Ex Parte Markey et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 19, 2018

14057188 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 19, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/057,188 10/18/2013
127660 7590 06/21/2018
PARKER IBRAHIM & BERG LLP
One Financial Center
Boston, MA 02111
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Adam Markey
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.
0330003.U 1262
EXAMINER
SITTNER, MICHAEL J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3622
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/21/2018 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):
patent@piblaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex Parte ADAM MARKEY, ROBERT FOLDES, WILLARD LENNOX
SIMMONS, and SANDRO N. CATANZARO
Appeal2017-004326
Application 14/057, 188
Technology Center 3600
Before ERIC FRAHM, JOHN EV ANS, and
BETH Z. SHAW, Administrative Patent Judges.
SHAW, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1-20, which represent all the pending
claims. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
1 Appellants identify DataXu as the real party in interest. App. Br. 1.
Appeal2017-004326
Application 14/057,188
INVENTION
Appellants' invention is directed to using historical and real-time data
associated with digital media to adjust the pricing and delivery of
advertising. Spec. ,r 5.
Claim 1 is illustrative and reproduced below:
1. A computer program product embodied in a non-
transitory computer readable medium executable on one
or more computers and performing the steps of:
acquiring a first alias from a first electronic device,
wherein the first alias is comprised of a first plurality of
attributes, wherein the first plurality of attributes includes at
least one of a first identifier datum associated with the first
electronic device, a first behavioral datum, and a first
demographic datum;
acquiring a second alias from a second electronic device,
wherein the second alias is comprised of a second plurality of
attributes, wherein the second plurality of attributes includes at
least one of a second identifier datum associated with the
second electronic device, a second behavioral datum, and a
second demographic datum; and
forming a single Master ID by dynamically and
transiently linking the first alias and the second alias, the
formed single Master ID being used to identify a user across
multiple consumer devices including at least the first and
second electronic devices, wherein the Master ID is employed
in communication to the user on any one of the multiple
consumer devices and wherein the dynamic linking of the first
and second aliases is based on a binding analysis of the first and
the second pluralities of attributes, the binding analysis using a
binding expression on the first and second plurality of attributes
and determining a statistical confidence threshold required for
grouping the first and second aliases.
2
Appeal2017-004326
Application 14/057,188
REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being
directed to patent-ineligible subject matter. Final Act. 3.
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 14, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description
requirement. Final Act. 4; Ans. 3. 2
The Examiner rejected claims 1-5, 9, 11-16, 19-20 under 35 U.S.C. §
I03(a) as being unpatentable over Aggarwal et al. (US 2009/0319329Al;
"Aggarwal") and Wang et al. (US 8,438, 184 Bl; "Wang"). Final Act. 7.
The Examiner rejected claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over Aggarwal, Wang, and Malik (US 7,447,756 B2). Final
Act. 20.
The Examiner rejected claims 6, 7, 8, 17, and 18 under 35 U.S.C.
§ I03(a) as being unpatentable over Aggarwal, Wang, and Official Notice.
Final Act. 21.
CONTENTIONS AND ANALYSIS
We conclude the Examiner did not err in finding one skilled in the art
would have recognized the combination of references teaches or suggests the
disputed limitations in claims 1-20. However, we conclude the Examiner
erred in concluding that claims 1, 14, and 19 fail to comply with the written
description requirement.
2 The Examiner withdrew another basis for a rejection claims 1, 14, and 19
under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as lacking written description in the
Answer. Ans. 3.
3
Appeal2017-004326
Application 14/057,188
Written Description
We concur with Appellants' conclusion that the Examiner erred in
rejecting claims 1, 14, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as
lacking written description. The Examiner rejected the claims because the
Examiner finds insufficient support for "determining a statistical confidence
threshold required for grouping aliases." Ans. 3, 14--16. Appellants contend
the original claims 1--4 and Specification, for example at paragraphs 9--11,
225, 376, and 377, provide written description support for the limitation at
issue. Reply Br. 15-16. For example, original claim 1 recites "using a
binding expression that expresses a statistical confidence threshold required
for grouping aliases." The Examiner argues that the Specification does not
provide sufficient description for "how to actually determine a confidence"
nor how to use such confidence as a threshold required for purposes of
grouping aliases. Ans. 15. However, paragraph 9 of Appellants'
Specification states that the statistical confident threshold may vary
depending on how the alias attributes are linked. Paragraph 376 of
Appellants' Specification explains that a link may comprise a confidence
level attribute, which may determine the confidence that different aliases are
attached to the same master ID.
We therefore agree with Appellants that original claims 1--4 and
paragraphs 9--11, 225, 376, and 377 of the Specification support the
limitations described above of claims 1, 14, and 19. Accordingly, we do not
sustain the rejection of claims 1, 14, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 112 as failing
to comply with the written description requirement.
4
Appeal2017-004326
Application 14/057,188
Obviousness
Appellants argue Wang does not teach "forming a single Master ID by
dynamically and transiently linking the first alias and second alias," as
recited in claim 1. App. Br. 26-27; Reply Br. 18-21. The Examiner finds,
however, and we agree, that Wang does teach "linking" aliases. Ans. 17
(citing Wang, 7:37-48: at step 204, probabilistic matching rules (ProbRule)
[ confidence level attributes] are applied ... At step 206, cross-device
linkage [linking] is carried out. In this step, subsets of LinkedSetl are cross-
referenced against known keys (such as e-mail address, phone number, and
the like) to join [link] records [aliases] from different devices"; 9:34-41; 9:3-
5). The Examiner finds, and we agree, that Wang teaches "dynamically and
transiently linking" because Wang teaches that its process may be done in
"real-time." Ans. 18-19 ( citing Wang, 6:8, 9:44).
Appellants also argue Wang does not teach that such dynamic linking
is "based on a binding analysis of the first and the second pluralities of
attributes, the binding analysis using a binding expression on the first and
second plurality of attributes and determining a statistical confidence
threshold required for grouping the first and second aliases." App. Br. 27.
The Examiner finds that Wang does teach the claimed "binding expression."
Ans. 20 (citing Wang, 2:44--46, 5:3-1, 10:35-11:65). The Examiner finds
that the claimed binding analysis using a binding expression reads on
Wang's "decision based on rank score of match" and the claimed
"determining a statistical confidence threshold required for grouping the first
and second aliases" reads on Wang's "given confidence levels on matching
and mismatching (ConfidenceMatch >Confidence Unmatch>= O)." Id.
5
Appeal2017-004326
Application 14/057,188
In the absence of sufficient evidence or line of technical reasoning to
the contrary, the Examiner's response is reasonable and we find no
reversible error. For these reasons, and for the additional reasons stated in
the Final Rejection and Answer, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of
claim 1.
Dependent claim 10
Appellants argue claim 10 requires that the first and the second aliases
are linked only for a predetermined period of time. Appellants argue that
"Malik does not teach temporary aliases used to link user profiles, but, at
best, only teaches associating a single profile with a temporary alias but not
linking profiles as asserted by the Examiner." App. Br. 28-29; Reply Br.
21-22.
However, the Examiner finds, and we agree, that Malik teaches the
elements of claim 10. Ans. 21-22 (citing Malik 1:60-67 ("The database
system being further operable to provide a first user with a temporary alias
to allow addition of the temporary alias to a profile associated with a second
user"). The Examiner explains that Malik's alias is temporary and this
temporary alias is added, i.e., linked, to a profile associated with a second
user. Id. (citing Malik 7:15-33 and 8:4-9.) As the Examiner explains,
Malik' s profile may contain aliases. Thus, aliases are taught as being
temporary, and may be linked to each other because they may each be
connected through a profile. Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that
Malik teaches the "first and the second aliases are linked only for a
predetermined period of time."
Accordingly, Appellants' arguments with respect to claim 10 are not
persuasive. For these reasons, and for the additional reasons stated in the
6
Appeal2017-004326
Application 14/057,188
Final Rejection and Answer, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of
claim 10.
Dependent claims 7 and 17
Appellants also argue that with regard to dependent claims 7 and 17,
Official Notice of government rules is moot in view of amendments to the
claims filed prior to the Final Rejection. App. Br. 29. However, the
Examiner points out that the claim limitation at issue recites "wherein the
rules engine includes rules for dynamic linking of aliases based at least in
part on at least one of a business agreement, a privacy policy, or a consumer
preference" ( emphasis added). For the purpose of compact prosecution, the
Examiner finds that Aggarwal teaches both a privacy policy and a consumer
preference, although only one is required by the claim. Ans. 22-23 ( citing
Aggarwal, ,r,r 120, 147, 62, 63, 43). We also note that the Board may rely on
less than all of the references applied by the Examiner in an obviousness
rationale without designating it as a new ground of rejection. In re Boyer,
363 F.2d 455,458 n.2 (CCPA 1966) (citing In re Bush, 296 F.2d 491,496
(CCPA 1961)).
In the absence of argument, evidence, or line of technical reasoning to
the contrary, the Examiner's findings regarding Aggarwal's teachings are
reasonable, and we find no reversible error. For these reasons, and for the
additional reasons stated in the Final Rejection and Answer, we sustain the
35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 7 and 17.
We also sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of the remaining
pending claims, which are not separately argued with particularity.
7
Appeal2017-004326
Application 14/057,188
Non-Statutory Subject Matter Rejection
Because we affirm the rejection of claims 1-20 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a), we do not reach the§ 101 rejection. Cf, In re Gleave, 560
F.3d 1331, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (not reaching other rejections after
upholding an anticipation rejection); Beloit Corp. v. Valmet Oy, 742 F.2d
1421, 1423 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (indicating an agency (e.g., the ITC) can decide
a single dispositive issue of numerous issues resolved by the presiding
officer and that there is no need for the Commission to decide all issues
decided by the presiding officer); Ormco Corp. v. Align Tech., Inc., 463 F.3d
1299, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (not reaching certain issues).
CONCLUSION
We reverse the rejection of claims 1, 14, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. §
112, first paragraph.
We affirm the rejections of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-20 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