Ex Parte Ducati et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 10, 2012

11021254 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 10, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE 1
___________ 2
3
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS 4
AND INTERFERENCES 5
___________ 6
7
Ex parte DONATA DUCATI and MATTHIAS KAMMERER 8
___________ 9
10
Appeal 2011-002265 11
Application 11/021,254 12
Technology Center 3600 13
___________ 14
15
16
Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, ANTON W. FETTING, and 17
MICHAEL W. KIM, Administrative Patent Judges. 18
19
FETTING, Administrative Patent Judge. 20
21
22
DECISION ON APPEAL 23
24
Appeal 2011-002265
Application 11/021,254

2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE1 1
Donata Ducati and Matthias Kammerer (Appellants) seek review 2
under 35 U.S.C. § 134 (2002) of a final rejection of claims 1-15 and 21-25, 3
the only claims pending in the application on appeal. We have jurisdiction 4
over the appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2002). 5
The Appellants invented a way of determining the target readership of 6
a document with a profiling tool and a marking tool. The profiling tool 7
receives a source document and a readership profile, and applies the 8
readership profile to the source document to generate a profiled document. 9
The readership profile specifies one or more target readerships, the source 10
document includes one or more portions of readership-specific content that 11
is specific to a particular readership. (Spec. 1:5-18). 12
An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of 13
exemplary claim 1, which is reproduced below [bracketed matter and some 14
paragraphing added]. 15
1. A system comprising: 16
[1] a computer-readable storage medium having instructions 17
stored thereon; 18
and 19
[2] one or more processors communicating with the computer-20
readable storage medium, which execute the instructions to 21
perform operations comprising: 22
[3] executing a profiling tool program that is operable to: 23
[4] receive a source document and a readership 24
profile, 25
and 26

1 Our decision will make reference to the Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“App.
Br.,” filed July 21, 2010) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed November 15,
2010), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed September 20, 2010).
Appeal 2011-002265
Application 11/021,254

3

[5] apply the readership profile to the source 1
document 2
to generate a profiled document, 3
the readership profile specifying one or 4
more target readerships, 5
the source document including one or more 6
portions of readership-specific content 7
each of which is specific to a 8
particular readership, 9
the profiled document including only those 10
portions of readership-specific content that 11
is [sic] specific to any of the target 12
readerships; 13
and 14
[6] executing a marking tool program that is operable to: 15
[7] receive the profiled document from the 16
profiling tool program, 17
[8] determine that more than one target readership 18
has been specified in the readership profile; 19
and 20
[9] mark each portion of readership-specific 21
content in the profiled document 22
to identify the readership to which the 23
content is specific, 24
when it is determined that more than 25
one target readership has been 26
specified in the readership profile. 27
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art: 28
Philippe US 6,643,624 B2 Nov. 4, 2003 29
Gottfurcht US 2006/0229930 A9 Oct. 12, 2006 30
31
Anonymous, Web users can personalize their own Yahoo! Online 32
service, 13 Information Today, 51 (Sept. 1996) (hereinafter "Yahoo"). 33
MyYahoo! 34
(http://web.archive.org/web/19981212015816/my.yahoo.com/) (last 35
visited Jul. 29, 2009) (hereinafter "MyYahoo"). 36
Appeal 2011-002265
Application 11/021,254

4

Claims 1-4, 7, 9-11, 14, and 21-23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 1
103(a) as unpatentable over Yahoo and MyYahoo. 2
Claims 5, 8, 12, 15, and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as 3
unpatentable over Yahoo, MyYahoo, and Gottfurcht. 4
Claims 6, 13, and 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as 5
unpatentable over Yahoo, MyYahoo, and Philippe. 6
ISSUES 7
The issues of obviousness turn primarily on whether Yahoo shows 8
determining that more than one target readership has been specified in the 9
readership profile; and marking each portion of readership-specific content 10
in the profiled document to identify the readership to which the content is 11
specific, when it is determined that more than one target readership has been 12
specified in the readership profile. 13
FACTS PERTINENT TO THE ISSUES 14
The following enumerated Findings of Fact (FF) are believed to be 15
supported by a preponderance of the evidence. 16
Facts Related to the Prior Art 17
Yahoo 18
01. Yahoo is directed to Yahoo’s introduced new service that directly 19
delivers a user's favorite World Wide Web sites, news, and 20
content feeds from Yahoo's comprehensive guide. The new 21
service, called MyYahoo, notifies users of new Web sites and 22
news related to their interests. 23
02. MyYahoo benefits users by "narrowcasting" directly to them. 24
Users receive news they care about, weather, sports news, Web 25
Appeal 2011-002265
Application 11/021,254

5

sites in their interest areas, and frequently accessed resources like 1
a white pages or yellow pages directory or a mapping application. 2
03. With this targeting of individual user interests, MyYahoo is able 3
to provide valuable insight about audiences to advertisers. 4
MyYahoo can deliver viewers who match an exact profile of an 5
advertiser's target customer. 6
MyYahoo 7
04. MyYahoo is directed to a set of headlines filtered to match those 8
set up by a reader’s customization. MyYahoo:Headlines. 9
05. Each of the different sets of headlines to be displayed are 10
determined by the HTML heading for those headlines. 11
MyYahoo:Individual underlined headline headings. 12
ANALYSIS 13
The independent claims simply create a profiled document from a 14
source document and readership profiles where different portions of the 15
profiled document indicate different things related to readership. 16
We are not persuaded by the Appellants’ argument that Yahoo fails to 17
show determining that more than one target readership has been specified in 18
the readership profile; and marking each portion of readership-specific 19
content in the profiled document to identify the readership to which the 20
content is specific, when it is determined that more than one target 21
readership has been specified in the readership profile. Appeal Br. 11-14. 22
The claims do not limit the nature or manner of determining and 23
marking, so Yahoo’s use of HTML tags to delineate readership-specific 24
portions is within the scope of the claims. Similarly, the claims do not 25
Appeal 2011-002265
Application 11/021,254

6

define readership, so readership may be any attribute relating to lexical (i.e., 1
reading type) content, within whose scope Yahoo’s different headings would 2
fit. 3
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 4
The rejection of claims 1-4, 7, 9-11, 14, and 21-23 under 35 U.S.C. § 5
103(a) as unpatentable over Yahoo and MyYahoo is proper. 6
The rejection of claims 5, 8, 12, 15, and 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) 7
as unpatentable over Yahoo, MyYahoo, and Gottfurcht is proper. 8
The rejection of claims 6, 13, and 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as 9
unpatentable over Yahoo, MyYahoo, and Philippe is proper. 10
DECISION 11
The rejections of claims 1-15 and 21-25 is affirmed. 12
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with 13
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. 14
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2011). 15
16
AFFIRMED 17
18
19
20
21
hh 22