Ex Parte Zinn et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 17, 201711696888 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 17, 2017) Copy Citation 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. 11/696,888 04/05/2007 Richard Zinn 58083-857835 (00025C1) 5330 72058 7590 03/21/2017 Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP Adobe Systems, Inc. 58083 Mailstop: IP Docketing - 22 1100 Peachtree Street, Suite 2800 Atlanta, GA 30309-4530 EXAMINER DURAN, ARTHUR D ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3622 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/21/2017 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): ipefiling @ kilpatrickstockton .com jlhice@kilpatrick.foundationip.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte RICHARD ZINN and BRETT MICHAEL ERROR Appeal 2015-0065901 Application 11/696,8882 Technology Center 3600 Before HUBERT C. LORIN, JAMES A. WORTH, and ROBERT J. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges. WORTH, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL 1 Our decision refers to the Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.,” filed Feb. 9, 2015) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed June 29, 2015), and the Examiner’s Final Office Action (“Final Act.,” mailed Sept. 29, 2014) and Answer (“Ans.,” mailed June 27, 2015). 2 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Adobe Systems Incorporated (Appeal Br. 1). Appeal 2015-006590 Application 11/696,888 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1—16 and 19-22.3 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. §§ 134 and 6(b). We REVERSE. Introduction Appellants’ disclosure relates to “a system and methods for interfacing with Internet search engines” and in particular for “classification of keywords across multiple campaigns in a bid management system associated with a web analytics system” (Spec. 12). Claims 1, 11, and 19 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal: 1. A system, comprising: a bid management system for managing purchase of a plurality of keywords by an advertiser in a plurality of campaigns of the advertiser, wherein each of the plurality of keywords corresponds to one or more campaigns of the plurality of campaigns, wherein the bid management system is implemented by a processor coupled to a computer readable storage medium storing computer program code executable by the processor to implement the bid management system; a web analytics tool for collecting web site visitation statistics for the keywords from across the plurality of campaigns, wherein the web analytics tool is implemented by a processor coupled to a computer readable storage medium storing computer program code executable by the processor to implement the web analytics tool; and 3 The summary page of the Final Office Action refers to claims 1—20 but the body of the Final Office Action refers to claims 1—16 and 19—22. We regard the rejection to be that which is set forth in the body of the Final Office Action, and regard the summary to be an inadvertent typographical error. 2 Appeal 2015-006590 Application 11/696,888 a classification manager for communication with the web analytics tool and the bid management system, the classification manager being implemented by a processor coupled to a computer readable storage medium storing computer program code executable by the processor to implement the classification manager, the computer program code of classification manager executable for performing the steps of: receiving input from the advertiser indicating a subset of the plurality of keywords and a classification name, wherein at least one of the keywords of the indicated subset is a multi-campaign keyword corresponding to two or more of the plurality of campaigns; in response to said receiving, creating a classification associating the subset of keywords with the classification name as classified keywords; retrieving from the web analytics tool, website visitation statistics for the subset of classified keywords, including for the multi-campaign keyword, the website visitation statistics including at least: a measure of behavior of users who visited a first website, at least in part, due to advertisement served by a search engine in response to purchase of the multi-campaign keyword from the search engine as part of a first of the plurality of advertising campaigns; and a measure of behavior of users who visited a second website, at least in part, due to advertisement served by a search engine in response to purchase of the multi-campaign keyword from the search engine as part of a second of the plurality of advertising campaigns, wherein the second website is distinct from the first website; determining from the website visitation statistics a first aggregate measure of user behavior for the multi-campaign keyword, wherein the first aggregate measure is calculated based at least on both of the measures of user behavior retrieved from the web analytics tool and associated with the first and second websites; determining a second aggregate measure of user behavior for the classification based on website visitation statistics associated with the plurality of keywords; and 3 Appeal 2015-006590 Application 11/696,888 providing the information about the classification to a computing device of the advertiser, the provided information causing the computing device of the advertiser to display in a same report the second aggregate measure in association with the classification and the first aggregate measure in association with the multi-campaign keyword. (Appeal Br., Claims App.) Rejection on Appeal The Examiner maintains, and the Appellants appeal, the following rejection: Claims 1—16 and 19—22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Henkin (US 2002/0120505 Al, pub. Aug. 29, 2002), Collins (US 2007/0027760 Al, pub. Feb. 1, 2007) (hereinafter, “Collins ’760”), and Ives (US 2007/0067267 Al, pub. Mar. 22, 2007). As part of this rejection, the Examiner relies on Collins (US 2007/0033104 Al, pub. Feb. 8, 2007) (hereinafter, “Collins ’104”), which application the Examiner determines to have been incorporated by reference into Collins ’760 (See Final Act. 12). ANALYSIS Independent claim 1 and its dependent claims We are persuaded by Appellants’ argument that the prior art relied on by the Examiner fails to disclose that an advertiser may input a name for the classification, as recited in independent claim 1, i.e., “receiving input from the advertiser indicating a subset of the plurality of keywords and a classification name” (see Appeal Br. 15; Reply Br. 2). In particular, Appellants assert that the name for the category in Henkin is input by the 4 Appeal 2015-006590 Application 11/696,888 disclosed management system, i.e., the Ad Campaign Provider, rather than by the advertiser (Appeal Br. 15; Reply Br. 3). In independent claim 1, there is a distinction between a classification” and a “keyword,” whereby a “classification” is “associate[ed]” with “a subset of keywords.” As such, the recited “classification” is a group or category of keywords. The “classification name,” is the name for the “classification,” which independent claim 1 requires to be input by the advertiser. The Examiner relies on Henkin (| 172 & Fig. 3) and Collins ’140 (120) (see Final Act. 6, 12). The Examiner also refers to paragraphs 72, 93— 96, 98—102, and 104 of Henkin (Final Act. 3). We have reviewed the portions of the prior art relied on by the Examiner and do not find support for receiving input from the advertiser indicating a classification name, as recited. For example, paragraph 172 of Henkin describes Figure 25F, which allows a user to input a “Keyword (Display String)” in the “Display String” box (see Henkin, Fig. 25F). Henkin explains that, in one embodiment, documents containing a keyword or keyword phrase will provide hyperlinks to a URF destination selected by an advertiser (see, e.g., Henkin || 56, 83). A client may click on the marked up text to be redirected to the URF (see id.), or may hover over marked texted to see a “title,” which is a descriptive text message associated with the marked text (see Henkin | 54). Figure 25F indicates that the advertiser may select or input a “Title” for the keyword (display string), which is the text message that appears on hover (see Henkin Fig. 25F). However, we agree with Appellants that Henkin does not disclose that the advertiser inputs the category (or “classification name” for a category) in which the keyword resides. 5 Appeal 2015-006590 Application 11/696,888 Nor does Henkin disclose that more than one keyword or keyword phrase at a time may be entered into box 4036, corresponding to the Keyword (Display String). Thus, even if the hover text (i.e., “Title”) were considered to be a “name,” it is unclear at best from Henkin’s disclosure that a given hover text (Title) may be associated with more than one keyword or keyword phrase at a time. As such, even under the broadest reasonable interpretation, Henkin does not disclose that an advertiser inputs a “classification name,” as recited. Collins ’140 discloses a keyword suggestion component, but likewise does not disclose that an advertiser inputs a classification name, as recited. Therefore, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection under § 103 of independent claim 1 and its dependent claims. Independent claims 11 and 19 and their dependent claims Independent claims 11 and 19 contain similar language and requirements as independent claim 1. We do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection under § 103 of independent claims 11 and 19 and their dependent claims, for similar reasons as for independent claim 1. DECISION The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1—16 and 19—22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is reversed. 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). REVERSED 6 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation