Ex Parte Kurzion

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 29, 2016

11554333 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 29, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
111554,333 10/30/2006 Y air Kurzion
10575 7590 07/01/2016
Foley & Lardner LLP
3000 K STREET N.W.
SUITE 600
WASHINGTON, DC 20007-5109
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.
098981-3918 5255
EXAMINER
ALCON, FERNANDO
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2425
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/01/2016 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):
ipdocketing@foley.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte Y AIR KURZION
Appeal2015-000416
Application 11/554,333
Technology Center 2400
Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, JOHN A. EVANS, and ALEX S. YAP,
Administrative Patent Judges.
EV ANS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner's Final Rejection of Claims 1-11, 13-16, 19, 20, and 39-50.2
App. Br. 4. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.3
1 The Appeal Brief identifies GOOGLE, Inc., as the real party in interest.
App. Br. 1.
2 The Final Action lists claims 1-11, 13-16, 19, 20, and 39--49 as pending
and rejected. Final Act. 1, 2. Although not listed as pending, claim 50
stands rejected in the body of the Action. Final Act. 22.
3 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellant and the Examiner, we
refer to the Appeal Brief (filed July 1, 2014, "App. Br."), the Examiner's
Answer (mailed Aug. 4, 2014, "Ans."), the Final Action (mailed Dec. 10,
Appeal2015-000416
Application 11/554,333
STATEMENT OF THE CASE4
The claims relate to user requests to view a video and user selection of
advertisement options. See Abstract.
Invention
Claims 1, 11, and 39 are independent. The claims have not been
argued separately and, therefore, stand or fall together. 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv). An understanding of the invention can be derived from a
reading of exemplary Claim 1, which is reproduced below with some
formatting and emphasis added:
1. A computer-implemented method, comprising:
displaying, within a user interface displayed in a display
device, a video region for displaying video,
wherein the video region is displayed in response to a
user request to view video;
displaying, adjacent to the video region within the user
interface, an advertisement region corresponding to a plurality
of advertisement options, each advertisement option associated
with a category of advertisements,
wherein the advertisement region is selectable;
requiring, through the use of one or more processors, a
selection of the advertisement region including a selection of an
advertisement option in response to the user request to view
video,
2013, "Final Act."), and the Specification (filed Oct. 30, 2006, "Spec.") for
the respective details.
4 Because we write for the Real Party, familiarity with the background of
this case is assumed and presented herein only to the extent necessary to
provide context for the analysis that follows. See U.S. Ethernet Innovations,
LLCv. Acer, Inc., 2015-1640, 2015-1641, 2016 WL 1622309, at *1 n.1
(Fed. Cir. April 25, 2016).
2
Appeal2015-000416
Application 11/554,333
wherein the requirement occurs prior to providing at least
a portion of a requested video;
detecting a selection of the advertisement option;
displaying within the user interface a plurality of
advertisement icons each associated with an advertisement and
being in the category associated with the selected advertisement
option, in response to detecting the selection of the
advertisement option,
an order in which the plurality of advertisement icons are
displayed within the user interface is based at least in part on
revenue provided by one or more advertisers associated with
the advertisements associated with the plurality of
advertisement icons;
requiring, through the use of one or more processors, a
selection of an advertisement icon displayed within the
advertisement region before commencing the requested video in
the video region;
detecting a selection of the advertisement icon;
displaying an advertisement associated with the selected
advertisement icon within the video region; and
displaying at least a portion of the requested video within
the video region after displaying the advertisement associated
with the selected advertisement icon.
3
Appeal2015-000416
Application 11/554,333
1.
References and Rejections
The Examiner relies upon the prior art as follows:
Goldstein us 5,410,326 Apr. 25, 1995
Candelore us 6,057 ,872 May 2, 2000
Kurauchi et al. US 2002/005584 Al May 9, 2002
Chang et al. US 2002/0129362 Al Sept. 12, 2002
Chapin et al. US 2003/0037332 Al Feb.20,2003
Eldering et al. US 2003/0149975 Al Aug. 7, 2003
Rodriguez et al. US 2003/0154475 Al Aug. 14, 2003
Liew et al. US 2003/0188317 Al Oct. 2, 2003
Cerrato US 2004/0025174 Al Feb. 5,2004
Vong et al. US 2004/0216059 Al Oct. 28, 2004
Anglin, JR. US 2007/0011704 Al Jan. 11, 2007
Carson et al. US 2007 /0027744 Al Feb. 1,2007
Yamada US 7,631,329 Bl Dec. 8, 2009
The claims stand rejected as follows:
Claims 1-3, 11, 13, 39--41, 43, 46, and 47--49 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Kurauchi, Yamada,
Rodriguez, Chapin, and Carson. Final Act. 2.
2. Claims 6 and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Kurauchi, Yamada, Rodriguez, Chapin, Carson, and
Chang. Final Act. 11.
3. Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Kurauchi, Yamada, Rodriguez, Chapin, Carson, and Cerrato.
Final Act. 13.
4
Appeal2015-000416
Application 11/554,333
4. Claims 4, 5, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Kurauchi, Yamada, Rodriguez, Chapin, Carson, and
Eldering. Final Act. 14.
5. Claims 9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Kurauchi, Yamada, Rodriguez, Chapin, Carson, Goldstein, and
Chang. Final Act. 16.
6. Claims 10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Kurauchi, Yamada, Rodriguez, Chapin, and Carson.
Final Act. 18.
7. Claim 42 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Kurauchi, Yamada, Rodriguez, Chapin, Carson, and Anglin. Final
Act. 19.
8. Claims 44 and 45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Kurauchi, Yamada, Rodriguez, Chapin, Carson, and
Liew. Final Act. 20.
9. Claim 50 is rejected under 35 USC 103(a) as unpatentable over
Kurauchi, Yamada, Rodriguez, Chapin, Carson, and Vong. Final Act.
22.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the rejections of claims 1-11, 13-16, 19, 20, and
39-50 in light of Appellant's arguments that the Examiner erred. We have
considered in this decision only those arguments Appellant actually raised in
the Briefs. Any other arguments which Appellant could have made but
chose not to make in the Briefs are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R.
5
Appeal2015-000416
Application 11/554,333
§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv). We are not persuaded that Appellant identified reversible
error. Upon consideration of the arguments presented in the Appeal Brief
and Reply Brief, we agree with the Examiner that all the pending claims are
unpatentable over the combination of the cited references. We adopt as our
own the findings and reasons set forth in the rejection from which this
appeal is taken and in the Examiner's Answer. We provide the following
explanation to highlight and address specific arguments and findings
primarily for emphasis. We consider Appellant's arguments seriatim, as
they are presented in the Appeal Brief, pages 4--8.
CLAIMS 1-11, 13-16, 19, 20, AND 39-50: OBVIOUSNESS OVER
KURAUCHI, YAMADA, RODRIGUEZ, CHAPIN, AND CARSON
Appellant argues all claims as a group and contend they are each
patentable in view of the limitations of claim 1. App. Br. 4, 8.
The Examiner finds "Kurauchi and Yamada do not explicitly disclose
requiring the selection of an advertisement category and subsequent
requirement of selection of an advertisement prior to the commencement of
displaying a video." Final Act. 5. The Examiner finds this limitation is
taught by Rodriguez who discloses a television advertisement system in
which a user selects advertisements. A user is first presented with a menu
for selection of advertisement categories. Once a user selects an ad category
the user is then presented with a menu for selection of sub categories or
specific ad products. Final Act. 6 (citing Rodriguez i-fi-1 48-51 ).
Appellant argues Claim 1 recites "requiring ... a selection of the
advertisement region including a selection of an advertisement option
[associated with a category of advertisements]." Appellant contends this
6
Appeal2015-000416
Application 11/554,333
limitation is not taught by the combination of Kurauchi, Yamada, Rodriguez,
Chapin, and Carson. App. Br. 4.
Claim 1 recites, inter alia:
displaying, adjacent to the video region within the user
interface, an advertisement region corresponding to a plurality
of advertisement options, each advertisement option associated
with a category of advertisements [("the displaying
limitation").]
Claim 1 further recites, inter alia:
requiring, through the use of one or more processors, a
selection of the advertisement region including a selection of an
advertisement option in response to the user request to view
video," [("the requiring limitation").]
Appellant argues: "[T]he cited portions of Rodriguez do not teach or
suggest that the advertisement sub-category options are each associated with
an advertisement, that the advertisement source options are each associated
vvith an ad-vertisement, or that the product preference options are each
associated with an advertisement." App. Br. 6 (emphasis added).
Contrary to Appellant's focus on Rodriguez, the Examiner finds the
limitations are met through the combination of references. Ans. 21.
Specifically, the Examiner finds Kurauchi is relied upon to disclose
"requiring selection of an advertisement before viewing a video," Yamada is
relied upon to disclose selecting an advertisement from an advertisement
region which is adjacent to a video region, and Rodriguez is merely relied
upon to disclose selections of advertisement categories which result in
display advertisement sub-categories. Id. The Examiner finds Rodriguez
teaching applied to Kurauchi and Yamada results in the selection of an
advertisement region containing a plurality of advertisement categories
7
Appeal2015-000416
Application 11/554,333
which when a category is selected would further result in displaying a
plurality of advertisement options. The improvement of Rodriguez would
result in greater advertisement granularity with respect to the user's options
in viewing of an advertisement. Thus, the combination results in selecting
an advertisement category and subsequent requirement of selection of an
advertisement prior to displaying a video. Id. Appellant's arguments are not
persuasive because "[O]ne cannot show non-obviousness by attacking
references individually where ... the rejections are based on combinations
of references." In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981).
Appellant's Reply Brief outlines, separately, the alleged failings of
Kurauchi and Rodriguez. See Reply Br. 2-3. However, as discussed above,
where the Examiner's prima facie case is predicated on a combination of the
teachings of various references, it is unavailing to argue the deficiencies of
the references taken individually. See Keller, 642 F.2d at 426.
Therefore, we are not persuaded the Examiner errs in rejecting Claims
1-11, 13-16, 19, 20, and 39-50.
DECISION
The rejection of Claims 1-11, 13-16, 19, 20, and 39-50 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 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)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
8