Ex Parte YanDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardApr 25, 201311102862 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 25, 2013) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte WEIPENG YAN ____________ Appeal 2011-007253 Application 11/102,862 Technology Center 3600 ____________ Before: MEREDITH C. PETRAVICK, MICHAEL W. KIM, and NINA L. MEDLOCK, Administrative Patent Judges. KIM, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2011-007253 Application 11/102,862 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 1, 4, 6, 8, 10-12, 14-19, and 21-251. We have jurisdiction to review the case under 35 U.S.C. §§ 134 and 6. The invention relates generally to methods and systems to generate statistics, alerts, and other information regarding online advertising in real time (Spec., para. [0001]). Claim 1, reproduced below, is further illustrative of the claimed subject matter. 1. A method comprising, at a computer associated with an ad placement provider, receiving one or more data streams containing real-time data concerning online advertisements for a plurality of advertisers, the one or more data streams comprising data logs received from ad servers; applying a first continuous sliding window query to the one or more data streams, the first continuous sliding window query concerning online advertisement data for one advertiser in the plurality of advertisers; generating a first ongoing response stream to the first continuous sliding window query in real time, the first ongoing response stream including, for a particular ad for a predetermined time period, one or more of number of ad impressions, number of click throughs, bid position data, spending data, number of ad conversions, and click-through rate; applying a second continuous query to the first ongoing response stream; 1 Our decision will make reference to the Appellant’s Appeal Brief (“App. Br.,” filed November 29, 2010) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed March 21, 2011), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed February 18, 2011). Appeal 2011-007253 Application 11/102,862 3 generating a second response to the second continuous query; and in response to generating the second response, sending at least a portion of the second response to a computer associated with the one advertiser in the plurality of advertisers. REFERENCES Weitzman US 2002/0099605 A1 Jul. 25, 2002 M. A. Hammad, “Nile: A Query Processing Engine for Data Streams”, Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Data Engineering (2004). REJECTIONS Claims 1, 4, 6, 8, 10-12, 14-19, and 21-25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Weitzman in view of Hammad. Ans. 4-27. We AFFIRM. ISSUES Did the Examiner err in asserting that a combination of Weitzman and Hammad suggests “applying a second continuous query to the first ongoing response stream; generating a second response to the second continuous query” and “in response to generating the second response sending at least a portion of the second response to a computer associated with the one advertiser in the plurality of advertisers,” as recited in independent claim 1? Did the Examiner err in asserting that a combination of Weitzman and Hammad suggests “generating a first ongoing response stream to the first continuous sliding window query in real time, the first ongoing response Appeal 2011-007253 Application 11/102,862 4 stream including, for a particular ad for a predetermined time period, one or more of number of ad impressions, number of click throughs, bid position data, spending data, number of ad conversions, and click-through rate,” as recited in independent claim 1? Did the Examiner err in asserting that a combination of Weitzman and Hammad suggests “receiving one or more data streams containing real-time data concerning online advertisements for a plurality of advertisers, the one or more data streams comprising data logs received from ad servers,” as recited in independent claim 1? Did the Examiner err in asserting that a combination of Weitzman and Hammad suggests “wherein the second response to the second continuous query includes an alert,” as recited in claim 10? FINDINGS OF FACT Specification 1. The Specification does not provide a lexicographic definition of “alert.” Weitzman 2. Weitzman discloses an advertisers statistics summary report for a search engine (para. [0076]). 3. Weitzman discloses that the statistics include click-through and banner statistics for each site listing, including click-through responses from users (registered and unregistered) for the day, week, month, and total, number of impressions or displays, number of impressions displayed, number of user responses, and the click-through rate which is based on the Appeal 2011-007253 Application 11/102,862 5 number of responses and the number of impressions (para. [0076]). 4. Weitzman discloses compiling a detailed report of demographic information corresponding to registered users who will respond to the advertisement (para. [0076]). 5. Weitzman discloses supplying advertisers with real-time average demographic information for those users responding to their advertisements (para. [0086]). ANALYSIS Obviousness Rejection of Independent Claim 1’s Limitations Concerning “Second Response” We are not persuaded the Examiner erred in asserting that a combination of Weitzman and Hammad suggests “applying a second continuous query to the first ongoing response stream; generating a second response to the second continuous query” and “in response to generating the second response sending at least a portion of the second response to a computer associated with the one advertiser in the plurality of advertisers,” as recited in independent claim 1 (App. Br. 16-22; Reply Br. 7-11). Appellant asserts that Weitzman does not teach these applying, generating, and sending steps, because Weitzman does not disclose or suggest anything about a continuous query or generating a response to a continuous query (App. Br. 17-18, Reply Br. 7-9). We disagree. Weitzman discloses an advertiser statistics summary report that includes click-through and banner statistics for each site listing (para. [0076]). The Examiner cites this as corresponding to the recited second response to the second query (Ans. 30). The summary report is created with data collected from a query. Weitzman Appeal 2011-007253 Application 11/102,862 6 may not explicitly disclose that the query to collect the data for the summary report is continuous. However, there are only two options for querying to collect data: either a continuous query or a discontinuous query. Thus, the Examiner asserts that a continuous query is obvious in view of the query of Weitzman (Ans. 30-31). We agree. In view of this analysis, Appellant’s arguments concerning “obvious to try” are moot (App. Br. 18-21; Reply Br. 9-10). Appellant next asserts that Hammad does not disclose the aforementioned applying, generating, and sending steps (App. Br. 21-22; Reply Br. 10-11). However, as set forth above, Weitzman alone suggests the aforementioned applying, generating, and sending steps. Obviousness Rejection of Independent Claim 1’s Limitations Concerning “First Response” We are not persuaded the Examiner erred in asserting that a combination of Weitzman and Hammad suggests “generating a first ongoing response stream to the first continuous sliding window query in real time, the first ongoing response stream including, for a particular ad for a predetermined time period, one or more of number of ad impressions, number of click throughs, bid position data, spending data, number of ad conversions, and click-through rate,” as recited in independent claim 1 (App. Br. 22-23; Reply Br. 11-12). Appellant asserts that Weitzman is completely silent as to generating a first ongoing response stream to a first continuous sliding window query in real time. We disagree. Appellant is actually making two independent assertions, each of which will be addressed in turn. First, Appellant is asserting that Weitzman is completely silent as to Appeal 2011-007253 Application 11/102,862 7 generating a first ongoing response stream to a query in real time. We disagree. Weitzman discloses collecting statistics that include click-through and banner statistics for each site listing (para. [0076]). The Examiner cites this as corresponding to generating a first response to a query (Ans. 5). Weitzman also discloses supplying advertisers with real-time average demographic information for those users responding to their advertisements (para. [0086]). Since the real-time average demographic information for those users responding to their advertisements would have to be provided at the same time that the click-through and banner statistics are collected, Weitzman suggests generating a first ongoing response stream to a query in real time. Second, Appellant is asserting that Weitzman is completely silent as to a first continuous sliding window query. Appellant’s assertion is misplaced. The Examiner cites Hammad, and not Weitzman, for disclosing the first continuous sliding window query (Ans. 6, 31-32). Appellant also asserts that real time is expressly defined in the Specification as being within minutes, while paragraph [0076] of Weitzman discloses that its real-time constitutes days (Reply Br. 12). We disagree. The portion of paragraph [0076] of Weitzman that refers to days is directed to the summary report, which the Examiner cites as corresponding to the recited second response (Ans. 30). However, the statistics that make up the summary report in Weitzman, which the Examiner cites as corresponding to the first response (Ans. 5), are collected in real-time (para. [0086]), which at least suggests a time period shorter than days. Appeal 2011-007253 Application 11/102,862 8 Obviousness Rejection of Independent Claim 1’s Limitations Concerning “Data Logs” We are not persuaded the Examiner erred in asserting that a combination of Weitzman and Hammad suggests “receiving one or more data streams containing real-time data concerning online advertisements for a plurality of advertisers, the one or more data streams comprising data logs received from ad servers,” as recited in independent claim 1 (App. Br. 23- 27). Appellant asserts that Weitzman does not disclose or suggest data streams containing real-time data concerning online advertisers for a plurality of advertisers. We disagree. Weitzman discloses supplying multiple advertisers with real-time average demographic information for those users responding to their advertisements (para. [0086]). Appellant asserts that Weitzman does not disclose or suggest data logs. We agree with and adopt the Examiner’s findings and rationales, as set forth on pages 33-34 of the Examiner’s Answer. Obviousness Rejection of Claim 10 We are not persuaded the Examiner erred in asserting that a combination of Weitzman and Hammad suggests “wherein the second response to the second continuous query includes an alert,” as recited in claim 10 (App Br. 27-30; Reply Br. 12-13). Appellant asserts that the Examiner’s application of the doctrine of non-functional descriptive material is incorrect (App. Br. 28-29). Whether or not this is correct, the fundamental problem is that Appellant does not provide any lexicographic definition of “alert.” Accordingly, we are unclear as to where the content of any notification, such as an e-mail or message to another user, would cross the Appeal 2011-007253 Application 11/102,862 9 line from a “non-alert” to “alert.” The term “alert” is commonly understood to mean “a notice or warning making one aware of a condition or event” (Ans. 9, 34) and thus broadly encompasses literally any communication to another user. Appellant asserts that none of the activities listed in paragraphs [0048]-[0071] of Weitzman constitutes “a notice or warning making one aware of a condition or event” (App Br. 28; Reply Br. 12-13). However, even assuming arguendo that Appellant is correct, the Examiner cites paragraph [0076] of Weitzman for disclosing an advertisers statistics summary report as corresponding to the recited second response (Ans. 30), and such a report meets the broad definition of “alert” as “a notice or warning making one aware of a condition or event.” Appellant further asserts that the Examiner’s stated rationale for combining Weitzman and Hammad to render obvious claim 10 is insufficient because it fails to even mention alerts (App. Br. 29-30). We agree with and adopt the Examiner’s findings and rationales, as set forth on page 36 of the Examiner’s Answer. DECISION The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1, 4, 6, 8, 10-12, 14-19, and 21-25 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). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED tj Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation