
Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S. 576, 589 (2013)).
The Supreme Court in Alice reiterated the two-step framework previously
set forth in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc.,
566 U.S. 66 (2012), "for distinguishing patents that claim laws of nature,
natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible
applications of those concepts." Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355. The first step in
that analysis is to "determine whether the claims at issue are directed to one
of those patent-ineligible concepts," such as an abstract idea. The Court
acknowledged in Mayo that "all inventions at some level embody, use,
reflect, rest upon, or apply laws of nature, natural phenomena, or abstract
ideas." Mayo, 566 U.S. at 71. We, therefore, look to whether the claims
focus on a specific means or method that improves the relevant technology
or are instead directed to a result or effect that itself is the abstract idea and
merely invoke generic processes and machinery. See Enfish, LLC v.
Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-1336 (Fed. Cir. 2016). If the claims
are not directed to an abstract idea, the inquiry ends. Otherwise, the inquiry
proceeds to the second step where the elements of the claims are considered
"individually and 'as an ordered combination,' to determine whether the
additional elements 'transform the nature of the claim' into a patent-eligible
application." Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355 (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 78-79).
4
Appeal2018-007758
Application 12/884,828
Step One of the Alice/Mayo Framework
Under the first step of the Alice/Mayo framework, the Examiner finds
the claims are directed to "modifying the use of electronic communication
channels based on a bidding strategy that is determined based on tracked
interaction data from a multichannel advertising environment." Final Act. 2.
The Examiner finds:
These steps describe the concept which corresponds to concepts
identified as abstract ideas by the courts, such as collecting and
comparing known information (Classen), and collecting
information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the
collection and analysis (Electric Power Group). These concepts
relate to an "idea" as well as "certain methods of organizing
human activity". These steps describe the concept of advertising,
which corresponds to concepts identified as abstract ideas by the
courts, such as displaying of advertising (Ultramercial).
Final Act. 3.
Appellants emphasize that one of the prior art references relied upon
in rejecting the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), Collins, ultimately was
allowed to issue as a patent by the Office. App. Br. 10. Because Collins
"involves the same concept of generating a bidding strategy comprising an
allocation of bids among advertising channels" as Appellants' invention,
this, according to Appellants, "shows that claims reciting novel and non-
obvious features for using a bidding strategy to control the delivery of online
content are not directed to abstract ideas." App. Br. 10-11.
Appellants further argue, "although the Examiner cited various court
decisions at Step 1 of the eligibility analysis, none of these decisions
involves 'a similar or parallel descriptive nature' as compared to the present
application." App. Br. 9. Appellants then attempt to distinguish the cases
the Examiner relied upon in finding the pending claims are directed to an
5
Appeal2018-007758
Application 12/884,828
abstract idea. App. Br. 12-17 (arguing that Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, 772
F.3d 709 (Fed. Cir. 2014), Classen Immunotherapies, Inc. v. Biogen IDEC,
659 F.3d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 2011), and Electric Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom
S.A., 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016) do not involve a concept similar to the
pending claims).
Appellants argue "[ e Jach pending claim is effects ( or is directed to) an
improvement in artificial intelligence, i.e., generating computer-
implemented models that simulate decision-making. Therefore, the pending
claims are patentable at least because they provide improvements to a
technical field." App. Br. 17. Appellants emphasize that "the claimed
invention implements clustering methodologies that assist with model
implicit attributes of particular targets of content." App. Br. 18. Thus,
Appellants argue, "the claimed method constitutes a technological
improvement in how access to particular content is provided to certain
network devices ( e.g., user devices of advertisees) via a network." App.
Br. 19.
We disagree with Appellants. We first tum to the Examiner's
determination that the claims are directed to an abstract idea. "The 'abstract
idea' step of the inquiry calls upon us to look at the 'focus of the claimed
advance over the prior art' to determine if the claim's 'character as a whole'
is directed to excluded subject matter." Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC v.
DirectTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting Elec. Power
Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2016)); Enfzsh,
822 F.3d at 1335 ("[T]he 'directed to' inquiry applies a stage-one filter to
claims, considered in light of the specification, based on whether 'their
6
Appeal2018-007758
Application 12/884,828
character as a whole is directed to excluded subject matter."' ( citation
omitted)).
In this regard, the Specification explains that there are various options
for advertising through online channels, each with different pricing and
different levels of effectiveness. Spec. ,r 1. Examples of online advertising
channels include search engine listings and displayed advertisements on
websites. Spec. ,r 1. The effects of online advertisements may be modeled
to help allocate resources across the various channels and help determine the
utility of bidding for advertising space on a website or paying for positions
on search result listings. Spec. ,r 2. The Specification, however, explains
that these models sometimes capture only the conversion moment (i.e.
moment of intent by the advertisee) rather than the "entire sales funnel"
which includes the advertisees's 'journey through advertising stages of
awareness, interest, desire, and intent." Spec. ,r 3. This may lead to
disproportionate resource allocation to search campaigns ( since they
represent an explicit intent by the user) rather than display campaigns that
contribute to branding and interest generation. Spec. ,r 4. Some systems use
heuristics to apportion revenue to events along an advertisee' s path but these
systems do not provide for analysis of individual advertisees. Spec. ,r 4.
The claimed embodiments, therefore, relate to a "multi-channel bid
generation system" that includes a "multi-channel advertising model" that
tracks advertisements across multiple advertisement channels. Spec. ,r 24.
"[T]he multi-channel bid generation system 100 may comprise one or more
modules, such as software, hardware, and/or firmware modules to perform
various modeling, optimization, and bid generation operations." Spec. ,r 29.
The system may calculate the contribution of various advertising events to a
7
Appeal2018-007758
Application 12/884,828
"conversion event" to help generate a bidding strategy for allocating
resources to the various advertising channels ( e.g. bids for search keywords,
or placement of advertisements on a website). Spec. ,r,r 24--26. The system
may also track event histories to determine a "latent factor" of an advertisee.
Spec. ,r 30. The advertisees may then be clustered together based on the
latent factors. An example of a cluster of advertisees with a common latent
factor "would be males in California in the 20-25 age-group with [a] high
propensity to travel but low intent towards stock trading." Spec. ,r 30.
Exemplary claim 42 is consistent with the aforementioned description
of the invention. Claim 42 is directed to a method "for modifying the use of
electronic communication channels based on a bidding strategy that is
determined based on tracked interaction data from a multichannel
advertising environment." The claimed method requires "tracking ...
interactions with a plurality of advertising channels." The method further
requires determining contributions of non-revenue generating events in a
first advertising channel toward revenue-generating events in a second
advertising channel. Determining these contributions comprises "deriving
implicit attributes of the advertisees" which indicate behavior or
characteristics of an advertisee, grouping the advertisees into clusters and
calculating probabilities of additional interactions in the first advertising
channel resulting in revenue-generating events in the second advertising
channel. The method finally requires modifying access to additional
electronic advertisements by modifying the allocation of bids among a
plurality of advertising channels based on the contributions of the plurality
of channels towards revenue-generating events.
8
Appeal2018-007758
Application 12/884,828
As described in the Specification and as recited in the claims, we
agree with the Examiner that the claims are directed to the abstract idea of
"modifying the use of electronic communication channels based on a
bidding strategy that is determined based on tracked interaction data from a
multichannel advertising environment." The invention, as claimed and
described in the Specification, involves data gathering steps and
mathematical steps applied to advancing a business and economic practice.
We, therefore, agree with the Examiner that the claims involve concepts
similar to those in Ultramercial (involving using advertising as a currency),
Classen (involving collecting and comparing known information), and
Electric Power Group (involving collecting information, analyzing it, and
displaying certain results of the collection and analysis).
Additionally, we note that other Federal Circuit decisions also provide
support that the claims are directed to an abstract idea. For example, the
Federal Circuit has found that "targeted advertising based on demographic
information provided by the user" is directed to an abstract idea. Affinity
Labs of Texas, LLC v. Amazon.com Inc., 838 F.3d 1266, 1271 (Fed. Cir.
2016) ("tailoring of content based on information about the user-such as
where the user lives or what time of day the user views the content-is an
abstract idea that is as old as providing different newspaper inserts for
different neighborhood") ( citing Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Capital One
Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
Furthermore, the claimed invention here is also analogous to that in In
re Schrader, 22 F.3d 290 (Fed. Cir. 1994), where the Federal Circuit found
that a claim directed to "determining an optimal combination of bids" is
within "a class of well-known mathematical optimization procedures
9
Appeal2018-007758
Application 12/884,828
commonly applied to business problems called linear programming." In re
Schrader at 293. This description from In re Schrader is analogous to the
way the invention in this case is described in the Specification. For
example, the Specification explains that "the multi-channel bid generation
system 100 may perform an optimization using the model to determine one
or more bids to provide in a bidding strategy." Spec. ,r 36. The
Specification continues to explain that "[i]n various embodiments, the multi-
channel bid generation system 100 may perform optimization by solving a
mathematical optimization problem that aims to increase and/or maximize
one or more pre-determined measurable goals for the advertiser over a
predetermined time horizon," such as "maximizing revenues, maximizing
profits, maximizing traffic, and/or minimizing traffic acquisition/customer
acquisition costs." Id. "In various embodiments, the optimization problem
may be modeled as a mathematical programming problem. For example, if
models involved are linear models, the system may optimize by solving a
linear programming problem, using a standard linear programming
/optimization solver like CPLEX or MINOS." Spec. ,r 42. (emphasis added).
Appellants' arguments regarding the Collins patent are not persuasive.
Prior decisions, especially in an unrelated application, are not necessarily
binding for purposes of this application. Appellants' argument that the
claims are directed to improvements in "generating computer implemented
models that simulate decision-making" and therefore "provide
improvements to a technical field" is also unpersuasive. Although the
claims recite certain "computing device[ s ]" we find nothing in the claims
that actually improve the functioning of these devices. Moreover,
Appellants' own description of the invention, as "simulat[ing] decision-
10
Appeal2018-007758
Application 12/884,828
making" implies that the claims involve the abstract ideas of performing
mental steps or mathematical calculations. App. Br. 17 ( emphasis omitted).
Step Two of the Alice/Mayo Framework
Analyzing the claims individually, and as a ordered combination,
under the second step of the Alice/Mayo framework, the Examiner finds that
"the claims do[] not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount
to significantly more than the judicial exception." Final Act. 4. The
Examiner finds the additional limitations, such as the recitation of a
"system" and "computing device" are generic limitations. Final Act. 4--5.
The Examiner also finds several limitations as directed to computer
functions that are "well-understood, routine and conventional" under
Supreme Court and Federal Circuit case law. Final Act. 4.
Appellants argue the claims are analogous to those in BASCOM Glob.
Internet Servs., Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2016),
which Appellants characterize as directed to a "software tool that
manipulates Internet data based on its content ( e.g., through filters)" and
compare to the pending claims which Appellants characterize as being
directed to "a software tool that controls the transmission of electronic
messages via the Internet by modifying the use of electronic communication
channels based on tracked interaction data from a multichannel advertising
environment." App. Br. 20. Appellants further argue "[t]he combination of
features recited in each pending claim requires significantly more than
simply using the Internet as the intended transmission medium for a
message." App. Br. 21. Thus, Appellants argue, "like the claims in
BASCOM, these claims 'recite a specific, discrete implementation' of the
11
Appeal2018-007758
Application 12/884,828
alleged abstract idea rather than 'preempt[ing] all ways' of performing the
abstract idea with respect to the Internet." App. Br. 21.
Appellants also argue that dependent claims 49, 58, and 66 recite
features that "further enhance the unconventional solution to a technological
problem provided by their respective independent claims." App. Br. 22.
Appellants contend these claims are "rooted in computer technology"
because they "require clicking links tracked via search engine optimization
or marketing, both of which are specific to the Internet." App. Br. 23.
Finally, in their Reply Brief, Appellants argue that under the Federal
Circuit's Berkheimer decision, "the Examiner has failed to provide
evidentiary support, as required by the Federal Circuit, that the claimed
feature of tracking interactions with a plurality of advertising channels, in
which interaction data is automatically generated and transmitted in response
to the interactions with electronic content by computing devices, is
conventional." Reply Br. 4 (citing Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F3.d 1360
(Fed. Cir. 2018)).
We tum first to Appellants' argument that the Examiner has failed to
provide evidentiary support under the Berkheimer. We disagree with
Appellants' argument and note that Examiner has, in fact, provided support
for finding that certain computer functions, such as "receiving, processing,
and storing data" and "receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g.,
using the Internet to gather data" are well-understood, routine, and
conventional functions by citing to Supreme Court and Federal Circuit
decisions. See Ans. 9-10 (citing Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2360; Ultramercial,
772 F.3d at 715-17; buySafe, Inv. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed.
Cir. 2014)). This is sufficient under Berkheimer. See MPEP
12
Appeal2018-007758
Application 12/884,828
§ 2106.05(d)(II) (2015); see also USPTO Memorandum, Changes in
Examination Procedure Pertaining to Subject Matter Elegibility, Recent
Subject Matter Eligibility Decision (Berkheimer v. HP, Inc.), Issued April
19,2018.
We disagree with Appellants' argument that the claims here are
analogous to those in BASCOM. The court in BASCOM found the claims
patent eligible under step two of the Alice/Mayo framework because the
inventive concept was directed to the "installation of a filtering tool at a
specific location" not just to "filtering content along with the requirement to
perform it on the Internet." BASCOM, 827 F.3d at 1350. Here, we find no
such "inventive concept" that is significantly more than the abstract idea
itself. Instead, when looked at individually, and as an ordered combination,
the claim limitations are each directed to the abstract idea of "modifying the
use of electronic communication channels based on a bidding strategy that is
determined based on tracked interaction data from a multichannel
advertising environment." For example, the limitations emphasized by
Appellants, of "deriving implicit attributes of the advertisees from the
interaction data," "grouping subsets of the advertisees into clusters based on
the implicit attributes," and identifying "contributions of the plurality of
advertising channels, respectively, toward revenue-generating events" (App.
Br. 20-21) simply flesh out in more detail the data gathering and analysis
involved in tracking advertising interaction data and generating the
advertising model upon which the bidding strategy is based.
We disagree that the dependent claims are "rooted in computer
technology" because they "require clicking links tracked via search engine
optimization or marketing, both of which are specific to the Internet." App.
13
Appeal2018-007758
Application 12/884,828
Br. 23. Here, we agree with the Examiner that the claimed "clicking" of
links is not an affirmative step of the claimed method, but rather a
description of the type and origin of the claimed "interactions" that are the
subject of the "determining" steps of the claims. In other words, the
dependent claims are directed to calculations involved in the abstract idea
rather than to the physical act of clicking links.
Finally, we do not find persuasive Appellants' argument that the
claims do not preempt all ways of performing the abstract idea. "While
preemption may signal patent ineligible subject matter, the absence of
complete preemption does not demonstrate patent eligibility." Ariosa
Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc., 788 F.3d 1371, 1379
(Fed. Cir. 2015). Moreover, "[w]here a patent's claims are deemed only to
disclose patent ineligible subject matter under the Mayo framework, as they
are in this case, preemption concerns are fully addressed and made moot."
OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1362-63 (Fed. Cir.),
cert, denied, 136 S.Ct. 701 (2015).
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 42--49 and
61---68 under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
REJECTIONUNDER35 U.S.C. § 103
Claim 42
Appellants argue the prior art references do not teach "grouping
subsets of advertisees into clusters based on implicit attributes that (i) are
derived from interaction data and (ii) indicate behavior or characteristics of
advertisees in addition to behavior or characteristics indicated by the
interaction data." App. Br. 23.
14
Appeal2018-007758
Application 12/884,828
Appellants argue "Lin's 'hidden event' is 'an 'artificial' event added
to each user's event stream,' ... [and] not an implicit attribute of a user."
App. Br. 24. Further, Appellants argue, even if hidden events are considered
"implicit attributes," users are not assigned to groups based on hidden events
but are rather grouped based on attributes such as "common event streams,
common user demographics, common geographic locations, or common web
site visits." App. Br. 24. Common event streams, common web site visits,
geographic locations, and demographics are not implicit attributes derived
from interaction data, according to Appellants. App. Br. 24--25.
Appellants argue Demir does not cure this deficiency because "Demir
only teaches, at best, using interaction data to categorize a user rather than
grouping users based on implicit attributes derived from interaction data."
App. Br. 25. Appellants argue that Demir categorizes users based on
"present user conversion state," such as "searched but not clicked, clicked
but not converted, clicked and converted, etc." App. Br. 25. However,
Appellants argue that these "'user conversion states' are not implicit
attributes derived from interaction data" but rather "explicitly observed
actions of users." App. Br. 25.
We are unpersuaded by Appellants' arguments. Instead we agree with
the Examiner that Lin teaches grouping users based on implicit attributes
such as hidden events. Lin discloses grouping users into "a plurality of
hidden event groups" (Lin ,r 110) where "a unique hidden event is
introduced to each group" (Lin ,r 113). Because each group has a unique
hidden event, one of ordinary skill would recognize that Lin teaches
grouping users based on a hidden event. This is true even if the groups are
15
Appeal2018-007758
Application 12/884,828
formed using other attributes as well, such as event streams, demographics,
and location. See Lin ,r,r 115-119.
Further, we also agree that Demir separately teaches this limitation.
Demir explains that "a user's activity or conduct over time may allow
determination or prediction with regard to a state of mind or intent of the
user in some particular regard." Demir ,r 15. Demir also explains that users
can be categorized according to user conversion state such as "clicked,
clicked but not converted, clicked and converted." Demir ,r 29. These user
activities "leading up to an action such as a conversion or a purchase can be
divided into phases, which phases may relate to the intent or state of a mind
of the user .... " Demir ,r 50. Thus, Demir teaches that users may be
grouped up according to user activities (such as searched but not clicked, or
clicked but not converted) and these activities correspond with phases that
relate to a user's state of mind. We agree with the Examiner that the state of
mind of a user is an implicit attribute of the user and by grouping users up so
that the groups correspond with states of mind, Demir teaches grouping
users based on implicit attributes.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent
claim 42 and of independent claims 51 and 61, which Appellants do not
argue separately. We also sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 43, 44,
48, 49, 52, 53, 58, 62, 63, and 66-68, which depend from one of the
aforementioned claims and were not argued separately.
Claim 45
Claim 45 depends indirectly from claim 42 and recites "wherein the
interactions are tracked based on determining that the advertisees are in a
group having a propensity for purchasing the product or service." The
16
Appeal2018-007758
Application 12/884,828
Examiner finds Demir teaches this limitation by disclosing that users are
grouped based on whether they have searched but not clicked, clicked but
not converted, clicked and converted. Ans. 13. Thus, Demir teaches
tracking interactions based on determining that the advertisees are in a group
having a "propensity for purchasing the product or service." Ans. 13.
Appellants argue:
Although [Demir' s] disclosure generally refers to serving
advertisements at a time "most appropriate for the phase of the
user," nothing in this paragraph discloses that the tracking of
visits to website depends on or has any relationship to a
customer's propensity to respond to these advertisements. The
mere disclosure of identifying an optimal time window to serve
advertisements does not teach or suggest tracking a customer's
behavior based on the customer's propensity to purchase a
product or service, as required by the claims.
App. Br. 27.
We disagree with Appellants' argument. Demir explains that an
advertisee' s actions relate to the advertisee' s state of mind and phases of the
conversion funnel. Demir ,r,r 15, 50. We therefore agree with the Examiner
that by tracking whether a user has searched but not clicked, or clicked but
not converted, Demir teaches tracking interactions based on determining that
the advertisees are in a group having a propensity for purchasing the product
or service. Ans. 13.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 45 and of
claim 54 which was argued together with claim 45.
Claim 69
Claim 69 depends from claim 42 and recites "wherein grouping
subsets of the advertisees into the clusters based on the implicit attributes
comprises: for each cluster, generating the cluster such that the cluster
17
Appeal2018-007758
Application 12/884,828
represents a respective subset of the advertisees having a respective set of
values for the implicit attributes."
The Examiner finds both Lin and Demir teach or suggest the
limitations recited in claim 69. In particular, the Examiner finds Lin teaches
grouping users based in hidden events which are derived from interaction
data such as common event streams, common user demographics, common
geographic locations, or common web site visits. Final Act. 27.
Additionally, the Examiner finds Demir teaches that "a user may be
categorized according to an associated present user conversion state, such as
searched but not clicked, clicked but not converted, clicked and converted,
etc." Final Act. 27 (quoting Demir ,r 29).
Appellants put forth the same argument for claim 69 as they do for
claim 42, namely that Lin does not group users based on the hidden events
and Demir groups users based on interactions ( searched but not clicked,
clicked but not converted etc.), not implicit attributes. App. Br. 27-29.
We are unpersuaded by Appellants' arguments for the same reasons
explained above with respect to claim 42. Thus, we sustain the Examiner's
rejection of claim 69. We also sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 70,
which was argued together with claim 69.
Claim 46
Claim 46 depends from claim 42 and recites, in pertinent part,
"identifying the implicit attributes based on the implicit attributes
corresponding to respective dimensions of the intent matrix having
respective eigenvalues exceeding a threshold eigenvalue."
18
Appeal2018-007758
Application 12/884,828
The Examiner finds Liberty teaches or suggests this limitation by
disclosing "inferring missing data by factorizing a matrix so that the matrix
is represented by eigenvalues." Ans. 16.
Appellants argue
The cited Liberty disclosure merely teaches the broad
concept of eigenvalues, not factorizing an intent matrix so that
the intent matrix is "represented by eigenvalues of the intent
matrix" or identifying the implicit attributes based that
correspond to dimensions of the intent matrix having "respective
eigenvalues exceeding a threshold eigenvalue." The mere fact
that eigenvalues exist does not teach their particular use within
the context of claims 46, 55, and 65.
App. Br. 30.
We are persuaded by Appellants' argument. Although Liberty
appears to disclose an input matrix with optional threshold parameters and
that a sequence of eigenvalues is set to the largest k eigenvalues of the input
matrix, we do not discern from Liberty that implicit attributes are identified
based on eigenvalues exceeding a threshold value. In particular, we do not
find that Liberty discloses comparing eigenvalues to a threshold value nor
does the Examiner particularly identify where in Liberty this is done (see
Final Act. 30; Ans. 16).
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 46
or of claims 4 7, 5 5, and 65 which either depend from claim 46 or include
similar limitations and were rejected on the same basis. See Final Act. 28-
31.
19
Appeal2018-007758
Application 12/884,828
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 42-55, 58, 59, 61---63, and 65-70
under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is affirmed.
The Examiner's rejection of claims 42--45, 48, 49, 51-54, 58, 61-63,
and 66-70 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is affirmed.
The Examiner's rejection of claims 46, 47, 55, and 65 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) is reversed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended. See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
20