Ex Parte Bashyam

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 8, 2016

12328679 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 8, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/328,679 12/04/2008
109619 7590
Citrix Systems, Inc./Finnegan
901 New York A venue
NW
Washington, DC 20001
08/10/2016
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Suresh Bashyam
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.
09266. 0021-00000 7356
EXAMINER
LASTRA, DANIEL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3622
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/10/2016 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):
regional-desk@finnegan.com
Cindy.Baglietto@finnegan.com
Sherbonne'.Barnes-Anderson@finnegan.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SURESH BASHY AM
Appeal2014-006292
Application 12/328,679
Technology Center 3600
Before WILLIAM A. CAPP, GEORGE R. HOSKINS, and
LEE L. STEPINA, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOSKINS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Suresh Bashyam ("Appellant") 1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from
the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-51 in this application. The
Board has jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We REVERSE.
1 The Appeal Brief identifies Citrix Systems, Inc. as the real party in
interest. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal2014-006292
Application 12/328,679
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 1, 5, 10, 14, 19, 24, 28, 37, 48, 49, 50, and 51 are independent.
Claim 1 illustrates the subject matter on appeal, and it recites:
1. A computer-implemented method comprising:
receiving request data originating at a mobile device;
obtaining a unique and unchanging identifier of the mobile
device based on the received request data;
associating the unique and unchanging identifier of the mobile
device with the request data; and
storing the associated data at a data storage device.
REJECTIONS ON APPEAL
Claims 1-9, 19-27, 48, and 49 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
as anticipated by Walczak (US 2006/0100928 Al, pub. May 11, 2006).
Claims 10-18, 28--47, 50, and 51 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Walczak and Maynard-Zhang
(US 7,937,336 Bl, iss. ivfay 3, 2011).
ANALYSIS
A. Anticipation by Walczak
In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner finds Walczak discloses the
claimed "receiving request data originating at a mobile device" when
Walczak's advertising system 100 receives a request for an Internet web
page from a mobile device. Final Act. 2 (citing Walczak i-fi-126, 30-31 );
Ans. 2 7 (citing Walczak i129); see also Walczak i-fi-13, 6, 17 (advertisements
2 Our citations to "Ans." refer to the Examiner's Answer mailed March 11,
2014, recognizing the Answer was supplemented with an untitled document
mailed March 19, 2014, which we have reviewed but do not cite herein.
2
Appeal2014-006292
Application 12/328,679
provided to mobile device while mobile device is waiting for requested web
page content to be delivered). The Examiner finds Walczak discloses the
claimed "obtaining a unique and unchanging identifier of the mobile device"
when advertising system 100 obtains the mobile device's "unique phone ID
(a 'UPID', which contains no personal user data)" and/or the mobile
device's "phone number." Final Act. 2, 11-12 (citing Walczak i-fi-130-31,
64); Ans. 7.
The Examiner finds Walczak discloses the claimed "associating the
[mobile device] identifier ... with the request data," when "the mobile unit
data is stored in a database." Final Act. 2, 12 (citing Walczak i-fi-130, 64);
Ans. 7-8. The Examiner reasons Walczak's storing step associates the
unique ID of the mobile device "with characteristics and configurations for
how and what type of web content is to be delivered to the mobile device."
Final Act. 12 (citing Walczak i130).
Appellant argues the Examiner errs in finding Walczak discloses the
"associating" and "storing" steps of claim 1. Appeal Br. 15-17. Appellant
concedes "Walczak discloses storing information about the phone and user
profile information, such as age, gender, and zip code." Id. at 15 (citing
Walczak i-f 30). Appellant asserts Walczak fails to disclose associating the
unique phone ID with the received request data originating at a mobile
device, or storing such an association. Id. at 15-16. In particular, Appellant
asserts "while Walczak is concerned with the type of user and the type of the
phone the user has, it is not concerned with the types of requests (e.g., web
page requests) that the user makes." Id. at 17.
We are persuaded a preponderance of the evidence does not support
the Examiner's finding that Walczak discloses the claimed "associating" and
3
Appeal2014-006292
Application 12/328,679
"storing" of the mobile device's UPID and/or phone number with the mobile
device's request for an Internet web page. We appreciate Walczak' s
advertisement system 100 receives and stores the mobile device's UPID
and/or phone number. Walczak i-fi-130-31, 64. We further appreciate
Walczak's advertisement system 100 receives and stores the mobile device's
request for an Internet web page, in order to "act[] as a secondary gateway"
for the mobile device to access the requested Internet web page. Id. i-fi-f 17,
44.
Nonetheless, the claimed "associating" and "storing" of the mobile
device identifier with the request data requires more than merely storing
both kinds of data on the same system. Our reviewing court has instructed
that:
[U]nder the broadest reasonable interpretation, the Board's
construction "cannot be divorced from the specification and the
record evidence," In re NTP, Inc., 654 F.3d 1279, 1288 (Fed. Cir.
2011 ), and "must be consistent with the one that those skilled in
the art would reach," In re Cortright, 165 F.3d 1353, 1358 (Fed.
Cir. 1999). A construction that is "unreasonably broad" and
which does not "reasonably reflect the plain language and
disclosure" will not pass muster.
Microsoft Corp. v. Proxyconn, Inc., 789 F.3d 1292, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2015)
(quoting In re Suitco Surface, Inc., 603 F.3d 1255, 1260 (Fed. Cir. 2010)).
Appellant's Specification describes "tak[ ing] full advantage of mo bile
marketing" by storing "information regarding the subscriber, the content that
is currently served to that subscriber, and the history about the subscriber."
Spec. i-f 15 (emphases added). Such "user profiling data" includes request
data sent by the mobile device (id. i-fi-1 45--46), and is used to select ad
campaigns to be presented to the user's mobile device (id. i132). The
4
Appeal2014-006292
Application 12/328,679
Specification describes associating the user profiling data with the recited
"unique and unchanging" mobile device identifier, rather than the mobile
device's assigned IP address which changes over time, to simplify user
monitoring over time. Id. i-fi-1 42--44, 46. Based on these various disclosures,
we determine the claimed "associating" and "storing" of the mobile device
identifier with the mobile device request data requires, in addition to storing
the identifier data and the request data on the same system, associating them
together as part of the storage.
Walczak does not appear to disclose such an association and storage
of a mobile device identifier with the mobile device's requested Internet
webpage. Walczak' s advertising system 100 associates the mobile device's
UPID with user profile information such as age, gender, sex, and zip code to
provide "demographically targeted advertising" to the mobile phone.
Walczak i-fi-130-33. However, a preponderance of the evidence does not
indicate the requested Internet webpage is included with that association, or
otherwise associated with the mobile device's UPID. Id. It appears that the
requested Internet webpage is stored simply to obtain the requested Internet
webpage from the appropriate server and present it to the mobile device; the
requested Internet webpage is not used to determine the targeted advertising
provided to the mobile device. Id. Walczak separately indicates advertising
system 100 collects the mobile device's phone number to permit delivery of
a text coupon or information about a promotional offer, but fails to indicate
the requested Internet webpage is associated with the mobile device's phone
number. Id. i1 64.
For the foregoing reasons, we do not sustain the rejection of
independent claim 1 as anticipated by Walczak. Independent claims 5, 19,
5
Appeal2014-006292
Application 12/328,679
24, 48, and 49 each similarly require associating a mobile device identifier
with request data, and storing the associated data. Appeal Br. 19-20, 23, 24,
29-30 (Claims App.). We, therefore, do not sustain the rejection of
claims 1, 5, 19, 24, 48, and 49, and their respective dependent claims 2--4, 6-
9, 20-23, and 25-27, as anticipated by Walczak.
B. Obviousness based on Walczak and Maynard-Zhang
In rejecting claim 10, the Examiner finds Walczak discloses the claimed
subject matter except for the claimed "advertisement parameters include[ing]
user profiling data acquired based on unlimited monitoring of user behavior"
(emphasis added). Final Act. 4--5. The Examiner finds "Maynard-Zhang
discloses tailoring advertising campaigns to groups of users based on their
behavior such as purchase history, browser behavior and click-stream data ...
[ w ]here targeted ad campaigns are directed to users based on their web
behavior." Id. at 5 (emphases added) (citing Maynard-Zhang, 1:8-12, 5:36-
49, 5:58---62, 11: 13-15, 11:34--37). The Examiner determines it would have
been obvious "to modify Walczak to include having ad parameters include
user behavior as doing so allows advertisers to target their ad campaigns
based on specific user behavior patterns, thereby implementing a more
effective ad campaign." Id. at 5---6 (emphasis added) (citing Maynard-Zhang,
1:15-23).
Appellant argues the Examiner errs in finding Maynard-Zhang discloses
the claimed "unlimited" monitoring of user behavior. Appeal Br. 12-15.
Appellant contends "Maynard-Zhang discloses, at best, limited monitoring of
a particular website - not the unlimited monitoring required by" claim 10.
Id. at 13. According to Appellant, Maynard-Zhang's service provider 110
"monitor[s] a user's behavior on only a particular website," "[b]y requiring
6
Appeal2014-006292
Application 12/328,679
users to log-in to a website in order to monitor that user." Id. (citing
Maynard-Zhang, 3:41--45, 5:50-54, 11:38--40). Appellant contrasts such
disclosure with the Specification of the application on appeal, which
Appellant contends "shows that the limited monitoring of a user's activity on
a particular website simply cannot be unlimited monitoring." Id. at 13-14
(citing Spec. i-fi-1 45--46).
The Examiner responds that Maynard-Zhang classifies "a user group
for a potential user based on a network address obtained from the potential
user's activity," wherein the user group is determined to obtain campaign
information targeting the user group based on user attributes. Ans. 2. 3
Further according to the Examiner, Maynard-Zhang's "decision tree reflects
a relationship between a network address and a user attribute of a 'known
user,"' which "refers to a user whose identity is recognized by a network
service and thus user profile information of the user is available," and is
used "to predict a user attribute of a potential user whose identity has not
been recognized by a network service." Id. at 3. The Examiner also finds
the user attributes may include "a geographic location of user's device, a
membership to a particular network community, Internet service provider
(ISP) information, company, household income correlated with geographic
location, or network connection related information such as dialup, cable, or
mobile, etc." Id. at 4.
3 Throughout the Answer, the Examiner's citations to Maynard-Zhang refer
to paragraph numbers. Maynard-Zhang, however, is an issued United States
Patent, indexed by column and line numbers rather than paragraph numbers.
Further, the corresponding application (No. 11/771,679) was not published
prior to issuance. So, it is not clear what document the Examiner is citing.
7
Appeal2014-006292
Application 12/328,679
We are persuaded a preponderance of the evidence does not support
the Examiner's finding that Maynard-Zhang discloses the claimed
"unlimited" monitoring of user behavior. Appellant's Specification states:
"By having the ability to monitor all data requested ('unlimited monitoring')
by mobile device 202, the user profiling data stored at storage device 114 is
not limited to a user's interactions with a specific website ('unlimited web
content')." Spec. i-f 45 (emphases added). Appellant's Specification thereby
establishes that even a broadest reasonable interpretation of "unlimited"
monitoring cannot include monitoring of user behavior at only a single
website.
We can find no disclosure in Maynard-Zhang to indicate that the
monitoring of the behavior of known users performed by network service
provider 110 extends outside of the known users' interaction with network
service provider 110 itself. For example, the "Background" portion of
Maynard-Zhang indicates:
Many network-based services want to attract potential users by
providing relevant advertising or other meaningful information
targeting the potential users. This is particularly true when
potential users visit and interact with the network-based service,
e.g., via a website for the network-based service. While potential
users are interacting with the website, the well-targeted
information can lead those potential users to request network
services that are conveniently accessible via the website.
Generally, each interaction or "click" on the website can
provide some information (hereinafter "clickstream data'')
about a potential user ....
Maynard-Zhang, 1 :27-39 (emphases added). This description discloses
monitoring of user behavior on the website of the network-based service, but
not user behavior on other websites. Maynard-Zhang further discloses:
8
Appeal2014-006292
Application 12/328,679
As shown in FIG. 2A, the service provider [110] obtains a first
set of sample data ... collected from "clickstream data" provided
by the service provider 110. "Clickstream data" refers to visitor
logs and statistics that provide information about the user's
interaction with a network-based service without identifying the
user.
Id. at 5:36-43; see also id. at 9:52-62 and 10:49-51 (substantially same
disclosure). This description similarly does not disclose monitoring of user
behavior on websites other than that of network service provider 110.
We appreciate Maynard-Zhang discloses monitoring many different
kinds of user behaviors or at least user attributes, including the users' sex,
age, purchase history, network address, geographic location, network
community membership, company, household income, network connection
type, and browser behavior. Maynard-Zhang, 1: 15-23, 3:5-13, 4:2-9, 5:43-
6:2, 11 :31-38. We further appreciate Maynard-Zhang states "[t]he source of
the [known user] sample data can be a service provider, a third-party service
provider, or the like." iviaynard-Zhang, 4: 10-11, 9:52-53. Nonetheless, as
discussed above, the claimed "unlimited" monitoring of user behavior refers
to monitoring "all data requested" by the user's mobile device 202 as the
user surfs the Internet (Spec. i-f 45), which is not disclosed by Maynard-
Zhang.
For the foregoing reasons, we do not sustain the rejection of
independent claim 10 as unpatentable over Walczak and Maynard-Zhang.
Independent claims 14, 28, 37, 50, and 51 each similarly require unlimited
monitoring of user behavior. Appeal Br. 21-22, 24--25, 27, 30-32 (Claims
App.). We, therefore, do not sustain the rejection of claims 10, 14, 28, 37,
50, and 51, and their respective dependent claims 11-13, 15-18, 29-36, and
38--47, as unpatentable over Walczak and Maynard-Zhang.
9
Appeal2014-006292
Application 12/328,679
DECISION
The Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-51 is reversed.
REVERSED
10