11361106 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 24, 2017)

Ex Parte Morgan

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 24, 2017

11361106 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 24, 2017)

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. 11/361,106 02/24/2006 Brian Stephen Morgan SVL920060013US1 1536 57101 7590 02/28/2017 TRM TORPOR ATTON - SVT fTVT ^ EXAMINER C/O LESLIE A. VAN LEEUWEN HASTY, NICHOLAS 6123 PEBBLE GARDEN CT. AUSTIN, TX 78739 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2178 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/28/2017 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): LESLIE @ VL-PATENTS .COM PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte BRIAN STEPHEN MORGAN Appeal 2016-003934 Application 11/361,106 Technology Center 2100 Before: CARLA M. KRIVAK, BRUCE R. WINSOR, and JOHN R. KENNY, Administrative Patent Judges. KENNY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims 21^44. Final Act. 1; App. Br. 8. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. Appeal 2016-003934 Application 11/361,106 CLAIMED INVENTION Appellant’s Specification relates to a system and method that creates layout configurations with triggers that are matched against an incoming request. Spec. 11. Claim 21, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 21. A computer-implemented method comprising: in response to a determination that a query request matches a layout trigger associated with a layout configuration, configuring query results based on the layout configuration. REFERENCES Wiest US 7,613,688 B2 Nov. 3,2009 Ionescu US 7,707,142 B1 Apr. 27,2010 Baluja US 8,666,820 B2 Mar. 4,2014 REJECTIONS Claims 21, 22, 24—30, 32—38, and 40-44 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Baluja and Wiest. Final Act. 2. Claims 23, 31, and 39 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Baluja, Wiest, and Ionescu. Final Act. 5. ANALYSIS Claims 21, 22, 24—30, 32—38, and 40—44 The Examiner finds Baluja teaches or suggests all limitations of claim 21, except “a determination that a query request matches a layout trigger associated with a layout configuration.” Final Act. 2—3. The Examiner finds 2 Appeal 2016-003934 Application 11/361,106 Wiest in combination with Baluja teaches or suggests this determination limitation. Id. Appellant argues the combination of Wiest and Baluja does not teach or suggest this limitation. App. Br. 4—7; Reply Br. 1—5. For the determination limitation, the Examiner finds Baluja determines that a query request matches a keyword (trigger) associated with an advertisement. Final Act. 2—3; Ans. 2—3 (citing Baluja 3:9-30, 6:38-45, 7:15—37). The Examiner further finds Baluja’s advertisement has advertising parameters including the layout associated with the advertisement. Final Act. 2—3; Ans. 2—3 (citing Baluja 3:9-30, 6:38-45, 7:15—37). The Examiner finds Wiest discloses matching a query request with a layout trigger by identifying parts of a query that trigger particular structural elements associated with a template (layout). Ans. 3 (citing Wiest 5:18—35). The Examiner finds the combination of these disclosures teaches or suggests the determination limitation. Final Act. 2—3. Appellant contends the cited disclosures from Wiest and Baluja do not teach or suggest the determination limitation because Baluja only uses query information to determine which ad to render and Baluja’s keyword is not analogous to a layout trigger. App. Br. 5; Reply Br. 2—3. Appellant further argues Wiest uses a query to identify structural elements but not to match a query request to a layout trigger. App. Br. 7; Reply Br. 4. We are not persuaded by these arguments. First, the arguments attack the references individually when the rejection is based on their combination. For example, in the Final Action, the Examiner did not find Baluja’s keywords were layout triggers. Final Act. 2—3. The Examiner combined Wiest with Baluja to obtain the recited layout triggers. Id. Second, we agree with the Examiner the cited disclosures in Baluja and Wiest teach or suggest the determination limitation. As the Examiner sets forth, Baluja’s keywords 3 Appeal 2016-003934 Application 11/361,106 trigger the rendering of a particular ad that has parameters for its layout. Final Act. 2—3; Ans. 2—3 (citing Baluja 3:9-30, 6:38-35, 7:15—37). Wiest discloses using queries that more directly trigger layout characteristics. Particularly, Wiest’s structural elements are associated with a template that represents a pattern. Ans. 3; Wiest 5:25—27. Wiest discloses the pattern can include colors, patterning, text type, font type, or outline. Wiest 5:3—6. Wiest also discloses the pattern can be grid-based. Id. at 5:6—8. Appellant does not provide persuasive evidence or arguments indicating that: (i) Baluja does not trigger ads with particular layouts, (ii) Wiest does not teach or suggest triggering structural elements with particular layout features, or (iii) the combination of these disclosures would not teach or suggest the disputed limitation. App. Br. 4—7; Reply Br. 2—5. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 21 and of claims 22, 24—30, 32—38, and 40-44, not separately argued. App. Br. 4—8. Claims 23, 31, and 39 Appellant presents the same arguments for dependent claims 23, 31, and 39 as for independent claims 21, 29, and 37, respectively. App. Br. 8. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claims 23, 31, and 39. DECISION We affirm the rejections of claims 21 44. 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 4