Ex Parte Spooner et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 27, 2018

13090997 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 27, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/090,997 04/20/2011
112129 7590 06/29/2018
Gates & Cooper LLP - Fox
6701 Center Drive West, Suite 1050
Los Angeles, CA 90045
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Elaine M. Spooner
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.
241.13-US-Ul 3664
EXAMINER
STOLTENBERG, DAVID J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3682
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/29/2018 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):
docketing-us@gates-cooper.com
gates-cooper@blackhillsip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ELAINE M. SPOONER, JOHN D. KOSCHEKA,
MICHAEL S. BESSOLO, MARK L. SIMPSON, JEAN L. YUAN,
J. CRAIG D. RUSSELL, CHRISTOPHER M. BETTES, and
GREG McCARTHY
Appeal2017-000514
Application 13/090,997 1
Technology Center 3600
Before MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, CYNTHIA L. MURPHY, and
BRUCE T. WIEDER, Administrative Patent Judges.
WIEDER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the
Examiner's rejection of claims 1-33. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is FOX
ENTERTAINMENT GROUP, INC. (Appeal Br. 1.)
Appeal2017-000514
Application 13/090,997
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellants' invention "relates generally to the delivery of media
content, and in particular, to a method, apparatus, system, and article of
manufacture for customized billboard advertisements .... " (Spec. ,r 6.)
Claims 1, 9, and 1 7 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1 is
illustrative. It recites:
1. A computer implemented method for delivering a website
advertisement, comprising:
(a) displaying, by a server computer, a graphical user
interface, wherein the graphical user interface comprises
customization attributes;
(b) accepting, from an administrator of an owner of
media content, administrator input into the graphical user
interface, wherein the administrator input defines settings for the
customization attributes for displaying one or more billboard
advertisements via a website, wherein:
(i) the one or more billboard advertisements
each comprise an advertisement for media content;
(ii) the customization attributes define access
rights based on a user and/or a categorical group of users
for display of the one or more billboard advertisements;
(iii) the media content advertised in the
advertisement and the advertisement are owned and
provided by the owner via the website; and
(iv) the user is a customer of the owner;
( c) receiving, by the server computer, a request from
the user on a client computer to access the website; and
( d) in response to the request and based on the access
rights, transmitting, by the server computer to the client
computer, processing instructions that cause the client computer
to display, on a display device, a first billboard advertisement of
the one or more billboard advertisements, wherein:
2
Appeal2017-000514
Application 13/090,997
(i) the first billboard advertisement is primarily
displayed without occlusion;
(ii) remaining billboard advertisements of the
one or more billboard advertisements are displayed
partially occluded by the first billboard advertisement; and
(iii) the one or more billboard advertisements are
displayed based on the customization attributes.
REJECTIONS
Claims 1-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to a
judicial exception without significantly more.
Claims 1-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable in
view of Harrang (US 2010/0131385 Al, pub. May 27, 2010) and Robert
(US 2008/0307343 Al, pub. Dec. 11, 2008).
Claims 28-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable in
view ofHarrang, Robert, and Michel (US 2010/0205261 Al, pub.
Aug. 12, 2010).
ANALYSIS
The§ 101 reiection o(claims 1-33
Appellants argue all claims together for this rejection. Therefore, the
claims will stand or fall together. We select claim 1 as representative.
"Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine,
manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement
thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and
requirements of this title." 35 U.S.C. § 101. Section 101, however,
"'contains an important implicit exception: Laws of nature, natural
phenomena, and abstract ideas are not patentable."' Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v.
3
Appeal2017-000514
Application 13/090,997
CLS Bankint'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2354 (2014) (quoting Assoc.for Molecular
Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S. 576, 589 (2013)).
Alice applies a two-step framework, earlier set out in Mayo
Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., 566 U.S. 66
(2012), "for distinguishing patents that claim laws of nature, natural
phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible
applications of those concepts." Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355.
Under the two-step framework, it must first be determined if "the
claims at issue are directed to a patent-ineligible concept." Id. If the claims
are determined to be directed to a patent-ineligible concept, then the second
step of the framework is applied to determine if "the elements of the
claim ... contain[] an 'inventive concept' sufficient to 'transform' the
claimed abstract idea into a patent-eligible application." Id. at 2357 ( citing
Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72-73, 79).
With regard to step one of the Alice framework, the Examiner
determines that the claims
are directed to the abstract idea of providing an interface for an
administrator to define settings for the display of advertisements
to client computer users of a website wherein the advertisements
are related to media content and are displayed in accordance with
display settings and in a manner partially occluding underlying
advertisements by a first advertisement.
(Final Action 2.)
Appellants argue that "the present claims are directed towards
delivering customizable billboard advertisements .... " (Appeal Br. 9.) In
particular, Appellants argue, the claims are "directed towards defining
particular settings for advertisements and for a particular manner in which
such advertisements are displayed ... , along with the ability to accept
4
Appeal2017-000514
Application 13/090,997
customization attributes for defining how such ads are displayed." (Id.
at 12.)
Under step one of the Alice framework, we "look at the 'focus of the
claimed advance over the prior art' to determine if the claim's 'character as a
whole' is directed to excluded subject matter." Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC
v. DIRECTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting Elec.
Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2016)).
The Specification provides evidence as to what the claimed invention
is directed. In this case, the Specification discloses that the invention
"relates generally to the delivery of media content, and in particular, to a
method, apparatus, system, and article of manufacture for customized
billboard advertisements .... " (Spec. ,r 6.) Claim 1 recites a method for
delivering an advertisement comprising: "displaying ... a graphical user
interface," "accepting ... input into the graphical user interface, wherein the
... input defines settings for the customization attributes for displaying one
or more ... advertisements," "receiving ... a request from the user ... to
access the website," "in response to the request ... , transmitting .. .
instructions that cause the client computer to display ... a first .. .
advertisement ... , wherein: (i) the first ... advertisement is primarily
displayed without occlusion," "(ii) remaining ... advertisements ... are
displayed partially occluded by the first ... advertisement; and (iii) the ...
advertisements are displayed based on the customization attributes."
Although we and the Examiner describe, at different levels of
abstraction, to what the claims are directed, it is recognized that "[a]n
abstract idea can generally be described at different levels of abstraction."
Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1240 (Fed. Cir. 2016). That
5
Appeal2017-000514
Application 13/090,997
need not and, in this case does not, "impact the patentability analysis." See
id. at 1241.
In this case, as in Alice, we need not labor to delimit the precise
contours of the "abstract ideas" category. It is enough to recognize that
there is no meaningful distinction in the level of abstraction between the
concept of customizing web page content as a function of information
known about a user, Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA),
792 F.3d 1363, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2015), and "the delivery of media content,
and in particular, ... customized billboard advertisements" to a user (Spec.
,r 6). Both are squarely within the realm of "abstract ideas" as the Court has
used that term. See Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2357.
Nonetheless, Appellants seek to analogize the present claims to those
in DDR Holdings. (Appeal Br. 12-13, citing DDR Holdings, LLC v.
Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Appellants argue that
"the claims are not merely directed towards advertising or enhancing
revenue but are explicitly directed towards defining particular settings for
advertisements and for a particular manner in which such advertisements are
displayed (i.e., partially occluding some advertisements and not others)
.... " (Id. at 12.) Specifically, Appellants argue, the claims address "a
business challenge that is particular to the Internet." (Id. at 12-13.)
We disagree. Unlike the claims here, the claims in DDR Holdings
"specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired
result-a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of
events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink." DDR Holdings, 773
F.3d at 1258 (emphasis added). In other words, the invention claimed in
DDR Holdings does more than "simply instruct the practitioner to
6
Appeal2017-000514
Application 13/090,997
implement the abstract idea with routine, conventional activity." See
Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 715 (Fed. Cir. 2014); see
also DDR Holdings, 773 F.3d at 1259. Moreover, in view of the need to
position advertisements in, e.g., newspaper inserts, Appellants do not
persuasively argue why positioning advertisements on a web page display is
a business challenge particular to the Internet. See Intellectual Ventures I,
792 F.3d at 1369 (analogizing customizing a web page display for a user to
tailoring a newspaper insert for a subscriber).
In view of the above, we agree with the Examiner that the claims are
directed to an abstract idea.
Step two of the Alice framework has been described "as a search for
an ' "inventive concept" '-i.e., an element or combination of elements that
is 'sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly
more than a patent upon the [ineligible concept] itself."' Alice, 134 S. Ct.
at 2355 (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72-73).
Appellants argue "that based on the arguments set forth below with
respect to the 103 rejections, by definition, the present claims are not 'well-
understood, routine and conventional' in the art, and thus support subject
matter eligibility." (Appeal Br. 14.) But "under the Mayo/Alice framework,
a claim directed to a newly discovered law of nature ( or natural phenomenon
or abstract idea) cannot rely on the novelty of that discovery for the
inventive concept necessary for patent eligibility." Genetic Techs. Ltd. v.
Merial L.L.C., 818 F.3d 1369, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
In view of the above, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in
rejecting claim 1 under § 101. Claims 2-33 are not separately argued and
fall with claim 1. See 3 7 C.F .R. § 41.3 7 ( c )( 1 )(iv).
7
Appeal2017-000514
Application 13/090,997
The§ 103 reiection o(claims 1. 5-7. 9. 13-15. 17. 21-23. and 25-27
Appellants argue that Harrang does not "describe billboard
advertisements that consist[] of advertisements for media content." (Appeal
Br. 15.) Appellants also argue that "Robert is not directed towards billboard
advertisements for media content whatsoever." (Id. at 17.)
As an initial matter, we note that the content of the advertisement, i.e.,
that the advertisement is for media content, is claimed solely for what it
communicates. We also note that the content of the advertisement has no
functional or structural relation to the substrate. Therefore, that the
advertisement is for media content is entitled to no patentable weight. See In
re Distefano, 808 F.3d 845, 850 (Fed. Cir. 2015); see also Praxair
Distribution, Inc. v. Mallinckrodt Hosp. Prods. IP Ltd., 890 F.3d 1024,
1031-32 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Therefore, we do not find these arguments
persuasive of error.
Appellants further argue that "Harrang does not depict or describe an
owner ( of both the advertisements and media content) that has the ability to
configure the advertisements that are displayed to the user via a website."
(Appeal Br. 15.) But, claim 1 does not recite "an owner (of both the
advertisements and media content) that has the ability to configure." Rather,
claim 1 recites "accepting, from an administrator of an owner of media
content, administrator input." (Emphasis added.) In other words, the input
is from the administrator, not the owner. Therefore, we do not find this
argument persuasive of error.
Appellants further argue that "Harrang' s teaching is limited to
advertising within a social network environment," and that "the claims
explicitly provide for delivering both content and ads for the content via a
8
Appeal2017-000514
Application 13/090,997
website that is owned by the same entity." (Reply Br. 5) Claim 1 recites
"an owner of media content," "a website" and that "the media content
advertised in the advertisement and the advertisement are owned and
provided by the owner via the website." Claim 1 is silent as to the owner of
the website. Therefore, we do not find this argument persuasive of error.
Appellants also argue that
[i]n rejecting the display of a billboard advertisement without
occlusion and the display of remaining billboard advertisements
partially occluded, the Action relies on Robert's perspective
view of documents that are displayed in a "cover flow view" (i.e.,
a file management system) .... Robert does not have the ability
to customize how the perspective view is presented or for
specifying attributes for customizing the perspective view ....
(Appeal Br. 17-18.)
As an initial matter, we agree with the Examiner that, under a broadest
reasonable interpretation, the term "billboard advertisement" includes "an
advertisement generally rectangular in shape, displayed to a viewer of a
website in a prominent position." (Answer 6.) This is in accord with the
description of a billboard advertisement in the Specification, i.e., "[t]he
shape and structure of the billboard advertisement may vary but is
traditionally a rectangular advertisement." (See Spec. ,r 53.) Additionally,
the Examiner finds that "a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize
that ... advertisements can vary in size and prominence on display on a
website." (Answer 6.) The Examiner also finds that
Robert, while not specifically reciting an advertisement,
discloses at least at figure 24 B the announcement or
advertisement of product information related to computer
products, and at least at figure 24F and 27F the presentation of
rectangular (i.e., billboard) announcements or advertisements,
and as described at least at paragraphs [102] and [103], "a
9
Appeal2017-000514
Application 13/090,997
preview," including partially occluded, by a first advertisement,
second advertisements of media content titles, which the
Examiner interprets to be the equivalent of a billboard
advertisement, respectively.
(Answer 6-7.)
Figure 24F of Robert is reproduced below:
Z.113
.---·~-..,._/.,,
--"~---··_j ___ ,_ 23 T I
236·~
FIG. 24F
Figure 24F of Robert, above, shows a user interface on a display
device. (See Robert ,r,r 107-109.) Elements 2375-78 are rectangular-shaped
elements that enclose information regarding the listed movies. (Id. ,r 115.)
Appellants do not point to a particular definition of "advertisement" in the
Specification or persuasively argue why the Examiner, applying a broadest
reasonable interpretation, erred in construing "billboard advertisement" to
10
Appeal2017-000514
Application 13/090,997
include such announcements of product information or movie information in
the rectangular-shaped elements 2375-78 of Robert. In view of the above,
we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in finding that Robert
discloses billboard advertisements. Moreover, Figure 24F of Robert shows
element 2378 partially occluded by element 2377.
Nonetheless, Appellants also argue that "Robert does not have the
ability to customize how the perspective view is presented or for specifying
attributes for customizing the perspective view." (Appeal Br. 18.)
However, the Examiner relies on Harrang, not Robert, for disclosing "a
media content provider (MCP) administrator is enabled to interact with a
graphical user interface to define settings for customization attributes for
displaying billboard advertisements as claimed in claims 1, 9, and 17
limitations (i) to (iv)." (Answer 9.) In view of the above, we do not find
Appellants' argument persuasive of error.
Appellants further argue that "[ n ]either Harrang nor Robert teach,
disclose or suggest a website that has both the ability to customize the
display of the advertisements as well as the ability to actually provide the
advertised media content to the user." (Appeal Br. 15.)
The Examiner answers that "Harrang further discloses the
administrative management of a media content advertising and distribution
system at least at paragraphs [61], [62], and Figure 4, wherein administrators
define the media content to be distributed, media content channel
distribution, and rules such as payment rules, access rights and related rules,
and others." (Answer 9.) Moreover, Appellants do not indicate where
claim 1 recites "actually provid[ing] the advertised media content to the
11
Appeal2017-000514
Application 13/090,997
user," rather than merely instructing the client computer to display
advertisements. Therefore, we do not find this argument persuasive of error.
Nonetheless, Appellants argue that "[a]s claimed, not only is
advertisement for media content, but the billboard advertisement that can be
displayed by any one particular user is controlled by customization attributes
that the owner of the advertisement (that also owns the website) defines."
(Reply Br. 6.) We do not find this argument persuasive of error. As
discussed above, settings for customization attributes are input by an
administrator, not the owner. Additionally, claim 1 is silent as to the owner
of the website. Moreover, claim 1 recites that "the customization attributes
define access rights based on a user and/or a categorical group of users for
display of the one or more billboard advertisements." And Harrang
discloses a media content provider that includes an interface
that allows a user/administrator to interact with the MCP's
[ media content provider's] software and hardware resources; a
system database 408 that includes a media content transfer
manager application (MCTM) 410, a User Profile, User Access
Rights (UAR), and Digital Rights Management (DRM)
information repository 412, a set of media content channels and
affiliated media content access rules 414 (e.g., payment rules,
referral rules, DRM rules, and/or access restriction rules).
(Harrang ,r 61.) In other words, Harrang discloses that an administrator can
establish/customize access rights for a user. In view of the above, we do not
find Appellants' argument persuasive of error.
Appellants also argue that "Harrang is limited to social network
services and cannot be extended beyond such a context/environment" and
that "in the social network service, multiple advertisers are used to display a
12
Appeal2017-000514
Application 13/090,997
variety of items to a variety of users." (Reply Br. 7-8.) We are not
persuaded of error.
Claim 1 recites "accepting ... administrator input into the graphical
user interface, wherein the administrator input defines settings for the
customization attributes for displaying one or more billboard advertisements
via a website." (Emphasis added.) Applying a broadest reasonable
interpretation, claim 1 includes the case of a single advertisement.
Appellants do not persuasively argue why Harrang does not disclose at least
one advertiser displaying at least one advertisement to a user via a website.
In view of the above, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in
rejecting claim 1 under§ 103(a). Independent claims 9 and 17, and
dependent claims 5-7, 13-15, 21-23, and 25-27 are not separately argued
and fall with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv).
The § 103 (a) reiection of claims 2. 10. and 18
Claim 2 recites:
2. The computer implemented method of claim 1, further
compnsmg:
transmitting, from the server computer to the client
computer, instructions causing the client computer to display a
second billboard advertisement of the remaining billboard
advertisements primarily without occlusion, wherein the
displaying of the second billboard advertisement causes the first
billboard advertisement to be displayed partially occluded by the
second billboard advertisement.
Appellants argue that Robert discloses "moving a document across a
screen and how to display different thumbnails .... Further, nowhere in
Robert is there a first document that partially occludes a second document
13
Appeal2017-000514
Application 13/090,997
followed by the display of the second document in such a manner that it
partially occludes the first document." (Appeal Br. 20.)
The Examiner answers that Robert
discloses a scroll bar control ( element 2346) and the selection
and scrolling of a media content advertisement wherein first and
second advertisement graphics are selected and moved in a
manner which causes the graphical effect of occluding second
advertisements by first advertisements and replacing first and
second advertisements relative amount of occlusion as the
scrolling operation proceeds.
(Answer 12.)
Robert discloses two procedures for scrolling content. One is through
scrolling a list using scroll bar control object 2347. (See Robert Fig. 24F
and ,r 109.) The other is through scrolling the elements 2375-78 by using
the scroll bar control object 2346, as shown in Figure 24F. (See id. Fig. 24F,
and ,r,r 109 and 115.) Robert refers to the latter as the cover flow view. (Id.)
In the cover flow view, as shown in Figure 24F, the selected document "is
spaced apart from the collection of documents on either side of it." (Id.
,r 109.) By using the scroll bar control object 2346, a user can move a
document from one side, to the center ( spaced apart) position, to the other
side. (Id. ,r,r 109 and 115.) As shown in Figure 24F, "when several
documents are on one side of the selected document, at least some of the
documents are covered by other documents on that side; in other words, on
that side, the documents are arranged in an [ at least partially] overlapping
manner." (Id. ,r 109.)
In view of the above, we are not persuaded of error. Claims 10 and 18
are not separately argued and fall with claim 2. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 4I.37(c)(l)(iv).
14
Appeal2017-000514
Application 13/090,997
The§ 103(a) reiection o(claims 3. 11. and 19
Claim 3 recites: "The computer implemented method of claim 2,
wherein the second billboard advertisement scrolls or slides across a display
area to cause the partial occlusion of the first billboard advertisement."
Appellants argue that "Robert's document movement does not serve
to actually partially occlude other ads. Instead, a thumbnail is displayed in
the middle and a new thumbnail is displayed thereafter (without occluding
any other documents)." (Appeal Br. 20.)
We are not persuaded of error. As discussed above, elements 2375-
78 of Robert are billboard advertisements within the broadest reasonable
interpretation of that term. As also discussed above, in particular with
regard to claim 2, "when several documents [i.e., billboard advertisements]
are on one side of the selected document, at least some of the documents are
covered by other documents." (Robert ,r 109.)
In view of the above, we are not persuaded of error. Claims 11 and 19
are not separately argued and fall with claim 3. See 3 7 C.F .R.
§ 4I.37(c)(l)(iv).
The § 103 (a) reiection of claims 4. 12. and 20
Claim 4 recites: "The computer implemented method of claim 1,
wherein the customization attributes provide that one or more billboard
advertisements that are displayed correspond to media content that the user
has licensed from a media content owner."
The Examiner finds that Harrang discloses "the ability for
administrators to control and restrict access to media content displayed to
community users." (Answer 13, citing Robert ,r,r 50 and 61.)
15
Appeal2017-000514
Application 13/090,997
Appellants argue that even accepting the Examiner's finding, claim 4
requires "that the customization attributes provide that the billboard
advertisements correspond to media content that the user has already
licensed from a media content owner." (Reply Br. 9.)
We are persuaded of error. The Examiner does not point to a
disclosure in Robert that relates the ability for administrators to restrict
access to content as disclosed in Robert, with the displaying of
advertisements to the user on the client computer that correspond to content
already licensed to the user.
Therefore, we will reverse the rejection of claim 4 under§ 103(a).
Claims 12 and 20 contain similar language and for similar reasons we will
also reverse the rejection of claims 12 and 20 under§ 103(a).
The§ 103(a) reiection o(claims 8. 16. and 24
Claim 8 recites:
8. The computer implemented method of claim 1, further
compnsmg:
receiving a communication, from the client computer to
the server computer, indicating an activation of the first billboard
advertisement; and
in response to such communication, transmitting, from the
server computer to the client computer, processing instructions
that cause the client computer to display additional information
relating to the first billboard advertisement.
The Examiner finds that
Robert discloses a number of methods to display additional
information relating to the first billboard advertisement . . . . As
a second example, Robert at least at paragraph [122] and Figures
27 A to 27N discloses the display of additional information with
16
Appeal2017-000514
Application 13/090,997
respect to a media content advertisement in the form of an
animated preview.
(Answer 14.)
Appellants disagree and argue that "FI Gs. 27 A-27N, and paragraph
[0122] merely provide for playing back the content represented by a
thumbnail. Such a playback of a movie is not 'additional information
relating to the first billboard advertisement' as claimed." (Reply Br. 11.)
Appellants do not persuasively argue why, e.g., providing a preview
or playback of an advertised movie is not providing additional information
relating to the advertisement for that movie. Therefore, we are not
persuaded of error. Claims 16 and 24 are not separately argued and fall with
claim 8. See 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv).
The§ 103(a) reiection o(claims 28. 30. and 32
Claim 28 recites: "The computer implemented method of claim 1
further comprising: specifying a priority for which of the settings to use
when a conflict between settings arises."
The Examiner finds that Michel discloses this limitation because
Michel discloses that "only end-user locations meeting both criteria A and B
will be sent the content, user 404 will not receive the content regarding the
minivan or the sports car. As seen in FIG. 4, users 406, 408 and 410 meet
the criteria and will receive the content .... " (Michel ,r 52; see also Final
Action 18.)
Appellants argue that the cited portion of Michel discloses "a series of
different criteria and determines which users meet both criteria A and B."
(Reply Br. 12.)
17
Appeal2017-000514
Application 13/090,997
We are persuaded of error. The disclosure in Michel relied on by the
Examiner discloses that multiple criteria may be required to, e.g., determine
to whom an advertisement should be directed. But the Examiner does not
indicate where Michel discloses a conflict between settings. It follows that
the Examiner also does not indicate where Michel discloses specifying a
priority in the event of a conflict.
Therefore, we will reverse the rejection of claim 28 under§ 103(a).
Claims 30 and 32 contain similar language and for similar reasons we will
also reverse the rejection of claims 30 and 32 under§ 103(a).
The§ 103(a) reiection o(claims 29. 31. and 33
Claims 29, 31, and 33 depend, respectively, from claims 28, 30, and
32. The additional portion of Michel relied on by the Examiner does not
cure the deficiency noted above with regard to claims 28, 30, and 32. (See
Answer 15.)
Therefore, we will reverse the rejection of claims 29, 31, and 33 under
§ 103(a).
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1-33 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is
affirmed.
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1-3, 5-11, 13-19, and 21-27
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is affirmed.
The Examiner's rejections of claims 4, 12, 20, and 28-33 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) are reversed.
18
Appeal2017-000514
Application 13/090,997
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
19