Ex Parte Holt et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Nov 9, 2010

11428088 (B.P.A.I. Nov. 9, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte ALEXANDER W. HOLT, WILLIAM J. HUNT III,
JOSEPH M. LOPATKA, MICHAEL E. MORAN,
and JEFFREY S. SCHAFFER
____________

Appeal 2009-015171
Application 11/428,088
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before HOWARD B. BLANKENSHIP, JEAN R. HOMERE, and
JAMES R. HUGHES, Administrative Patent Judges.

BLANKENSHIP, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, or for filing a request for rehearing,
as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the “MAIL DATE”
(paper delivery mode) or the “NOTIFICATION DATE” (electronic delivery
mode) shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision.
Appeal 2009-015171
Application 11/428,088

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1-30 and 32, which are all the claims remaining in the
application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

Invention
Appellants’ invention relates to a system and method for adaptively
selecting content items to be displayed to users visiting a web portal. A
content selection system selects a content item from a set of content items to
display to a user based on a profile of the user and a set of business value
scores associated with the set of content items. A data collection system
collects performance metrics for users presented with the content items. An
initialization system generates an initial set of business value scores. A
business value generator adaptively modifies the set of business value scores
over time based on the performance metrics. Abstract.

Representative Claim
1. A web portal having an adaptive content
management system for selectively displaying content to users,
comprising:

a content selection system for selecting a content item
from a set of content items to display to a user based on a
profile of the user and a set of business value scores associated
with the set of content items, wherein each business value score
is based on a financial impact of an associated content item;

a data collection system for collecting performance
metrics for users presented with the content items;
Appeal 2009-015171
Application 11/428,088

3

an initialization system for generating an initial set of
business value scores; and

a business value generator for adaptively modifying the
set of business value scores over time based on the performance
metrics.

Examiner’s Rejections
Claims 1-30 and 32 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Heckerman (US 7,370,002 B2) and Tamayo (US
6,836,773 B2).

Claim Groupings
In view of Appellants’ arguments in the Appeal Brief, we will decide
the appeal on the basis of claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).

FINDINGS OF FACT
We rely on the findings made by the Examiner in the Final Rejection
and the Examiner’s Answer.

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
Claim Interpretation
During examination, claims are to be given their broadest reasonable
interpretation consistent with the specification, and the language should be
read in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary
skill in the art. In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed.
Cir. 2004) (citations omitted). The Office must apply the broadest
Appeal 2009-015171
Application 11/428,088

4
reasonable meaning to the claim language, taking into account any
definitions presented in the specification. Id. (citations omitted).

ANALYSIS
Appellants contend that the combination of Heckerman and Tamayo
does not teach “each business value score is based on a financial impact of
an associated content item” as recited in claim 1. Br. 5. In particular,
Appellants contend that Heckerman’s teachings are limited to selecting an
advertisement based on a response probability of an ad, not on the financial
impact of the ad itself. According to Appellants, financial impact and
response probability are distinct non-overlapping items. Br. 5-6. Appellants
conclude that the “response probability” taught by Heckerman does not
teach a “business value score” that “is based on a financial impact” as
recited in claim 1. Br. 6-7.
The Examiner finds that Appellants’ argument is based on the false
premise that advertising has no financial impact on a company. Ans. 18.
The Examiner also finds that advertisements are a form of communication
used by businesses to persuade customers to make a purchase, and are
therefore tied to the financial impact of a company. Ans. 16. The Examiner
concludes that each response probability of Heckerman, which is used to
increase the chance of presenting an advertisement to a user that is relevant
to the user’s needs, is a “business value score based on a financial impact of
an associated content item” within the meaning of claim 1. Ans. 16-19.
Appellants have not presented persuasive argument or evidence to
rebut the Examiner’s finding that advertising financially impacts a company.
Nor have Appellants responded to the Examiner’s finding that presenting
Appeal 2009-015171
Application 11/428,088

5
advertisements relevant to a customer’s needs yields a positive financial
impact to the company. Appellants have also not presented evidence to
support their contention that “financial impact” and “response probability”
are distinct non-overlapping terms. Further, Appellants have not provided a
definition for “business value score” or “financial impact of an associated
content item” in the Specification or the claim that excludes the response
probabilities used to choose advertisements relevant to a customer’s needs as
taught by Heckerman. Therefore, we agree with the Examiner’s findings
and conclusion.
We thus sustain the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for
the reasons given by the Examiner. Claims 2 through 30 and 32 fall with
claim 1.

DECISION
The rejection of claims 1-30 and 32 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Heckerman and Tamayo 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.
§ 41.50(f).

AFFIRMED

Appeal 2009-015171
Application 11/428,088

6

msc

HOFFMAN WARNICK LLC
75 STATE ST
14 FL
ALBANY NY 12207