Ex Parte Gupta et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 11, 2013

11712276 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 11, 2013)

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.
11/712,276 02/28/2007 Arvind Gupta 12729/232 (Y01389US01) 3447
56020 7590 04/12/2013
BRINKS HOFER GILSON & LIONE / YAHOO! OVERTURE
P.O. BOX 10395
CHICAGO, IL 60610
EXAMINER
MYHRE, JAMES W
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3682
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/12/2013 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte ARVIND GUPTA, KENTA UMEZU,
SEAN P. WALKER,
and
IAN B. BRAYSHAW
____________

Appeal 2011-007229
Application 11/712,276
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before: MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, ANTON W. FETTING, and
MICHAEL W. KIM, Administrative Patent Judges.

KIM, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2011-007229
Application 11/712,276

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 1-211. We have
jurisdiction to review the case under 35 U.S.C. §§ 134 and 6.
The invention relates generally to a system, for serving advertisements
over mobile devices, and more particularly, but not exclusively, to serving
advertisements targeted to mobile devices of specified carriers (Spec., para.
[0002]).
Claim 1, reproduced below, is further illustrative of the claimed
subject matter.
1. A method for serving advertisements over mobile
devices, comprising:
identifying a request from a mobile device connected to a
mobile network;
determining a mobile network operator of the mobile
network to which the mobile device is connected;
identifying, by a processor, an advertisement targeted to
the request and the mobile network operator; and
serving the advertisement to the mobile device.

Claims 15-17, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Wang (US 6,822,663 B2; iss. Nov. 23, 2004).
Claims 1-14, 18, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Wang and Altberg (US 7,120,235 B2; iss. Oct. 10,
2006).

1 Our decision will make reference to the Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“App.
Br.,” filed Oct. 27, 2010) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed Mar. 15,
2011), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed Jan. 18, 2011).
Appeal 2011-007229
Application 11/712,276

3
We AFFIRM.
ISSUES
Did the Examiner err in asserting that Wang discloses “determines the
mobile carrier data relating to a mobile carrier the mobile device is on,” as
recited in independent claim 15?
Did the Examiner err in asserting that a combination of Wang and
Altberg suggests “determining a mobile network operator of the mobile
network to which the mobile device is connected,” as recited in independent
claim 1? Independent claims 8 and 21 recite similar aspects.

FINDINGS OF FACT
Specification
1. The Specification does not provide a lexicographic definition of
either “mobile carrier data” or “mobile network operator.”
2. The Specification discloses SPRINT as an example of a mobile
network operator (para. [0040]).

Wang
3. Wang discloses designing, creating, and transforming webpages
for display on PCs, mobile phone devices, PDA devices, and television set-
top boxes (col. 1, ll. 57-60; col. 2, ll. 30-34).

ANALYSIS
Obviousness Rejection of Independent Claim 15
We are not persuaded the Examiner erred in asserting that Wang
discloses “determines the mobile carrier data relating to a mobile carrier the
Appeal 2011-007229
Application 11/712,276

4
mobile device is on,” as recited in independent claim 15 (App. Br. 4-6;
Reply Br. 4-5). After carefully considering Appellants’ arguments, we agree
with and adopt the Examiner’s findings and rationales concerning
independent claim 15, as set forth on page 11 of the Examiner’s Answer. In
particular, independent claim 15 recites “determines the mobile carrier data
relating to a mobile carrier the mobile device is on” (emphasis added). The
Specification does not provide a lexicographic definition of “mobile carrier
data.” Accordingly, by only using express claim terms, we construe “mobile
carrier data” as any information related to “a mobile carrier the mobile
device is on.” Wang discloses designing, creating, and transforming
webpages for display on PCs, mobile phone devices, PDA devices, and
television set-top boxes (col. 1, ll. 57-60; col. 2, ll. 30-34). Displaying the
web pages on those devices requires a determination of the type of device
being used by the consumer. We agree with the Examiner that this
determination of the type of device being used by the consumer corresponds
to information or “mobile carrier data relating to a mobile carrier the mobile
device is on.”

Obviousness Rejection of Independent Claims 1, 8, and 21
We are not persuaded the Examiner erred in asserting that a
combination of Wang and Altberg suggests “determining a mobile network
operator of the mobile network to which the mobile device is connected,” as
recited in independent claim 1 (App. Br. 6-7; Reply Br. 5-6). Independent
claims 8 and 21 recite similar aspects (App. Br. 7-11; Reply Br. 6-7). After
carefully considering Appellants’ arguments, we agree with and adopt the
Examiner’s findings and rationales concerning independent claims 1, 8, and
Appeal 2011-007229
Application 11/712,276

5
21, as set forth on page 12-14 of the Examiner’s Answer. The Specification
does not provide a lexicographic definition of “mobile network operator.”
The Specification does disclose SPRINT as an example of a mobile network
operator, but does not disclose the specifics of SPRINT’s relationship with
the mobile device. Accordingly, by only using express claim terms, we
construe “a mobile network operator” as any operator of any network to
which the mobile device is connected. Altberg discloses delivering
advertisements based on consumer subscriptions to at least three channel
operators SBC, QwestDex, and Ingenio, of which at least SBC (now AT&T)
is a known mobile network operator (col. 6, ll. 12-24). Determining a
consumer subscription to these channels on a mobile device, as disclosed in
Altberg, corresponds to determining any operator of any network to which
the mobile device is connected. The same analysis applies to independent
claims 8 and 21.

DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-21 is AFFIRMED.
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

hh