Ex Parte Whitehead

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 22, 2016

11771256 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 22, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
111771,256 0612912007
25537 7590 03/24/2016
VERIZON
PA TENT MANAGEMENT GROUP
1320 North Court House Road
9th Floor
ARLINGTON, VA 22201-2909
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Steven D. Whitehead
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.
20070182 7656
EXAMINER
POUNCIL, DARNELL A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3621
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/24/2016 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):
patents@verizon.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte STEVEN D. WHITEHEAD
Appeal2013-005492
Application 11/771,256
Technology Center 3600
Before ANTON W. PETTING, PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, and
BRADLEY B. BAY AT, Administrative Patent Judges.
PETTING, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE1
Steven D. Whitehead (Appellant) seeks review under 35 U.S.C. § 134
of a final rejection of claims 1-20, the only claims pending in the application
on appeal. We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
1 Our decision will make reference to the Appellant's Appeal Brief ("App.
Br.," filed September 25, 2012) and Reply Brief ("Reply Br.," filed March
11, 2013), and the Examiner's Answer ("Ans.," mailed January 10, 2013),
and Final Action ("Final Act.," mailed May 25, 2012).
Appeal2013-005492
Application 11/771,256
The Appellant invented a way of delivering IP-based services.
Specification para. 29.
An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of
exemplary claim 1, which is reproduced below (bracketed matter and some
paragraphing added).
1. A method comprising:
[ 1] collecting, via a video services module comprising at
least one programmable processor,
data associated with video services usage;
[2] identifying, via a marketing information processing
module comprising at least one programmable processor,
receptiveness information based on the data
collected from the video services usage,
wherein the receptiveness information comprise a
timing parameter
denoting a point in time of the identification
of the receptiveness information;
[3] identifying, via the marketing information processing
module comprising at least one programmable processor,
addressability information based on the data
collected from the video services usage,
wherein the addressability information is
associated with the receptiveness information;
[ 4] identifying, via a marketing information management
module comprising at least one programmable processor,
marketing campaign information;
and
[5] producing, at the marketing information processing
module comprising at least one programmable processor,
actionable marketing information
2
Appeal2013-005492
Application 11/771,256
based upon the marketing campaign information
and the addressability and receptiveness information.
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art:
Hosea US 2002/0059094 Al
Grauch WO 98/31114
May 16, 2002
July 16, 1998
Claims 1-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Hosea and Grauch.
ISSUES
The issues of obviousness tum primarily on the breadth of the types of
data recited in the claims.
FACTS PERTINENT TO THE ISSUES
The following enumerated Findings of Fact (FF) are believed to be
supported by a preponderance of the evidence.
Facts Related to the Prior Art
Hosea
01. Hosea is directed to profiling interactive television
("iTV") users, recommending content, and for delivering targeted
content to users. Hosea para. 2.
02. Hosea describes gathering user-requested content
information from iTV interactions, correlating content-associated
profile information from a rating service with the user-requested
content information, and developing a profile of the user based on
3
Appeal2013-005492
Application 11/771,256
the content-associated profile information correlated with the user-
requested content information. Hosea para. 6.
03. Hosea describes its data collection component as
receiving data at the set top box as the result of a user interaction
with the client device, such as changing the channel, turning the
client device on or off, viewing show information through the
programming guide, responding to interactive surveys, surfing the
web, or sending e-mails, although other types of interactions may
also be monitored. Such user-requested content information may
be used to build a profile. The data collection component may be
a sniffer that monitors client interactions with the iTV. The
sniffer may extract program data as it comes into the set top box in
order to monitor the user and may detect an outgoing Web page
request. In addition, the sniffer may detect other interactions with
the iTV client, including e-mails, or the sniffer may monitor
interacts and search for transactional data and keywords, such as
those used in search engines on the World Wide Web. Hosea
para. 40.
04. Hosea describes its profiler component as building
a user profile based on the information in the interaction database
and data in a local categorized program database. User profile
information may contain demographic data, psychographic data,
geographic data, and transactional data. The local categorized
program database may contain demographic information on some
or all of the television programs. Hosea para. 41.
4
Appeal2013-005492
Application 11/771,256
05. Hosea describes its client profiler as extracting
from the program database a set of demographic data associated
with a particular television program request made by the user,
which may be stored in the interaction database. The profiler also
extracts from the program database content affinity or
psychographic data associated with a program request made by the
user. The information in the program database may be
downloaded from the iTV server to the set top box or client
periodically depending on the amount of memory available at the
set top box. The program database may contain profile
information and content affinity information for URL addresses or
other client interaction data. Such URL information may include
demographic or psychographic data that has been compiled by an
outside source for given URLs, and such URL information may be
gathered in the same manner as program data by the sniffer.
Hosea para. 42.
06. Hosea describes its dynamic campaign manager
component, residing on the master server, as providing a portal to
the system for advertisers (i.e., ad buyers) to select a targeted
audience for a particular advertising campaign. In choosing the
target audience, the advertiser is given various options regarding
the demographic and psycho graphic characteristics of the desired
audience for the ad. The dynamic campaign manager component,
which may be an interface program that allows an advertiser to
select content, takes information entered by an advertiser, creates
an advertisement profile, and stores this data in an ad campaign
5
Appeal2013-005492
Application 11/771,256
database 60. In an embodiment in which there is one-way
communication between the iTV /ISP server 15 and the client 10,
the desired profile from the ad campaign database 60 is sent along
with the ad to the local ad database 28 (FIG. 2) of the client 10
via the ad server 17, which generally provides an interface for
advertisers in traditional iTV systems. Hosea para. 225.
Grauch
07. Grauch is directed to tracking subscriber use of
network applications, particularly network applications involving
delivery of interactive media or video programming. Grauch
abstract.
08. Grauch describes recording an event timestamp for
an event triggered by a subscriber and entering the timestamp into
an event record. Grauch 10:27-12:5.
ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds that Hosea and Grauch collect user data that
include events that are watched along with timestamps, and also include
URL' s of web sites visited. The Examiner finds this to be within the scope
of collecting data associated with video services usage, identifying
receptiveness with a timing parameter in the form of identifying events to
which a user was receptive with a timestamp, and identifying addressability
information in the form of web addresses. As claim 1 does not narrow the
interpretation of these data items further, we agree with the Examiner's
findings.
6
Appeal2013-005492
Application 11/771,256
The Examiner finds that Hosea also described identifying marketing
campaign information in the form of the advertising profiles in its dynamic
campaign manager component, residing on the master server. Again, this is
within the scope of marketing campaign information.
Finally, the Examiner finds Hosea described selecting an ad for
presentation as being within the scope of producing actionable marketing
information.
We are not persuaded by the Appellant's argument that Hosea fails to
describe campaign information and actionable marketing information. App.
Br. 7. Appellant appears to predicate its contention regarding campaign
information on an apparent absence of addressability information. Id. at 7-
8. Appellant appears to predicate its contention regarding actionable
marketing information by distinguishing this from advertising information.
Id. at 8. As we find above, web addresses viewed, being views of addresses,
are within the scope of addressability information. As to advertising data,
advertising is among the most widely perceived forms of marketing, and so
must be considered as being within the scope of actionable marketing
information. Claim 1 does not narrow the scope of interpretation for these
limitations.
Appellant argues in the Reply Brief for the first time that the art fails
to describe the timing parameter recited in claim 1. Reply Br. 2-3.
Appellant does not argue that Grauch's timestamp is not a timing parameter,
but only that the timestamp is not associated with the point in time of the
identification of any receptiveness information. Id. As a timestamp by
definition identifies a point in time, the only issue is whether the event is
7
Appeal2013-005492
Application 11/771,256
within the scope of receptiveness information. And as the claim does not
narrow the meaning of receptiveness, an event triggered by a customer is
reasonably characterized as being one the customer is receptive to.
Appellant also tries to distinguish addressability information from
user interest for the first time in the Reply Brief. Reply Br. 3--4. But
claim 1 does not narrow the interpretation of addressability information to
exclude addresses of interest to a user.
The remaining claims are argued on the basis of claim 1. Appellant
also argues they are each separately patentable based on their limitations.
The arguments for them simply recite the added limitations and allege they
are not found. This is insufficient to act as a separate argument under 3 7
C.F.R. § 41.37. As stated by our reviewing court,
we hold that the Board reasonably interpreted Rule 41.37
to require more substantive arguments in an appeal brief than a
mere recitation of the claim elements and a naked assertion that
the corresponding elements were not found in the prior art.
In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed Cir 2011).
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Hosea and Grauch is proper.
DECISION
The rejection of claims 1-20 is affirmed.
8
Appeal2013-005492
Application 11/771,256
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l)(iv) (2011).
AFFIRMED
9