Facebook, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jul 1, 2020

13717541 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jul. 1, 2020)

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.
13/717,541 12/17/2012 Alon Amit 26295-20621/US 3182
87851 7590 07/01/2020
Facebook/Fenwick
Silicon Valley Center
801 California Street
Mountain View, CA 94041
EXAMINER
VAN BRAMER, JOHN W
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3621
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/01/2020 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):
fwfacebookpatents@fenwick.com
ptoc@fenwick.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ALON AMIT and GREGORY JOSEPH BADROS
Appeal 2020-001715
Application 13/717,541
Technology Center 3600
Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, JOHN A. EVANS, and
JASON M. REPKO, Administrative Patent Judges.

REPKO, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s
decision to reject claims 1–11, 13–18, and 20–25. Claims 12 and 19 are
canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to applicant as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42(a). According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Facebook, Inc.
of Menlo Park, California. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2020-001715
Application 13/717,541
2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant’s invention targets advertisements to users based on
searches. Spec. ¶ 4. In particular, the system allows advertisers to bid on
search results that include particular information. Id. ¶ 24. According to the
Specification, allowing advertisers to target advertisements to users based on
a user’s search is a valuable opportunity to drive traffic to websites and
increase engagement with brands. Id. ¶ 4.
Claims 1 and 13 are independent. Claim 1 is reproduced below.
1. A method comprising:
receiving a plurality of ad requests, the plurality of ad
requests including targeting criteria that specify a corresponding
advertisement be displayed when a search result includes a
particular object in an online social networking system;
receiving, by the online social networking system, a search
query received via a search engine user interface of the online
social networking system from a user of the online social
networking system;
determining a plurality of search results based on content
from the received search query;
retrieving, by a processor, a plurality of advertisements
with targeting criteria targeting the plurality of search results;
determining, by the processor, one or more of the plurality
of search results including the particular object in the online
social networking system;
selecting an advertisement from the retrieved plurality of
advertisements with targeting criteria matching the particular
object of the determined one or more search results; and
providing the plurality of search results and the selected
advertisement for display to the user via the search engine user
interface of the online social networking system responsive to the
search query.
Appeal 2020-001715
Application 13/717,541
3
Appeal Br. 9.2
REFERENCES
The Examiner relies on the references in the table below.
Name Reference Date
Emens US 7,076,443 B1 July 11, 2006
Kendall US 2009/0182589 A1 July 16, 2009
Abraham US 2010/0153215 A1 June 17, 2010

REJECTION
The Examiner rejects claims 1–11, 13–18, and 20–25 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over Kendall, Abraham, and Emens. Final 3–10.

OPINION
The Rejection of Claim 1
The Examiner finds that Kendall teaches all limitations of claim 1
except for targeting criteria that specify displaying an advertisement when a
user searches for a particular object in an online social-networking system.
Final 3–4. For these limitations, the Examiner turns to Abraham and Emens.
Id. at 4–5. In particular, the Examiner cites Abraham for its teachings about
search terms. See id. at 4. And the Examiner finds that Emens teaches

2 Throughout this opinion, we refer to the Final Office Action (“Final”),
mailed January 29, 2019; the Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.”), filed June 26,
2019; the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”), mailed November 1, 2019; and
Reply Brief (“Reply Br.”), filed January 2, 2020. The Appeal Brief lacks
pages numbers. So citations to the Appeal Brief in this opinion refer to the
pages consecutively starting from the cover page.
Appeal 2020-001715
Application 13/717,541
4
targeting advertisements to users based on search results. Id. at 5 (citing
Emens 5:54–5:21, 6:35–43).
Appellant’s Arguments
Appellant argues that the Examiner’s three-reference rejection
demonstrates that the claimed features are typically found separately in the
art. Appeal Br. 4–6. Appellant argues that Kendall’s ad requests lack the
targeting criteria for search requests. Reply Br. 2–3. Appellant argues that
Emens finds objects related to search results, not an object in a search result.
Id. at 4. And Appellant argues that Abraham teaches comparing
advertisements to the user information, not comparing an advertisement’s
targeting criteria to the search results as claimed. Appeal Br. 6–7.
Issues
I. Under § 103, has the Examiner erred in finding that Kendall,
Abraham, and Emens collectively teach or suggest “receiving a plurality of
ad requests, the plurality of ad requests including targeting criteria that
specify a corresponding advertisement be displayed when a search result
includes a particular object in an online social networking system,” as
recited in claim 1?
II. Under § 103, has the Examiner erred in finding that Kendall,
Abraham, and Emens collectively teach or suggest “selecting an
advertisement from the retrieved plurality of advertisements with targeting
criteria matching the particular object of the determined one or more search
results,” as recited in claim 1?
Analysis
I
Claim 1 recites, in part, “targeting criteria that specify a corresponding
advertisement be displayed when a search result includes a particular
Appeal 2020-001715
Application 13/717,541
5
object.” Appeal Br. 10. We are unpersuaded by Appellant’s argument that
Kendall teaches triggering ads using a friend’s actions, not search results.
Id. at 5; Reply Br. 3. For the limitation at issue here, the Examiner relies on
a combination of Kendall and Emens. See Final 4–5.
Kendall’s advertisers bid for ad placement on a social-networking
website. Kendall ¶ 80. As part of the bidding process, the social-network
operator receives ad requests from advertisers. Id. Kendall’s Figure 11,
below, is a diagram of an ad request. Id. ¶ 81.

Figure 11, above, shows ad request 1100 with targeting criteria 1135.
Id. ¶ 83. Ad request 1100 also includes bid-amount field 1120 and social-
object field 1125, among other things. Id. ¶ 81. Social-object field 1125
specifies one or more objects that will trigger a social ad when an action
related to the object occurs. Id. ¶ 83.
The Examiner finds that Kendall’s triggering criteria do not include
search results. Final 4. To address this feature, the Examiner finds that
Emens teaches targeting advertisements to search results. Id. at 5 (citing
Emens 5:54–5:21, 6:35–43).
Appeal 2020-001715
Application 13/717,541
6
In particular, Emens teaches that users search for information that
they are interested in, and thus, users are also likely interested in
advertisements related to those searches. Emens 5:11–13. So Emens selects
advertisements for a user based on the user’s search results. Id. at 5:20–21.
For example, Emens matches each search result to related product
advertisements. Id. at 5:40–43. From these teachings, the Examiner
determines that it would have been obvious to improve Kendall’s advertising
with Emens’s correlation of search results to related or similar
advertisements. Final 5 (citing Emens 4:54–5:19–21, 6:35–43).
We disagree with Appellant that the Examiner’s analysis “represents
piecemeal treatment of the elements.” Appeal Br. 5–6; see also Reply Br. 5–
6 (arguing that the Examiner has not addressed the claim as a whole).
Rather, the Examiner adequately supports the obviousness rationale here.
Final 5. In particular, the Examiner determines that the proposed
modification would further narrow the basis for selecting ads targeting
Kendall’s users. Id. Indeed, Emens uses the ad-to-search correlation for the
same reason. Emens 5:19–21, cited in Final 5. Also, Kendall states that “the
techniques described herein may be used with search engines.”
Kendall ¶ 102, cited in Ans. 4. In this way, the Examiner’s proposed
enhancement uses Emens and Kendall predictably according to their
established functions, which is an obvious improvement. See KSR Int’l Co.
v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007).
On this record, we are unpersuaded that the Examiner erred in finding
that Kendall, Abraham, and Emens collectively teach or suggest “receiving a
plurality of ad requests, the plurality of ad requests including targeting
criteria that specify a corresponding advertisement be displayed when a
Appeal 2020-001715
Application 13/717,541
7
search result includes a particular object in an online social networking
system,” as recited in claim 1.
II
Claim 1 further recites, in part, “selecting an advertisement from the
retrieved plurality of advertisements with targeting criteria matching the
particular object of the determined one or more search results.”
Appeal Br. 10.
Appellant argues that Emens does not use an object already included
in a search result. Reply Br. 4. In Appellant’s view, Emens’s focus is finding
objects related to search results. Id. But this argument does not account for
the Examiner’s reliance on Kendall’s targeting criteria. Final 4. Specifically,
Kendall records actions in a log. Kendall ¶ 73. Kendall’s ad server then
selects ad requests with targeting criteria matching those logged actions. Id.,
cited in Final 4. The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to
match search results with Kendall’s triggering criteria. See Final 4–5
(discussing search results as triggers); Ans. 4. Thus, Appellant’s argument
(Reply Br. 4) fails to account for the Examiner’s proposed modification to
Kendall’s matching with Emens’s ad-to-search correlation. Final 4–5.
Appellant also argues that Abraham compares advertisements to the
user information, not targeting criteria to the search results, as claimed.
Appeal Br. 6–7. Appellant argues that users enter Abraham’s search
requests, but the requests do not contain an object from an online social-
networking system. Id. at 7. Appellant argues that Abraham shows two
separate comparisons: (1) user information to search-result information and
(2) user information to advertisements. Id. (citing Abraham ¶¶ 47–48).
According to Appellant, Abraham does not match ad-targeting criteria to
Appeal 2020-001715
Application 13/717,541
8
particular search-result objects. Id. In Appellant’s view, Abraham is not
about social networking. Id. We find these arguments unpersuasive.
Kendall’s teachings relate to social networking. See generally
Kendall, Abstract. And, as discussed above, the Examiner cites Kendall to
address the claimed targeting criteria, and Emens for its teachings about
search results. Final 3–4. The Examiner asserts, and we agree, that
Appellant’s arguments about Abraham’s lack of a social network do not
squarely address the Examiner’s findings about Kendall and Emens. See
Ans. 5–6 (discussing Appeal Br. 6–7). In the rejection, the Examiner cites
Abraham for its teachings about search terms. See Final 4.
Like the recited selecting, Kendall’s ad server selects ad requests by
matching targeting criteria to other information. Kendall ¶ 73, cited in
Final 4, Ans. 4. But as discussed above, Kendall’s matching operates on
logged actions. Id. Emens, however, teaches that search results are useful
criteria for ads. Emens 5:11–13. So Emens matches search results to
advertisements. Id. at 5:40–43. On this record, Appellant has not
persuasively rebutted the Examiner’s conclusion that the recited selection
would have been obvious over this combination of Kendall and Emens. See
Final 4–5; Ans. 5–6.
Thus, we are unpersuaded that the Examiner erred in finding that
Kendall, Abraham, and Emens collectively teach or suggest “selecting an
advertisement from the retrieved plurality of advertisements with targeting
criteria matching the particular object of the determined one or more search
results,” as recited in claim 1. On this record, and based upon a
preponderance of the evidence, we sustain the rejection of claim 1.
Appeal 2020-001715
Application 13/717,541
9
Claim 13
According to Appellant, its arguments for claim 1 also apply to claim
13. Appeal Br. 4. So, for the same reasons discussed in connection with
claim 1, we sustain the rejection of claim 13.
Claims 9 and 16
Claim 9 recites, in part, “determining one or more object types of a
plurality of objects in the social networking system included in the plurality
of search results.” Appeal Br. 12. Claim 16 recites a similar limitation.
Id. at 14.
The Examiner finds that Kendall determines one or more object types
of multiple objects included in an action log. Final 8; Ans. 6–7. As discussed
above, the Examiner relies on Emens’s teachings about matching ads to
search results. Final 4–5; Ans. 6–7.
Appellant argues that the cited references do not teach or suggest the
recited object-type determination. Reply Br. 6. According to Appellant,
Kendall only uses object types in ad requests. Id.; see also Appeal Br. 8
(citing Kendall ¶ 73). As for Abraham and Emens, Appellant argues that
each describes parsing a search for a particular item, not an object type.
Reply Br. 7 (citing Abraham ¶¶ 47–48; Emens 5:11–17).
Appellant’s arguments are unpersuasive because they fail to account
for the Examiner’s proposed modification of Kendall with Emens. See
Appeal Br. 8; Reply Br. 6–7. In particular, Kendall’s ad server 38 matches
action entries from action log 160 with the ad requests. Kendall ¶ 73. The ad
requests specify “a type of object for which an action related to that object
triggers a social ad.” Id. (emphasis added). In this way, the Examiner has
shown that Kendall determines one or more object types for multiple objects
in the action log. Final 8.
Appeal 2020-001715
Application 13/717,541
10
To be sure, the claimed determining step is limited to “search results,”
not an action log. The Examiner, though, determines that it would have been
obvious to modify Kendall with Emens to arrive at the claimed invention.
Id. at 4–5. As discussed in connection with claim 1, Emens uses search
results to select target advertisements for each user. Emens 5:20–21. So the
Kendall-Emens combination teaches the recited object-type determination.
On this record, Appellant’s arguments about Abraham do not squarely
address the Examiner’s reliance on Kendall and Emens. See Appeal Br. 8;
Reply Br. 6–7.
Thus, we sustain the rejections of claims 9 and 16.
Claims 2–8, 10, 11, 14, 15, 17, 18, and 20–25
Claims 2–8, 10, 11, 14, 15, 17, 18, and 20–25 directly or indirectly
depend from one of claims 1 and 13. Appellant does not present separate
arguments for the rejections of claims 2–8, 10, 11, 14, 15, 17, 18, and 20–25.
See Appeal Br. 4–8; Reply Br. 2–7. So, for the reasons discussed above
regarding claims 1 and 13, we also sustain the rejections of claims 2–8, 10,
11, 14, 15, 17, 18, and 20–25.
Arguments that have not been made are waived. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–11, 13–18, and 20–25 is
affirmed.

Appeal 2020-001715
Application 13/717,541
11
DECISION SUMMARY

Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–11, 13–
18, 20–25
103 Kendall, Abraham,
Emens
1–11,
13–18,
20–25

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
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