Ex Parte LI et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 9, 201411706147 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 9, 2014) Copy Citation 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. 11/706,147 02/13/2007 Zhi Li 2006-0764 (ATT 2034) 4420 58848 7590 09/09/2014 AT&T Legal Department - Roebuck Attn: Patent Docketing One AT&T Way, Room 2A-207 Bedminster, NJ 07921 EXAMINER ALVAREZ, RAQUEL ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3682 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/09/2014 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte ZHI LI, CANHUI OU, RAGHVENDRA SAVOOR, and SUN-UK PARK ____________ Appeal 2012-010855 Application 11/706,1471 Technology Center 3600 ____________ Before: BIBHU R. MOHANTY, MICHAEL W. KIM, and NINA L. MEDLOCK, Administrative Patent Judges. KIM, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 1–24. We have jurisdiction to review the case under 35 U.S.C. §§ 134 and 6. The invention relates generally to selecting a host web site for hosting advertising data. Spec. ¶ 10. 1 The real party in interest, identified by Appellants, is AT&T Intellectual Property I, LP, formerly known as AT&T Knowledge Ventures, L.P. App. Br. 2. Appeal 2012-010855 Application 11/706,147 2 Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is further illustrative of the claimed subject matter. 1. A computerized method for selecting a host web site for hosting advertising data, the method comprising: characterizing advertising performance for a plurality of potential host web sites at a server computer in a data communications network by monitoring data communications between a plurality of subscribers to the data communication network and a plurality of potential host web sites; establishing a profile for one of the plurality of potential host web sites based on at least one subscriber profile for the plurality of subscribers; and selecting one of the plurality of potential host web sites as a host web site for the advertising data based on the advertising performance and the profile for the selected host web site advertising performance. Claims 1–2, 8–9, 15–16, and 22–24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Perry (US 2004/0215509 A1, pub. Oct. 28, 2004). Claims 3–7, 10–14, and 17–21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Perry and Gottfurcht (US 2006/0229930 A9, pub. Oct. 12, 2006). We AFFIRM. Appeal 2012-010855 Application 11/706,147 3 ANALYSIS Anticipation Rejection of Claims 1 and 2 We are not persuaded of error by Appellants’ argument that Perry fails to disclose establishing a profile for one of the plurality of potential host web sites based on at least one subscriber profile for the plurality of subscribers; and selecting one of the plurality of potential host web sites as a host web site for the advertising data based on the advertising performance and the profile for the selected host web site advertising performance, as recited by independent claim 1. App. Br. 16; Reply Br. 15–16. Specifically, Appellants assert that Perry “does not select a web site host for an advertisement based on the web sites profile, wherein the web site profile is based on profiles of visitors to the web site.” Id. at 16; id. at 15–16. We disagree. Perry is directed to a method of distributing targeted Internet advertisements to web sites of a number of different publishers operating web sites. Perry ¶ 9. Perry describes that its system enables an advertising entity to establish lists of user identifiers, i.e., cookies, from each of several advertisers using data related to the user’s location, demographics, web sites history, types of services registered for, purchases made, and searching or shopping for specific content on the Internet. Id. Perry also describes that “cookie interactions are used to tie transactions on the advertiser’s site to interactions (views and clicks) with advertisements.” Id. ¶ 3. In particular, Perry discloses that “[a]dvertisers (or the service companies that assist and Appeal 2012-010855 Application 11/706,147 4 represent them) must determine which web sites, publishers, and placements provide the best-suited demographic, psychographic, or behavioral segment to reach with advertisements” (emphasis added). Id. ¶ 4. Thus, we agree with the Examiner that Perry discloses selecting a web site for an advertisement based on the web site’s profile, which is based on profiles of visitors to the web site, as independent claim 1 requires. We also are not persuaded of error by Appellants’ argument that Perry fails to disclose “monitoring data communications between a plurality of subscribers to the data communication network and a plurality of potential host web sites,” as recited by independent claim 1. Reply Br. 16. Specifically, Appellants assert that “Perry creates a log of cookie interactions for a particular user on a particular website, but does not establish a profile for the user across a plurality of web sites.” Id. However, Perry describes expressly that its system creates user identifiers for users, which identify individual users on a list with information such as the different web sites visited by that user. Perry ¶ 9. Thus, Perry monitors data between a plurality of subscribers and potential host web sites, and as such, establishes a profile for the user across a plurality of web sites. For at least the above reasons, we sustain the rejection of independent claim 1, and its dependent claim 2, which was not argued separately. Anticipation Rejection of Claims 8–9, 15–16, and 22–24 As the issues, raised by Appellants, for independent claims 8, 15, and 22, reflect those addressed for claim 1, the same analysis is applicable to Appeal 2012-010855 Application 11/706,147 5 independent claims 8, 15, and 22. Thus, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 8, 15, and 22 as being anticipated by Perry. We also sustain the rejection of dependent claims 9, 15, 23, and 24, which were not argued separately. Obviousness Rejection of Dependent Claims 3–7, 10–14, and 17–21 Appellants do not present any argument for the separate patentability of claims 3–7, 10–14, and 17–21, except to assert that Gottfurcht fails to cure the alleged deficiencies of Perry. App. Br. 18–19; Reply Br. 18–19. Accordingly, for the reasons outlined above, we sustain the rejection of claims 3–7, 10–14, and 17–21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Perry and Gottfurcht. DECISION The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1–24 is AFFIRMED. 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). AFFIRMED hh Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation