Ex Parte Ramer et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 12, 2016

11274884 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 12, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
111274,884 11/14/2005
130011 7590 07114/2016
Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP,
(AOL Inc.)
Intellectual Property Department
2555 Grand Blvd.
Kansas City, MO 64108-2613
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Jorey Ramer
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.
AOLI.246008 7562
EXAMINER
POUNCIL, DARNELL A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3621
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/14/2016 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):
IPDOCKET@SHB.COM
IPRCDKT@SHB.COM
tquick@shb.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JOREY RAMER, ADAM SOROCA, and DENNIS DOUGHTY
Appeal2014-004442 1
Application 11/274,8842
Technology Center 3600
Before NINA L. MEDLOCK, PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, and
CYNTHIA L. MURPHY, Administrative Patent Judges.
MEDLOCK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's final
rejection of claims 1, 2, and 4---6. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
1 Our decision references Appellants' Appeal Brief ("Br.," filed March 18,
2013), and the Examiner's Answer ("Ans.," mailed July 19, 2013) and Final
Office Action ("Final Act.," mailed August 16, 2012).
2 Appellants identify Jumptap, Inc. as the real party in interest. Br. 2.
Appeal2014-004442
Application 11/27 4,884
CLAIMED INVENTION
Appellants' claimed invention "relates to the field of mobile
communications, and more particularly to improved delivery of sponsored
content to mobile communications devices" (Spec. i-f 3).
Claim 1, reproduced below, is the sole independent claim and
representative of the subject matter on appeal:
1. A system for targeted distribution of advertising
content of a sponsor based on transaction histories and rendering
capabilities of cellular phones within a cellular telephony
infrastructure, the system comprising one or more computers
having computer readable mediums having stored thereon
instructions which, when executed by one or more processors of
the one or more computers, causes the system to perform the
steps of:
presenting to a sponsor data corresponding to:
(a) a plurality of transaction history
characteristics including at least one transaction history
characteristic based at least in part on a purchase made
using a cellular phone of a first type and a second type;
and
(b) the first type and the second type of cellular
phone, wherein a rendering capability of the first type of
cellular phone is different from a rendering capability of
the second type of cellular phone, wherein the rendering
capability comprises a model of the respective first type
and second type of cellular phone;
receiving from the sponsor:
(a) a selection of the at least one transaction
history characteristic; and
(b) a first advertising content and a second
advertising content associated with the sponsor, wherein
the first advertising content requires the rendering
capability of the first type of cellular phone to be rendered
thereon and wherein the second advertising content
requires the rendering capability of the second type of
cellular phone to be rendered thereon, wherein the first
2
Appeal2014-004442
Application 11/27 4,884
advertising content is incompatible with the second type
of cellular phone and the second advertising content is
incompatible with the first type of cellular phone;
receiving an advertising request associated with the first
type of cellular phone;
determining that the relevance of the first advertising
content and second advertising content to the advertising request
and the at least one transaction history characteristic is the same;
determining that the first type of cellular phone can render
the first advertising content and cannot render the second
advertising content; and
transmitting the first advertising content instead of the
second advertising content to the first type of cellular phone.
REJECTION
Claims 1, 2 and 4---6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Hoerenz (US 2004/0267611 Al, pub. Dec. 30, 2004),
Gibbons (2004/0034853 Al, pub. Feb. 19, 2004), Papulov
(US 2005/0227679 Al, pub. Oct. 13, 2005), and Natsuno
(US 2002/0165773 Al, pub. Nov. 7, 2002).
ANALYSIS
We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument that the Examiner
erred in rejecting independent claim 1under35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because
neither Papulov nor Natsuno discloses or suggests the two-way
incompatibility required with respect to the first type and second type of
cellular phone, i.e.,
presenting to a sponsor data corresponding to ... the first type
and the second type of cellular phone, wherein a rendering
capability of the first type of cellular phone is different from a
rendering capability of the second type of cellular phone" and
"receiving from the sponsor ... a first advertising content and a
3
Appeal2014-004442
Application 11/27 4,884
second advertising content associated with the sponsor, wherein
... the first advertising content is incompatible with the second
type of cellular phone and the second advertising content is
incompatible with the first type of cellular phone[,]
as recited in claim 1 (Br. 4---6). Instead, we agree with, and adopt, the
Examiner's response to Appellants' argument as set forth at page 8-11 of
the Answer. We add the following discussion for emphasis only.
Papulov is directed to a method for advertising in a mobile
communication system, and discloses that the method comprises, inter alia,
generating a request for advertisement information and transmitting the
request to an advertisement device (Papulov, Abstract). Papulov discloses
that the advertisement device stores a plurality of advertisement information
(id. i-f 41) and that the request for advertisement information includes
information regarding the features of the requesting mobile communication
device; the advertisement device, thus, provides the requested advertisement
information to the mobile device, e.g., cellular phone, based on the feature
information, i.e., the information regarding the capabilities of the mobile
device (id. i-fi-139, 42).
We agree with the Examiner that a person of ordinary skill in the art
would reasonably understand from Papulov that the advertisement device
stores a plurality of advertisements, including advertisements that would
incompatible with a particular mobile device, and transmits the
advertisements that are compatible with a specific mobile device based on
the capabilities of that device (Ans. 9).
Even were that not so, Natsuno expressly acknowledges that mobile
phones differ in display capabilities depending on their model (Natsuno
i-f 10). And Natsuno discloses storing a plurality of advertisement data,
4
Appeal2014-004442
Application 11/27 4,884
ADDij (i=l, 2, ... ), corresponding to model data Mi, for the same
advertisement j, to account for the different display capabilities of different
models of mobile devices (id. i-f 62). Natsuno, thus, explains that if
advertisement data ADD21 corresponding to model data M2 is distributed to
mobile communication terminal 11 corresponding to model data Ml, mobile
terminal 11 "may not be able to display the advertisement in a manner
enabling the user to read it" (id.), i.e., because the advertising data is
incompatible with that terminal model (or type).
In view of the foregoing, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of
claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). We also sustain the Examiner's rejection
of dependent claims 2 and 4---6, which are not argued separately.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 2, and 4---6 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) 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
5