Ex Parte Chatwin et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jan 6, 2012

11477194 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 6, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte RICHARD EDWARD CHATWIN, AYMAN OMAR FARAHAT,
SCOTT CAMPBELL JOHNSTON, and MATTHEW MCEACHEN
____________

Appeal 2010-011392
Application 11/477,194
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before: ANTON W. FETTING, MEREDITH C. PETRAVICK, and
MICHAEL W. KIM, Administrative Patent Judges.

KIM, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2010-011392
Application 11/477,194

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 40-69. We have
jurisdiction to review the case under 35 U.S.C. §§ 134 and 6 (2002).
The claimed invention is directed to generating target bids for one or
more keywords associated with one or more advertisement groups
comprising one or more advertisements (Spec. [0002]). Claim 40,
reproduced below, is further illustrative of the claimed subject matter.
40. A method comprising:
accessing by one or more computer systems advertising
information that comprises:
a plurality of keywords that each correspond to an
advertising group; and
a plurality of advertising metric values, each of the
keywords corresponding to a particular advertising
metric value for each of a plurality of advertising metrics;
generating by the one or more computer systems a
keyword bid for a first one of the keywords by:
based on the particular advertising metric values
corresponding to the first keyword for first particular ones of
the advertising metrics:
calculating a target cost for the first keyword
representing a desired profit margin for the first keyword;
and
calculating a bid-cost delta for the first keyword
representing a weighted average difference between the
bid and the cost associated with the first keyword; and
combining the target cost for the first keyword with the
bid-cost delta for the first keyword;
generating by the one or more computer systems an
advertising-group bid for the advertising group by:
for each of second particular ones of the advertising
metrics, averaging the particular advertising metric values
corresponding to two or more second ones of the keywords for
the second particular advertising metric;
based on the averages:
Appeal 2010-011392
Application 11/477,194

3
calculating a target cost for the advertising group
representing a desired profit for the advertising group;
and
calculating a bid-cost delta for the advertising
group representing a weighted average difference
between the bid and the cost associated with the
advertising group; and
combining the target cost for the advertising group with
the bid-cost delta for the advertising group; and
communicating by the one or more computer systems the
keyword bid for the first keyword and the advertising-group bid
for the advertising group for use in bidding on placement of one
or more advertisements associated with the first keyword or the
advertising group.

Claims 60-69 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for failing to recite
statutory subject matter; and claims 40-69 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Weitzman in view of Bezos, Gerace, and
Horowitz.
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.

References Relied on by the Examiner
Weitzman US 2002/00990605 A1 Jul. 25, 2002
Bezos US 6,606,608 B1 Aug. 12, 2003
Horowitz US 2005/0097204 A1 May 5, 2005
Gerace US 2006/0282328 A1 Dec. 14, 2006

ISSUE
Did the Examiner err in asserting that claims 60-69 fail to recite
statutory subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101? The issue turns on whether
the “computer readable storage media” recited in independent claim 60
includes signals.
Appeal 2010-011392
Application 11/477,194

4
Did the Examiner err in asserting that a combination of Weitzman,
Bezos, Gerace, and Horowitz renders obvious independent claim 401. The
issue turns on whether Gerace discloses “representing a weighted average
difference between the bid and the cost associated with the first keyword,”
as recited in independent claim 40.

FINDINGS OF FACT
Specification
FF1. The Specification discloses that the terms “machine readable
medium,” “computer program medium” and “computer usable medium” are
used to generally refer to media such as a random access memory (RAM); a
read only memory (ROM); a removable storage unit (e.g., a magnetic or
optical disc, flash memory device, or the like); a hard disk; electronic,
electromagnetic, optical, acoustical, or other form of propagated signals
(e.g., carrier waves, infrared signals, digital signals, etc.); or the like
([0103]).
FF2. Media is the plural of medium (Merriam Webster’s Collegiate
Dictionary, 11th Edition, 2007 p. 771).

Gerace
FF3. Gerace discloses an ad placement system where multiple
advertisers each place a bid for the maximum amount they would be willing
to pay for a click-through. The bid amounts are then multiplied by an
expected click-through-rate for each ad to arrive at an expected value. The

1 We choose independent claim 40 as representative, pursuant to our
authority under 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
Appeal 2010-011392
Application 11/477,194

5
expected value then determines ad placement priority, and the actual amount
charged to each advertiser is then adjusted based on the respective maximum
amounts, the expected values, and the actual ad placements ([0118], [0119],
[0144]-[0149]).
FF4. Gerace discloses creating an adjusted click rate for a new ad put
into rotation by “blending” the assumed click through rate with the real rate
using a weighted average until enough impressions are received. As the
number of impressions increases, the adjusted click rate approaches the
actual click rate, but gives the ad a fair chance to be displayed before the ad
targeting system has any data about it ([0151]).

ANALYSIS
101 Rejection
We are not persuaded the Examiner erred in asserting that claims 60-
69 fail to recite statutory subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101 (App. Br. 31-
32; Reply Br. 2-3). Appellants assert that claims 60-69 recite “one or more
computer-readable storage media embodying software,” which necessarily
excludes a transitory, propagating signal like those in In re Nuitjen, 500 F.3d
1346, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Appellants then assert that the Specification
recites “medium” as including a signals, but not “media” as claimed. We do
not find either argument persuasive. Addressing the second assertion first,
“media” is merely the plural form of “medium” (FF2). Indeed, the
Specification itself discloses that “[medium] are used to generally refer to
media” (FF1). Accordingly, whether referred to as “medium” or “media,”
the Specification explicitly discloses that both include propagated signals in
contravention of Nuitjen.
Appeal 2010-011392
Application 11/477,194

6

103 Rejection
We are persuaded the Examiner erred in asserting that a combination
of Weitzman, Bezos, Gerace, and Horowitz renders obvious independent
claim 40 (App. Br. 37; Reply Br. 5-6).
Independent claim 40 recites “representing a weighted average
difference between the bid and the cost associated with the first keyword.”
The Examiner admits that neither Weitzman nor Bezos disclose these
aspects, and then cites Gerace for remedying this deficiency ( Ans. 5-6, 34-
35).
Gerace discloses “bid-cost delta” or a “difference between the bid and
the cost associated with the first keyword” (FF3). Gerace also discloses
weighted averaging (FF4). However, the weighted averaging in Gerace is
for determining an adjusted click-through-rate, which is then used to convert
maximum bid amounts into actual amounts charged, the difference between
which represents the bid-cost delta (FF3, FF4).
Accordingly, while Gerace discloses using weighted averaging to
determine the bid-cost delta, Gerace does not disclose a weighted averaging
of the bid-cost delta itself, as recited in independent claim 40. Expressed as
a mathematical function, the art would show (bid – AVG(cost)) whereas the
claim requires AVG(bid-cost). The Examiner gave no reason for one of
ordinary skill to use the second formula after that person found the first
formula in the art.

DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 60-69 under 35 U.S.C.
Appeal 2010-011392
Application 11/477,194

7
§ 101 is AFFIRMED.
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 40-69 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) is REVERSED.
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).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

MP