Ex Parte Teinila et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 22, 201712164617 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 22, 2017) 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. 12/164,617 06/30/2008 Jaakko Juhani Teinila P5004US00 1622 11764 7590 Ditthavong & Steiner, P.C. 44 Canal Center Plaza Suite 322 Alexandria, VA 22314 EXAMINER OBERLY, VAN HONG ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2166 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/24/2017 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): docket@dcpatent.com Nokia. IPR @ nokia. com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte JAAKKO JUHANI TEINILA, JYRKI TAUNO JOHANNES PORIO, and YE-KUI WANG Appeal 2017-000190 Application 12/164,617 Technology Center 2100 Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, JAMES R. HUGHES, and ERIC S. FRAHM, Administrative Patent Judges. DIXON, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2017-000190 Application 12/164,617 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of claims 1—10 and 25—38. This appeal is related to prior appeal 2012-006985, decided October 29, 2014. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. The claims are directed to a specifying media content placement criteria. Abstract. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A method comprising: determining, at a user device, media content placement metadata associated with a content item, wherein the media content placement metadata includes metadata contextual to the content item; retrieving, by the user device, media content matching one or more media content placement criteria in the media content placement metadata, wherein the one or more media content placement criteria includes information identifying a media content slot in the content item and at least one media content selection criterion; and rendering the matching media content in the media content slot during rendering of the content item at the user device. The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on REFERENCES appeal is: Castle Ymski Georgis US 2002/0156679 A1 US 2007 /0094083 A1 US 2008/0134043 A1 Oct. 24, 2002 Apr. 26, 2007 June 5, 2008 REJECTIONS The Examiner made the following rejections: 2 Appeal 2017-000190 Application 12/164,617 Claims 1—5, 8—10, 25—30, 32—36, and 38 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Yruski. Claims 6, 31, and 37 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Yruski and Castle. Claim 7 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Yruski and Georgis. ANALYSIS Anticipation With respect to independent claims 1, 26, and 32, Appellants argue the claims together. As a result, we select independent claim 1 as the representative claim for the group and will address Appellants’ arguments thereto. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). With respect to representative independent claim 1, Appellants contend: Further, the Examiner asserts that Appellant’s recited “determining” feature is disclosed by way of “the ad insertion module associating the ads with the content as the content is received and passes the ad-infused content for display.” The Examiner fails to properly interpret the claims and/or Yruski. In particular, Yruski discloses at paragraph [0102] “the plug-in downloads content from a content server. . . . The plug-in connects the ad source server to obtain a list of ad filed and the insertion positions/slots content files, and additional placement rules.” As such Yruski cannot reasonably interpreted to disclose both “determining, at a user device, media content placement metadata associated with a content item” and “retrieving, by the user device, media content matching one or more media content placement criteria in the media content placement metadata.” In contrast to Appellant’s claimed combination of features, Yruski discloses the ad insertion module retrieving both alleged media and alleged placement criteria from an ad source server, not at a 3 Appeal 2017-000190 Application 12/164,617 user device based on a content item. The content item itself does not appear to inform placement criteria. Accordingly, Yruski cannot reasonably be interpreted as disclosing “determining, at a user device, media content placement data associated with a content item,” as recited in claim 1. For at least this reason, the rejection of claim 1 and claims depending therefrom should be reversed. Claims 26 and 32 recite similar features. Accordingly, claims 26 and 32 and claims depending respectively therefrom are patentable over Yruski. (App. Br. 3—4). We disagree with Appellants. We find the Examiner responds to Appellants’ argument with further explanation and additional support from Yruski reference. The Examiner further identifies paragraph 182 of the Yruski reference to support the Examiner’s position. The Examiner maintains: paragraph 0047 of Yruski teaches ad campaign metadata and rules that serve as control information for use in determining which user and/or which content to match to ads in an ad campaign. Examiner further relies on paragraph 0102 of Yruski to teach that the association between the ads with the content as the content is received and infusing the content with the selected ad. Examiner relies on paragraph 0049 of Yruski to teach match processing to determining which ads to associate with the content and paragraph 0091 discloses an ad insertion slot. Examiner further respectfully submits paragraph 0182 of Yruski teaches that a client-side agent retrieves the ad insertion metadata that is associate with a content item. As such, Examiner respectfully maintains that Yruski teaches every aspect of the above argued limitation. (Ans. 3). We find no response to the Examiner’s further clarifications and additional prior art citation because Appellants did not file a Reply Brief. 4 Appeal 2017-000190 Application 12/164,617 Consequently, Appellants have not shown error in the Examiner’s findings of fact or finding of anticipation of representative independent claim 1. Because Appellants have not set forth separate arguments for patentability of independent claims 26 and 32 and dependent claims 2—5, 8— 10, 25, 27—30, 33—36, and 38, we group these claims as falling with representative independent claim 1. Obviousness With respect to the dependent claims 6, 7, 31, and 37, Appellants merely present case law discussion and maintain that the additional prior art references do not remedy the deficiency in the anticipation rejection. (App. Br. 5-6). Because we found no deficiency in the anticipation rejection, we find Appellants’ argument does not show error in the Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness. Consequently, we sustain the rejection of dependent claims 6, 7, 31, and 37 for the same reasons addressed above with respect to independent claim 1. CONCLUSIONS The Examiner did not err in rejecting representative independent claim 1 based upon anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102, and the Examiner did not err in rejecting dependent claims 6, 7, 31, and 37 based upon obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. DECISION For the above reasons, we sustain the Examiner’s anticipation and obviousness rejections rejection of claims 1—10 and 25—38. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv). 5 Appeal 2017-000190 Application 12/164,617 AFFIRMED 6 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation