Rau, Nicholas Naveen. et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 2, 2020

2019003129 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 2, 2020)

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.
13/763,333 02/08/2013 Nicholas Naveen Rau 20004/100868US01 1678
81905 7590 06/02/2020
Hanley, Flight & Zimmerman, LLC (Nielsen)
150 S. Wacker Dr. Suite 2200
Chicago, IL 60606
EXAMINER
BAGGOT, BREFFNI
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3622
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/02/2020 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):
docketing@hfzlaw.com
jflight@hfzlaw.com
mhanley@hfzlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte NICHOLAS NAVEEN RAU, RYAN O'HEARN,
THOMAS STURM, and JEREMY BENNETT
Appeal 2019-003129
Application 13/763,333
Technology Center 3600
Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, and
JOYCE CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judges.
MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–5, 8–13, 15, 19–23, 33–35, 51, 52,
and 54–61.2 See Final Act. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as The Nielsen
Company, LLC. Appeal Br. 2.
2 Claims 7 and 24, listed as pending in the Final Act. and Answer, were
cancelled when claims 56–61 were added by the Amendment dated Oct. 13,
2017, see pages 4, 7, 11; see also Appeal Br. 36–43 (Claims App.) showing
claims 7 and 24 as cancelled.
Appeal 2019-003129
Application 13/763,333

2
We reverse.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a method and apparatus for efficient
execution of modules. See Spec. 1.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A method comprising:
loading a first advertisement within a webpage with a
processor, the first advertisement including first instructions;
loading a first module within the webpage by executing
the first instructions on the processor;
generating a first module identifier by executing the first
module on the processor;
communicating the first module identifier to a datastore
associated with an application message interface with the
processor;
loading a toolbox by executing the first module on the
processor, the first module to monitor presentation of the first
advertisement with the toolbox, the first module communicating
with the toolbox through the application message interface;
loading a second advertisement on the webpage with the
processor, the second advertisement including second
instructions;
loading a second module on the webpage by executing the
second instructions on the processor;
generating a second module identifier by executing the
second module on the processor;
communicating the second module identifier to the
application message interface with the processor;
storing the second module identifier in the datastore
associated with the application message interface with the
processor;
querying the application message interface with the first
module to determine availability of the second module identifier
with the processor;
Appeal 2019-003129
Application 13/763,333

3
in response to determining the second module identifier is
available, retrieving the second module identifier stored in the
datastore associated with the application message interface with
the first module; and
sharing the toolbox with the second module, the second
module to monitor presentation of the second advertisement with
the toolbox, the second module communicating with the toolbox
through the application message interface, wherein the webpage
is presented in an environment that prevents direct
communication between the second module and the toolbox.
Appeal Br. 36–37 (Claims App.).
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Allen et al. US 2009/0094339 Al Apr. 9, 2009
Allen et al. US 2010/0100626 A1 Apr. 22, 2010
Bhosle et al. US 8,505,106 B1 Aug. 6, 2013
Chandi et al. US 9,037,963 B1 May 19, 2015
Yoo US 2007/0101340 A1 May 3, 2007
Boningue et al. US 2009/0117942 A1 May 7, 2009
REJECTIONS3
Claims 1, 3, 8–10, 15, 19, 21, 33, 35, 52, 54, and 55 are rejected under
pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Allen et al. (US
Publication 2009/0094339), hereinafter referred to as Allen ‘339, in view of
Allen et al. (US Publication 2010/0100626), hereinafter referred to as Allen
‘626. Final Act. 5–20.

3 The Examiner withdrew the rejection of claims 1–5, 8–13, 15, 19–23, 33–
35, 51, 52, and 54–61 under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Ans. 3.
Appeal 2019-003129
Application 13/763,333

4
Claims 2, 20, and 34 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Allen ‘339 with Allen ‘626 in view of Bhosle et al.
(US Patent 8,505,106), hereinafter Bhosle. Final Act. 20–22.
Claims 4, 5, 22, and 23 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Allen ‘339 with Allen ‘626 in view of Chandi et
al. (US Patent 9,037,963), hereinafter Chandi. Final Act. 22–23.
Claims 11–13 and 56–61 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Allen ‘339 with Allen ‘626 in view of
Yoo (US Publication 2007/0101340). Final Act. 23–28.
Claim 51 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Allen ‘339 with Allen ‘626 in view of Boningue et al. (US
Publication 2009/0117942), hereinafter Boningue. Final Act. 28–29.
DISCUSSION
Appellant argues, inter alia, that the combination of Allen ‘339 and
Allen ‘626 does not teach or suggest the following limitations of claim 1:
querying the application message interface with the first module
to determine availability of the second module identifier . . .

in response to determining the second module identifier is
available, retrieving the second module identifier stored in the
datastore associated with the application message interface with
the first module

See Appeal Br. 26–29 (emphasis added); Reply 6–8.
The Examiner cites Allen ‘339 as disclosing:
querying the application message interface with the first module
to determine availability of the second module . . .

Appeal 2019-003129
Application 13/763,333

5
in response to determining the second module identifier is
available, querying the application message interface with the
first module to determine availability of the second module
identifier . . .

retrieving the second module identifier from the application
message interface with the first module

Final Act. 7 (emphasis added).
The Examiner relies upon Figures 2 and 9 and paragraphs 25, 39, 50–
56, 58, 70, and 75 of Allen ‘339 as disclosing these limitations. Final Act. 7.
Figure 9 of Allen ‘339 shows widget C configured to access and/or
invoke a function associated with widget D. Answer 4–5 (citing Allen ‘339
¶¶ 100, 105–107). Widget C can access information generated at widget D
based on an API 944. Allen ‘339 ¶¶ 105–106. The information generated
may include “polling data, a game score.” Answer 5 (citing Allen ‘339 ¶
106). The Examiner finds the “polling data” generated by widget D and
accessed by widget C discloses, that the application message interface is
polled to determine availability and if the second widget identifier is
available, the identifier is retrieved in association with the application
message interface with the first module. See Final Act. 7; Answer 5.
The cited portions of Allen ‘339 do not teach or suggest the claimed
limitations in that the claim requires, “querying the application message
interface with the first module to determine availability of the second
module identifier” and not merely the availability of the second module. See
Final Act. 7; Appeal Br. 27.
Allen ‘339 discloses the sending of a signal with a widget identifier to
facilitate sharing of a widget between network entities. Answer 5 (citing
Allen ‘339 ¶ 100); Appeal Br. 27.
Appeal 2019-003129
Application 13/763,333

6
The Examiner finds the sending of a widget identifier and the storage
of the widget identifier in memory, discloses, “retrieving the second module
identifier from the application message interface with the first module.”
Final Act. 7 (citing Allen ‘339 ¶¶ 58, 75).
The cited portions of Allen ‘339 do not teach or suggest the claimed
limitation, “retrieving the second module identifier stored in the datastore
associated with the application message interface with the first module” in at
least that there is no showing in Allen ‘339 of the second module identifier
stored in “the datastore associated with the application message interface” or
the retrieval thereof by the first module, as claimed. Appeal Br. 27–28.
Additionally, the claim requires the retrieval to be “in response to
determining the second module identifier is available” from the querying
with the first module, and not, as set forth by the Examiner, the querying is
in response to the determining, and the retrieval of the second module
identifier is unrelated to the querying. See Final Act. 7.
Accordingly, we agree with Appellant that in rejecting claim 1, the
Examiner fails to address the emphasized language of the claim as indicated
above. See Reply 7–8. There is no showing by the Examiner of the
querying to determine availability of the second module identifier, and, in
response to the determination of the availability of the second module
identifier, retrieving the identifier stored in a datastore associated with an
application message interface, as claimed. Appeal Br. 28.
Allen ‘626 fails to cure the deficiency of the rejection of illustrative
claim 1, and accordingly, constrained by the record before us, we reverse the
Examiner’s rejection of illustrative claim 1 and independent claims 19 and
Appeal 2019-003129
Application 13/763,333

7
33 containing similar limitations and, for the same reasons, the rejection of
dependent claims 3, 8–10, 15, 21, 35, 52, 54, and 55.
Bhosle, Chandi, Yoo, and Boningue each fail to cure the deficiency of
the rejection of independent claims 1, 19, and 33, and therefore the
rejections of claims 2, 4, 5, 11–13, 20, 22, 23, 34, 51, and 56–61 fall with the
rejection of claims 1, 3, 8–10, 15, 19, 21, 33, 35, 52, 54, and 55.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–5, 8–13, 15, 19–23, 33–35, 51,
52, and 54–61 are reversed.
More specifically, the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–5, 8–13, 15,
19–23, 33–35, 51, 52, and 54–61 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C §103(a) is
reversed.
DECISION SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–5, 8–13,
15, 19–23,
33–35, 51,
52, 54–61
103(a) Allen ‘339, Allen ‘626,
Bhosle, Chandi, Yoo,
Boningue
1–5, 8–13,
15, 19–23,
33–35, 51,
52, 54–61
TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
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)(1)(iv).
REVERSED