Ex Parte Etchegoyen

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardApr 20, 2016

12492039 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 20, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 12/492,039 96051 7590 Uniloc USA Inc. Legacy Town Center 7160 Dallas Parkway Suite 380 Plano, TX 75024 0612512009 04/22/2016 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Craig S. Etchegoyen 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 ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. UN-NP-OA-005 6515 EXAMINER STOLTENBERG, DAVID J ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3682 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 04/22/2016 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): sean. burdick@unilocusa.com tkiatkulpiboone@unilocusa.com kris.pangan@unilocusa.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte CRAIG S. ETCHEGOYEN Appeal2014-004479 Application 12/492,039 Technology Center 3600 Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, WILLIAM A. CAPP, and ARTHUR M. PESLAK, Administrative Patent Judges. PESLAK, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b ). We AFFIRM. 1 Appellant submits the real party in interest is Uniloc Luxembourg S.A. Br. 3. Appeal2014-004479 Application 12/492,039 THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Claims 1 and 15, reproduced below, are illustrative of the claimed subject matter. 1. A computer-implemented method for determining efficacy of online advertising, comprising: in response to a user of a network device accessing a web page on which an advertisement is displayed, (a) caching an impression in a first database, and (b) receiving device data regarding the network device, the device data comprising a combination of user-configurable and non-user-configurable machine parameters; in response to the user clicking on the advertisement, (a) caching a user click in the first database, and (b) directing the user from the web page to a landing page; generating a device identifier for the network device based on the machine parameters; associating the cached impression and the cached conversion with the device identifier; calculating device specific cached impressions and device-specific cached clicks associated with the device identifier; and displaying information regarding at least one of the device-specific cached impressions and the device specific cached clicks. 15. A system for determining efficacy of online advertising, compnsmg: a processor module; a non-transitory computer readable medium that is in operative communication with the processor module; a communications module that is in operative communication with the processor module and the non-transitory computer readable medium; a first database that is in operative communication with the non-transitory computer readable medium and that is adapted to, in response to a user of a network device accessing a web page on which an advertisement is displayed, (a) cache an 2 Appeal2014-004479 Application 12/492,039 impression and (b) cache device data regarding the network device, the device data comprising a combination of user-configurable and non-user-configurable machine parameters; a redirector in operative communication with the first database and adapted to, in response to the user clicking on the advertisement, (a) report a user click to the first database, and (b) direct the user from the web page to a landing page; a conversion tracker in operative communication with the first database and adapted to, in response to the user making a purchase on the landing page, (a) report a conversion to the first database, and (b) direct the user from the landing page to a conversion page; and a device identifier producer in operative communication with the first database and adapted to generate a device identifier for the network device based on the machine parameters. REJECTIONS Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§103(a) as being unpatentable over McFadden (US 2005/0086105 Al, pub. Apr. 21, 2005) in view of Rowland (US 7,428,587 B2, iss. Sept. 23, 2008). Final Act. 3. DISCUSSION Claims 1 -20- Obviousness - McFadden and Rowland The Examiner found that McFadden discloses all the limitations of the independent claims 1, 15, and 18 other than "generating a device identifier for the network device based on the machine parameters." Final Act. 4, 6. The Examiner found that "Rowland discloses generating a device identifier for the network device based on the machine parameters." Id. The Examiner concluded that it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of McFadden and Rowland "to enhance the tracking of individual user's activities with regard to advertisements and reduce fraud." Id. 3 Appeal2014-004479 Application 12/492,039 Appellant's sole contention is that neither McFadden nor Rowland teach or suggest the limitation, recited identically in claims 1, 15, and 18, that "in response to a user of a network device accessing a web page on which an advertisement is displayed, (a) caching an impression in a first database." Br. 12; 17. Appellant argues the claimed limitation requires the impression to be cached even if the user does not click on the advertisement while McFadden logs the impression "only after the user has clicked on the advertisement ... and not in response to when the advertisement is displayed on the URL." Id. at 13; see also Id. at 15, 17. The Examiner relies on numerous portions of McFadden for disclosure of the limitation at issue. See Final Act. 3, 9-12; Ans. 12-18. Initially, we note that Appellant discloses that an impression occurs "when a user sees an ad." Spec. i-14. The Examiner concurred that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand this to be the meaning of an impression. Ans. 14. Based on our review of McFadden, we agree with the Examiner's finding that it discloses caching an impression in a database in the absence of a user clicking on the advertisement. McFadden discloses "[m]essage retriever 121 monitors web browser 112 for the uniform resource locater (URL) of web pages viewed by an end-user surfing on the internet." McFadden, i-128 (emphasis added). Message retriever 121 then sends a data packet to message server computer 140. Id. The data packet includes "one or more log entries 323." Id. Log entry 323 "contains data indicative of an end-user navigation to particular websites to receive particular web pages." Id. at i-129. McFadden discloses a second discrete example when log entry 323 may be created, i.e., "when the end-user clicks on a hyperlink of an 4 Appeal2014-004479 Application 12/492,039 advertisement" which "allows for detection of whether the end-user responded to the advertisement 116 by clicking on it." Id. (emphasis added). McFadden's Figure 2 discloses that data packets 121, which include log entries 323, are sent to database 142 in message server computer 140. McFadden, Fig. 2. Appellant does not refer us to any disclosure in McFadden to support the argument that log entry 323 relating to an end user viewing the webpage is created and sent to database 142 only after the user clicks on the webpage. In the absence of such a disclosure, Appellant's argument is not persuasive. The Examiner's finding that McFadden discloses the claim limitation that "in response to a user of a network device accessing a web page on which an advertisement is displayed, (a) caching an impression in a first database" is supported by the requisite preponderance of the evidence. See In re Caveney, 761F.2d671, 674 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (preponderance of the evidence is the standard that must be met by the PTO in making rejections.). We, therefore, sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claims 1, 15, and 18 as well as dependent claims 2-14, 16-17, and 19-20 under 35 U.S.C. Â§103(a). DECISION The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-20 is AFFIRMED. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 5