Ex Parte Zinn et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 17, 2017

11696888 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 17, 2017)

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