Lars Engebretsen et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Feb 25, 2020

14361637 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Feb. 25, 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.
14/361,637 05/29/2014 Lars Engebretsen 16113-4590US1 8885
26192 7590 02/25/2020
FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
PO BOX 1022
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55440-1022
EXAMINER
BARTLETT, WILLIAM P
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2169
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/25/2020 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):
PATDOCTC@fr.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte LARS ENGEBRETSEN, JENNIFER J. HUANG, and
PUNEET CHOPRA
____________

Appeal 2018-008628
Application 14/361,637
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before JOHNNY A. KUMAR, MATTHEW J. McNEILL, and
JASON M. REPKO, Administrative Patent Judges.

KUMAR, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final rejection of
claims 1, 2, 5–8, 10, 15–17, 19–24, 27–30. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

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
Google LLC. See Appeal Br. 1.

Appeal 2018-008628
Application 14/361,637

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Illustrative Claim 1
1. A method comprising:
identifying a selection keyword and single corresponding
bid that is used in determining when a creative is shown in
response to received content requests that include one or more
request keywords;
obtaining, by one or more computers, a given matching
criterion for comparing the selection keyword and the one or
more request keywords, the given matching criterion being
obtained from a continuous range of matching criteria defined
by a continuous range from an exact match to a broad match,
wherein each matching criterion in the continuous range has a
corresponding matching threshold, including:
enabling, by the one or more computers, selection
of a matching criterion by a content sponsor that provides the
creative, including presenting an interface to the content
sponsor that includes a control for selecting, from the
continuous range of matching criteria, the given matching
criterion;
presenting, in the interface, performance
information indicating a historical performance of the creative
when presented according to each of the matching criteria,
including changing the performance information presented as
the control is moved along the continuous range of matching
criteria to present the performance information for a particular
matching criterion corresponding to the location of the control
on the continuous range of matching criterion; and
receiving, through the interface, a selection of the
given matching criterion from among the continuous range of
matching criteria, wherein the selected matching criterion has a
corresponding historical performance and a lower matching
threshold than at least a second matching criterion in the
matching criteria;
establishing different bid modifiers for a single instance
of the selection keyword, the different bid modifiers being
respectively associated with different levels in the continuous
range of matching criteria including at least the given matching
Appeal 2018-008628
Application 14/361,637

3
criterion and the second matching criterion, each of the
different bid modifiers modifying the single corresponding bid
for the selection keyword based on a level of match that is
determined to exist between the selection keyword and the one
or more request keywords for a given content request being
within the range that corresponds to the level of match for the
different bid modifier; and
receiving a request for content that includes at least one
request keyword;
determining, based on a comparison of the received at
least one request keyword and the selection keyword, a given
level of match between the received at least one request
keyword and the selection keyword;
in response to determining the given level of match,
identifying, based on the given level of match, that one of the
given matching criterion and the second matching criterion is
satisfied by the given level of match meeting the corresponding
matching thresholds of the given matching criterion and the
second matching criterion;
identifying, from among the different bid modifiers for
the given matching criterion and the second matching criterion,
a given bid modifier that was established for the one of the
given matching criterion and the second matching criterion that
is satisfied by the given level of match; and
evaluating the creative for distribution responsive to the
received content request based on an adjusted bid that is
determined based on application of the given bid modifier
to the single corresponding bid.
See Appeal Br. 12–13 (Claims Appendix).

Rejections
A. Claims 1, 2, 5–7, 15–17, 19, 22–24, and 27–29 are rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Posse (US
2014/0164136 A1; June 12, 2014) in view of Ramaswamy (US
2009/0210385 A1; Aug. 20, 2009) and further in view of Haugen
Appeal 2018-008628
Application 14/361,637

4
(US 2011 /0087694 A1; Apr. 14, 2011) and Lejano (US
2009/0300031 A1; Dec. 3, 2009). Final Act. 2.
B. Claims 8, 10, 20, 21, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Posse in view of Ramaswamy and Haugen
and Lejano and further in view of Chickering (US 2006/0095281
A1; May 4. 2006). Final Act. 46.

ANALYSIS
We have considered Appellant’s arguments and any evidence
presented. We highlight and address specific findings and arguments for
emphasis in our analysis below.
Appellant urges that the Examiner has erred by improperly combining
the cited references. See Appeal Br. 8–10. 2
Our reviewing courts provide guidance: “[R]ejections on obviousness
grounds cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there
must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to
support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007), quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir.
2006).
Here, the Examiner finds:
one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to substitute a
control used to adjust the desired level of match from broad to narrow

2 Appellant makes additional arguments with respect to claims 1, 2, 5–8, 10,
15–17, 19–24, and 27–30. Appeal Br. 6–10. We do not reach the merits of
these additional arguments because this issue is dispositive of the appeal.

Appeal 2018-008628
Application 14/361,637

5
or between a larger and smaller proximity of match with a control that
changes the desired number of impressions between a larger and
smaller number of impressions because it is inherent that an
advertiser that specifies a broad level of match, for example, is
seeking more impressions because adjusting the level of match allows
them to target a larger audience. Of course, if an advertiser specifies
an exact level of match, they are seeking fewer impressions and a very
specific target audience.

Ans. 10–11 (emphasis ours).

However, Appellant disagrees and argues:
the Examiner's reliance upon inherency is improper, and does not
support the rejection.
. . . .
In the present case, as discussed in the Appeal Brief, the number of
impressions desired by the advertiser does not necessarily flow from
their selection of a level of match for a keyword. Rather, the match
type allow the advertiser to choose the level of specificity with which
they define the characteristics of their target audience, not necessarily
the size of their target audience. In fact, there are many different
ways in which advertisers can control the number of impressions (e.g.,
adjusting bids, adjusting budgets, buying a specific number of
impressions, adding or removing keywords), which are unrelated to
the level of match that they assign to keywords. In fact, as discussed
in the Appeal Brief, the art relied upon by the Examiner specifically
distinguishes between targeting criteria and desired number of
impressions. (See Appeal Brief at 6-7). Thus, the number of
impressions desired by an advertiser does not necessarily flow
from the selection of the level of match for a keyword, thereby
preventing reliance of inherency in the present case.

Reply Br. 1–2 (emphasis ours).

Accordingly, Appellant has provided sufficient evidence or argument
to persuade us of at least one reversible error in the Examiner’s rejection of
claim 1. Therefore, for essentially the same reasons argued by Appellant
Appeal 2018-008628
Application 14/361,637

6
cited above, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1, and
also reverse the rejection of independent claims 16 and 23, which recite the
disputed limitation in commensurate form. For the same reasons, we also
reverse the rejections of all dependent claims: 2, 5–8, 10, 15, 17, 19–22, 24,
and 27–30.
CONCLUSION
For at least the aforementioned reasons, and on this record, we are
persuaded the Examiner erred. We find a preponderance of the evidence
supports Appellant’s contentions for the reasons discussed above.
Therefore, we are constrained on this record to reverse each of
Rejections A and B under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

DECISION SUMMARY

REVERSED
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 5–7,
15–17, 19–
24, 27–29
103(a) Posse,
Ramaswamy,
Haugen, Lejano
1, 2, 5–7,
15–17, 19–
24, 27–29
8, 10, 20, 21,
30

103(a) Posse,
Ramaswamy,
Haugen, Lejano,
Chickering
8, 10, 20,
21, 30

Overall
Outcome
1, 2, 5–8,
10, 15–17,
19–24, 27–
30