Ex Parte Karidi et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 19, 2018

12967394 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 19, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/967,394 12/14/2010
45809 7590 07/23/2018
SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L.L.P.
(MICROSOFT TECHNOLOGY LICENSING, LLC)
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DEPARTMENT
2555 GRAND BOULEVARD
KANSAS CITY, MO 64108-2613
Ron J. Karidi
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
330911.01/MFCP.157453 1529
EXAMINER
VANDERHORST, MARIA VICTORIA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3688
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/23/2018 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):
IPDOCKET@SHB.COM
IPRCDKT@SHB.COM
usdocket@microsoft.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte RON J. KARIDI, MOSHE TENNENHOL TZ, and
ROY V ARSHA VSKY
Appeal2017-002391
Application 12/967,394
Technology Center 3600
Before JOHN A. EV ANS, JAMES W. DEJMEK, and JASON M. REPKO,
Administrative Patent Judges.
REPKO, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
rejection of claims 1-20. Br. 4. 2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ).
We reverse.
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Microsoft Technology
Licensing, LLC, the assignee of record, which is a subsidiary of Microsoft
Corporation, a corporation of the State of Washington, United States of
America. Br. 4.
2 Throughout this opinion, we refer to the Final Rejection ("Final Act.")
mailed July 16, 2015; the Appeal Brief ("Br.") filed April 5, 2016; and the
Examiner's Answer ("Ans.") mailed September 22, 2016.
Appeal2017-002391
Application 12/967,394
THE INVENTION
Appellants' invention generally relates to bidding agents in a real-time
bidding process for online advertisements. Spec. ,r 3. The invention
integrates two types of bidders in a single system: real-time bidders and
reserved bidders. Abstract.
Claim 1 is reproduced below:
1. One or more computer storage hardware devices storing
computer-executable instructions that, when executed by one or
more computing devices each having a processor and a memory,
cause the one or more computing devices to perform a method
for integrating reserved advertisement allocations and dynamic
advertisement allocations, the method comprising:
receiving a request from a first advertiser to
purchase a reserved allocation of advertisement
impressions (impressions), wherein an impression is a
single displayed instance of an online advertisement, the
impression having one or more attributes describing a user
to whom the impression will be displayed (attributes), and
wherein the request to purchase a reserved
allocation of impressions specifies a number of
impressions requested by the first advertiser that each have
one or more attributes requested by the first advertiser;
receiving one or more bids from an external bidding
agent to dynamically purchase one or more impressions
through a real-time bidding process that accepts bids for
an impression just before the impression is displayed on a
web page for a user; and
bidding, as an internal bidding agent on behalf of
the first advertiser, to dynamically purchase one or more
impressions through the real-time bidding process until the
request from the first advertiser to purchase the reserved
allocation of impressions is satisfied,
2
Appeal2017-002391
Application 12/967,394
wherein the internal bidding agent adjusts its bid
prices, at least in part, based on bid prices associated with
the one or more bids from the external bidding agent.
THE REJECTION
Claims 1-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to
patent-ineligible subject matter. Final Act. 2--4.
ANALYSIS
The Supreme Court's two-step framework guides our analysis. See
Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'!, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2355 (2014).
According to step one, "[ w ]e must first determine whether the claims at
issue are directed to a patent-ineligible concept," such as an abstract idea.
Id.
If the claims are "directed to an abstract idea," we proceed to the
second step where we consider the claim limitations "both individually and
'as an ordered combination' to determine whether the additional elements
'transform the nature of the claim' into a patent-eligible application." Alice,
134 S. Ct. at 2355 (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs.,
Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 78-79 (2012)). The Supreme Court has described this
analysis "as a search for an 'inventive concept."' Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355.
In rejecting claims 1-20, the Examiner finds that the claims are
directed to "a fundamental economic practice," "a method of selling
advertisements as a commodity in a bidding market environment," and a
"method of organizing human activities which is very well known in the
art." Final Act. 3. According to the Examiner, "the invention would prevent
the bidding process of advertising as a commodity." Id. In the Answer, the
3
Appeal2017-002391
Application 12/967,394
Examiner compares the claims to several abstract ideas identified by the
courts. Ans. 4 ( discussing "creating a contractual relationship" and
"obtaining and comparing intangible data").
Notably, in the Final Rejection, the Examiner does not analyze claims
1-20 separately. Final Act. 3--4. Rather, the Examiner groups the claims
together in the analysis. See id. In the Answer, the Examiner responds to
Appellants' arguments by discussing some features of the individual claims.
See Ans. 4--8.
Appellants argue that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea
because the problem solved by the invention arises from the increase in real-
time bidding on the Internet. Br. 13 (citing Spec. ,r,r 2, 12, 14, 16).
According to Appellants, the claims address a challenge particular to the
Internet, not a pre-Internet business practice. Br. 14 (citing DDR Holdings,
LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2014)). Appellants
contend that, in this way, the claims are necessarily rooted in computer
technology. Br. 14. We agree with Appellants in this regard.
Although the invention generally relates to selling online
advertisements, the claims solve a problem arising in the process of real-
time online bidding involving bidding agents. Spec. ,r 3. Typically,
publishers provide reserved contracts for a fixed number of advertisement
impressions to be displayed on web pages for an agreed-upon time period.
Id. ,r 1. These impressions, however, can also be dynamically purchased
through a real-time bidding process. Id. ,r 3. In the real-time bidding
process, some purchasers use demand-side platforms (DSPs). Id. ,r 14.
DSPs are sophisticated bidding agents that analyze impressions and adjust
bids accordingly on the advertiser's behalf. Id. DSPs can strategically bid
4
Appeal2017-002391
Application 12/967,394
to win more impressions with a certain combination of desired attributes. Id.
The invention accounts for DSPs by ensuring that a reserve customer
receives a substantially random distribution of those impressions instead of a
disproportionate number of impressions that the DSP does not target.
Id. ,I 18.
For example, a first advertiser can make a request to purchase a
reserved allocation of advertisement impressions. Id. ,r 3. This request
specifies a number of impressions with one or more requested attributes. Id.
Just before the impression is displayed on a web page, an external bidding
agent makes a bid to dynamically purchase the impressions. Id. An internal
bidding agent on behalf of the first advertiser, i.e., the reserve advertiser,
dynamically purchases the impressions until the first advertiser's request is
satisfied. Id. In this way, the invention integrates requests for a reserved
allocation of impressions and requests for dynamic allocations of
impressions. Abstract.
On this record, we agree with Appellants that the Examiner's analysis
under Alice step one is in error. See Br. 14. Appellants' claims are not
merely directed to using a computer as a tool for "selling advertisements as a
commodity in a bidding market." Final Act. 3; see also Ans. 13 ( discussing
using computers as tools). In making this finding, the Examiner refers to the
Federal Circuit's analysis in Enfzsh, LLC v. Microsoft Corp.: "the first step
in the Alice inquiry in this case asks whether the focus of the claims is on the
specific asserted improvement in computer capabilities ... or, instead, on a
process that qualifies as an 'abstract idea' for which computers are invoked
merely as a tool." 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Here,
Appellants' invention improves the functioning of the computer itself
5
Appeal2017-002391
Application 12/967,394
because the improved system is able to handle two types of bidders. See
Abstract. The claims, therefore, are directed to a technology-rooted solution
for a problem arising from the use of DSPs in the real-time online bidding
process. Spec. ,r,r 2, 12, 14, 16.
In particular, claims 1, 11, and 17 recite limitations for receiving bids
in a real-time bidding process involving external and internal bidding agents,
and adjusting the bid prices. These limitations amount to more than sending,
receiving, and comparing data, as the Examiner finds. See Ans. 4--8.
Instead, Appellants claim a technical solution that integrates requests for
reserved allocation of impressions and requests for dynamic allocations of
impressions. See, e.g., Abstract. The claimed integration overcomes "a
problem specifically arising in the realm of computer networks." DDR, 773
F.3d at 1257. Namely, Appellants' claims advantageously ensure that the
reserve customer receives a substantially random distribution of impressions
instead of a disproportionally low number of DSP-targeted impressions in
the real-time online bidding environment. Spec. ,r 18. Because the claims
are directed to a specific implementation of a solution to this technical
problem, the claims are not directed to an abstract idea.
Therefore, Appellants have persuaded us of error in the rejection of
claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-20.
REVERSED
6