Ex Parte Reddy et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 17, 2016

12580503 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 17, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/580,503 10/16/2009
25537 7590 06/21/2016
VERIZON
PA TENT MANAGEMENT GROUP
1320 North Court House Road
9th Floor
ARLINGTON, VA 22201-2909
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
K. M. Rajasekhar Reddy
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.
20090364 1538
EXAMINER
DUFFIELD, JEREMY S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2427
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/21/2016 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):
patents@verizon.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte K. M. RAJASEKHAR REDDY and SRINIVAS WUDALI 1
Appeal2014-001263
Application 12/580,503
Technology Center 2400
Before KRISTEN L. DROESCH, DAVID M. KOHUT, and
MONICA S. ULLAGADDI, Administrative Patent Judges.
DROESCH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants seek review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 1-3, 5-19, and 21-23, all of the pending claims in
the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
1 Appellants indicate the real party-in-interest is Verizon Communications
Incorporated and its subsidiary companies, which include Verizon Business
Global, LLC and Cellco Partnership (doing business as Verizon Wireless,
and which includes affiliates Vodafone Group PLC). Br. 3.
Appeal2014-001263
Application 12/580,503
BACKGROUND
The disclosed invention relates to facilitating the creation and
distribution of advertisements between television system subscribers.
Information to be advertised ("advertisement information") is received and
stored at a service provider. The advertisement information is inserted into
content to be displayed by subscribers and distributed through a subscriber's
set-top box (STB). During the advertisement creation process, at least two
pricing plans are presented to a subscriber for selection. The subscriber is
charged according to the selected pricing plan via a monthly billing
statement from the service provider that includes billing charges for at least
one additional service provided by the service provider. Spec. i-fi-f l, 9, 10,
34, 42.
Representative claim 1, reproduced from the Claim Appendix of the
Appeal Brief, reads as follows (disputed limitation in italics):
1. A method, comprising:
receiving, at a service provider, advertisement information from a
first subscriber;
presenting) to the first subscriber, at least two price p1an selection
options;
receiving, at the service provider) a selection of a particular price
plan selection from the at least t\.vo price plan selection options)
wherein the at least two price plan selection options comprise at least
a price per impression option and a price per clickthrough
option;
storing the advertisement information;
identifying content displayed by a device associated with a second
subscriber;
determining whether the content can receive advertisements;
when it is determined that the content can receive advertisements,
retrieving the stored advertisement information;
2
Appeal2014-001263
Application 12/580,503
inserting at least a portion of the retrieved advertisement
information into the content for viewing by the second
subscriber; and
charging the.first subscriber based on the selected particular price
plan selection,
wherein the charging comprises including a billed amount,
associated with inserting the advertisement information, in a
monthly billing statement.from the service provider, and
wherein the monthly billing statement also includes billed amounts
for one or more other services provided to the first subscriber by
the service provider.
REJECTION
Claims 1-3, 7-13, 15-18, and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Wachtfogel et al. (US 7,340,760 B2;
issued Mar. 4, 2008) ("Wachtfogel") in view of Miura et al. (US
2003/0158789 Al; published Aug. 21, 2003) ("Miura"), Mahdian et al. (US
2009/0043648 Al; published Feb. 12, 2009) ("Mahdian"), and Hunter et al.
(US 7,647,618 Bl; issued Jan. 12, 2010) ("Hunter").
Claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Wachtfogel, Miura, Mahdian, Hunter, and Hanna (US
2007 /0022005 Al; published Jan. 25, 2007).
Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Wachtfogel, Miura, Mahdian, Hunter, and Johansson et al.
(US 2009/0043670 Al; published Feb. 12, 2009) ("Johansson").
Claims 14, 19, 21, and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Wachtfogel, Miura, Mahdian, Hunter, and Tidwell
et al. (US 2011/0015989 Al; published Jan. 20, 2011) ("Tidwell").
3
Appeal2014-001263
Application 12/580,503
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejection in light of Appellants'
arguments in the Appeal Brief presented in response to the Final Office
Action. We agree with and adopt as our own the Examiner's findings and
conclusions of law to the extent they are consistent with our below analysis.
Specific findings and arguments are highlighted and addressed below for
emphasis.
Appellants argue that the disputed limitations of claim 1 are not taught
or suggested by Hunter. See Br. 9--10. Specifically, Appellants argue that
nothing in Hunter relates to advertisements or charging customers for
advertisements, and that Hunter does not teach "charging ... associated with
inserting the advertisement information," as recited in claim 1. See id. at 10.
Appellants' arguments are not persuasive of Examiner error. First,
Appellants' arguments are misplaced because the Examiner does not rely
upon Hunter for teaching or suggesting charging associated \vith inserting
the advertisement information. See Final Act. 4--5; Ans. 9. We agree with
the Examiner that Wachtfogel teaches "charging includes a billed amount,
associated with the inserting the advertisement information .... " See Final
Act. 5 (citing Wachtfogel 22:1-8). Second, Appellants' arguments address
the teachings of Hunter alone instead of addressing the teachings of Hunter
as combined with the teachings of Wachtfogel, Miura, and Mahdian. One
cannot show nonobviousness by analyzing references individually, as
Appellants have done here, where the rejection is based on a combination of
references. See In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir.
1986). For all of these reasons, we are not persuaded of error in the rejection
of claim 1.
4
Appeal2014-001263
Application 12/580,503
Appellants present additional arguments under separate headings
addressing claims 16-18 and 22; claim 5; claims 14, 19, and 21; and claim
23. See Br. 11-15. Appellants' arguments address the limitations of
independent claim 1 (see id.) and, therefore, for the same reasons as
independent claim 1, we are not persuaded of error in the rejections of these
claims.
Appellants further argue that dependent claim 6, which depends from
claim 1, is not taught by Johansson. See Br. 12. That is, although
Appellants acknowledge that Johansson teaches the general concept of tiered
pricing for purchases in a multi-organizational business, Appellants argue
that Johansson does not disclose or suggest advertisement pricing or price
per impression options. See id. at 13-14.
Appellants' arguments are not persuasive for similar reasons as
explained above with respect to claim 1. Specifically, Appellants'
arguments are misplaced because the Examiner did not rely upon Johansson
for teaching or suggesting advertisement pricing or price per impression
options. The Examiner relies on Johansson to teach two price plan selection
options that comprise at least two tiered price per unit options, wherein the
price per unit of a lower quantity is higher than a price per unit of a higher
quantity. See Final Act. 21. The Examiner also relies on Wachtfogel to
teach the limitations pertaining to advertisement pricing and Mahdian to
teach the limitations pertaining to price per impression pricing, in
combination with Johansson's two price plan selection options, to teach or
suggest the limitations of claim 6. See Final Act. 5 (citing Wachtfogel 22: 1-
8), 7-8 (citing Mahdian i-fi-122, 27, 28, 30), 20-21 (citing Johansson i-fi-131-
32, Fig. 10). Appellants' argument is also not persuasive because it
5
Appeal2014-001263
Application 12/580,503
addresses the teachings of Johansson individually without addressing the
teachings of Johansson in light of the teachings of Wachtfogel, Miura, and
Mahdian. One cannot show nonobviousness by analyzing references
individually where the rejection is based on a combination of references.
See Merck, 800 F.2d at 1097. For all these reasons, in addition to those
explained above with respect to claim 1, we are not persuaded of error in the
rejection of dependent claim 6.
DECISION
We AFFIRM the rejections of claims 1-3, 5-19, and 21-23.
TIME PERIOD
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
6