Ex Parte Canney et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 25, 2017

14102265 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 25, 2017)

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.
14/102,265 12/10/2013 Jason Canney CAN-0006 4158
50437 7590 10/27/2017
DUFT BORNSEN & FETTIG, LLP
1526 SPRUCE STREET
SUITE 302
BOULDER, CO 80302
EXAMINER
LI, SUSAN X
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2423
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/27/2017 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):
docketing @ dbflaw. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JASON CANNEY, JOEL HASSELL, SID GREGORY,
TOM HUBER, CHRIS PIZZURRO, STEVE MARKEL,
JONATHAN E. FARB, THOMAS M. MORETTO, BRUCE C. DILGER,
TIMOTHY R. WHITTON and CHRISTOPHER M. RIPPE
Appeal 2017-002720
Application 14/102,265
Technology Center 2400
Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR, JOHN F. HORVATH, and
KEVIN C. TROCK, Administrative Patent Judges.
WHITEHEAD JR., Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants are appealing the Final Rejection of claims 1—15 under
35 U.S.C. § 134(a). Appeal Brief 10-17. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2012).
We reverse.
Introduction
The invention is directed to “the field of Content On Demand (COD)
systems and more specifically to the auctioning and insertion of assets, such
as advertisements, into COD content.” Specification, paragraph 2.
Appeal 2017-002720
Application 14/102,265
Illustrative Claim (disputed limitations emphasized)
6. A method for directing Content On Demand (COD) asset insertion,
the method comprising:
processing information, from a content distributer, about a COD
content selection by a Customer Premises Equipment (CPE);
processing information about a plurality of assets from a plurality of
asset providers;
ranking the assets based in part on the COD content selection
information and the asset information;
identifying one or more of the ranked assets for insertion into the
COD content selection;
directing a content distributer to insert the identified one or more
ranked assets into the COD content selection;
identifying an asset placement opportunity remaining in the COD
content selection after identifying the one or more ranked assets for
insertion; and
auctioning the asset placement opportunity to the asset providers.
Rejection on Appeal1 2
Claims 1—15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Gilbane (U.S. Patent Application Publication
2011/0295700 Al; published December 1, 2011) and Zschocke (U.S. Patent
Application Publication 2010/0138290 Al; published June 3, 2010).
Answer 4—16.
1 The 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection was withdrawn by the Examiner. Answer 3.
2
Appeal 2017-002720
Application 14/102,265
ANALYSIS
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner,
we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed July 5, 2016), the Reply Brief (filed
November 22, 2016), the Answer (mailed November 21, 2016 and
December 27, 2016) and the Final Rejection (mailed January 8, 2016) for
the respective details.2
Appellants contend claim 6 describes a two phase process. Appeal
Brief 12. Appellants contend that “assets (e.g., advertisements) are ranked
and chosen for insertion into COD content (e.g., a movie)” in the first phase
and the “remaining asset opportunities (i.e., those remaining after the first
phase has completed) are auctioned after the ranked assets have already
been identified for insertion” occurs in the second phase. Appeal Brief 12.
The Examiner finds Gilbane discloses the claimed first phase of
ranking based asset insertion in Figure 3, paragraphs 59 and 50. Answer 17.
Gilbane’s Figure 3 is reproduced below:
2 The Appeal Brief was filed on July 5, 2016. The first Examiner’s Answer
was mailed on November 21, 2016. The Reply Brief was filed on November
22, 2016. The second or subsequent Examiner’s Answer was mailed on
December 27, 2016 because the first Examiner’s Answer indicated the
incorrect Appeal Brief date on the Examiner’s Answer coversheet and an
Information Disclosure Statement was not addressed by the Examiner. The
second Examiner’s Answer coversheet indicates the Appeal Brief was filed
on January 8, 2016 instead of July 5, 2016.
3
Appeal 2017-002720
Application 14/102,265
Figure 3 is a flow diagram that describes example techniques for auctioning
segmented avails3 that may be implemented. Gilbane, paragraphs 44 and 45.
The Examiner finds “step 304 teaches identifying the ranked assets,
and step 306 teaches inserting the identified assets into the content selection.
Therefore, step 304 and step 306 together would teach the first phase.”
Answer 17.
The Examiner further finds Zschocke discloses in Figure 19,
paragraph 223 one half of the claimed second phase. Answer 17.
Zschocke’s Figure 19 is reproduced below:
3 “Content distributed by a network operator to clients, including satellite
radio, streaming media over the Internet, digital cable television
programming, and so on can be configured to contain advertisement
insertion opportunities that are referred to as ‘avails.’” Gilbane, paragraph
1.
4
Appeal 2017-002720
Application 14/102,265
iI
1
I
ii
I
II
I
i DETERMINE WINNING
\ CAMPAIGN FROy EUGiBLE
! 0«PAiGNS h"
YES /ANOTHER
SPOT
Figure 19 discloses a process for implementing just-in-time automated
auction employing UED (user equipment device) voting. Zschocke,
paragraphs 222—223.
The Examiner finds one half of the second phase of the claimed
invention is disclosed because “between the step 1910 and 1912, the
available ‘distribution opportunity’ is recognized, and the ‘remaining
distribution opportunities’ in the loop is equivalent to the ‘remaining asset
placement opportunity’.” Answer 17.
5
Appeal 2017-002720
Application 14/102,265
The Examiner finds Gilbane discloses in Figure 1, paragraphs 31—33
the other half of the second phase of the claimed invention. Answer 18.
Gilbane’s Figure 1 is reproduced below:
Figure 1 discloses an operating environment operable to employ techniques
for auctioning segmented avails. Gilbane, paragraph 15.
The Examiner finds Gilbane discloses the other half of the claimed
second phase because:
To conduct auctions for the avails 130, ad manager module
128 can be configured to make use of auction parameters 132
and bid data 134. The auction parameters 132 are
representative of a variety of data that can be employed to
control the manner in which auctions are conducted. Here, it
clearly teaches how the system 102 can auction the avails to the
advertisers 106.
6
Appeal 2017-002720
Application 14/102,265
Answer 18.
Appellants argue “every asset opportunity (‘avail’ of Gilbane) is filled
based on the outcome of an auction, and none of the avails are filled as part
of a separate ranking process occurring prior to the auction. Gilbane does not
explain how or why a ranking process would be used instead of an auction
when placing certain assets.” Appeal Brief 13. We find Appellants’
arguments persuasive. We note, however, that the Specification does not
provide definitive criteria for the claimed process of “ranking the assets.”
The Specification discloses in paragraph 9:
The COD asset insertion decision system is operable to rank the
assets based in part on the COD content selection information
and the asset information, to identity one or more of the ranked
assets for insertion into the COD content selection, and to direct
the content distributer to insert the identified one or more ranked
assets into the COD content selection.
The Specification further discloses in paragraph 29, “the COD asset
insertion decision system 101 may rank the assets of the asset providers 130
in a manner that provides the most value to the content providers.”
Appellants further argue:
Zschocke does disclose various forms of asset auctioning for on-
demand content (see e.g., 1 [0154] - [0221] of Zschocke). In this
regard, Zschocke is similar to Gilbane. But, Zschocke performs
no ranking. And, the Examiner’s cited portion of Zschocke is
again tied to auctions, and not inserting assets prior to an auction.
Specifically, 1 [0223] of Zschocke focuses upon analyzing the
size of an audience for an asset campaign, and then using this
information in order to configure an auction.
Appeal Brief 15.
We find the claimed process of “ranking the assets” to be broad in
light of the Specification. We find, however, Appellants’ arguments
7
Appeal 2017-002720
Application 14/102,265
persuasive because, “Neither Gilbane nor Zschocke discuss the concept of
ranking assets, (e.g., commercials), deciding how to insert those assets into
COD content (e.g., a video), and then identifying remaining asset
opportunities (e.g., timeslots) within the COD for auctioning off as part of a
separate auction process.” Appeal Brief 12.
We reverse the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of independent
claim 6, independent claims 1 and 11 commensurate in scope, and dependent
claims 2—5, 7—10, and 12—15.
DECISION
The Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 1—15 is reversed.
REVERSED
8