Ex Parte Goel et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 22, 2016

12535168 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 22, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/535, 168 08/04/2009 Samir Goel
26192 7590 04/26/2016
FISH & RICHARDSON P,C
PO BOX 1022
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55440-1022
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.
16113-1676001 1929
EXAMINER
SORKOWITZ, DANIEL M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3681
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/26/2016 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):
P ATDOCTC@fr.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SAMIR GOEL and GA URA V JAIN
Appeal2013-009028
Application 12/535,168
Technology Center 3600
Before ANTON W. PETTING, BRUCE T. WIEDER, and
BRADLEY B. BAY AT, Administrative Patent Judges.
PETTING, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE1
Samir Goel and Gaurav Jain (Appellants) seek review under
35 U.S.C. § 134 ofa final rejection of claims 1--4, 6, 7, 12, 14--17, and 19-
23, the only claims pending in the application on appeal. 2 We have
jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
1 Our decision will make reference to the Appellants' Appeal Brief ("App.
Br.," filed April 1, 2013) and Reply Brief ("Reply Br.," filed July 9, 2013),
and the Examiner's Answer ("Ans.," mailed May 9, 2013), and Final Action
("Final Act.," mailed September 11, 2012).
2 Claims 9-11 were cancelled in an Amendment filed Oct. 30, 2012.
Appeal2013-009028
Application 12/535,168
The Appellants invented a way of "determining impressions of an
advertisement based on display thresholds for a display of the advertisement
in a device's viewport." Specification para. 4.
An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of
exemplary claim 12, which is reproduced below (bracketed matter and some
paragraphing added).
12. A computer-implemented method, comprising:
[ 1] receiving at a data processing apparatus display data
specifying a display state of a web page in a viewport;
[2] determining, by the data processing apparatus, a zoom level
measurement from the display data,
the zoom level measurement being a measure of a zoom
level of the viewport;
[3] identifying a content item associated with the web page,
the content item being provided by a content sponsor for
display on the web page
and
the content item having a display location on the web
page and displayed with other web page content;
[ 4] identifying an alternative representation of the content item,
wherein the alternative representation is a second content
item provided by the content sponsor for display on the
web page,
the second content item being different from the content
item;
[5] determining that the zoom level measurement exceeds a
zoom level threshold;
[ 6] in response to determining that the zoom level measurement
exceeds the zoom level threshold,
2
Appeal2013-009028
Application 12/535,168
providing the content item for display in the viewport at
the display location;
[7] subsequent to the determination that the zoom level
measurement exceeds the zoom level threshold,
and
determining that the that the zoom level measurement
does not exceed the zoom level threshold;
[8] in response to determining that the zoom level measurement
does not exceed the zoom level threshold,
providing the alternative representation of the content
item for display in the viewport at the display location
to replace the display of the content item at the
display location,
wherein during the display of the alternative
representation no portion of the content item is displayed
in the viewport.
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art:
Meisel
Brewer
US 2006/0190354 Al
US 2009/0177538 Al
Aug.24,2006
July 9, 2009
Belenguer US 2010/0217666 Al Aug. 26, 2010
CLK320 Sticker, Car Bibles: The Fuel and Engine Bible,
http://www.carbibles.com/fhel engine bible pg4.html (last visited Sept.
4,2012)
Claim 12 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by
Brewer. 3
3 A rejection of claims 9-11under35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by
O'Sullivan was mooted by an Amendment filed Oct. 30, 2012 cancelling
these claims.
3
Appeal2013-009028
Application 12/535,168
Claims 1--4, 6, 15-17, and 19----23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Belenguer and Brewer.
Claim 7 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Belenguer, Brewer, and Meisel.
Claim 14 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Brewer and CLK320 Sticker.
ISSUES
The issue of anticipation turns primarily on the breadth of claim 12. The
issues of obviousness tum primarily on whether the art describes varying
threshold levels based on zoom and proportional measurement levels.
FACTS PERTINENT TO THE ISSUES
The following enumerated Findings of Fact (FF) are believed to be
supported by a preponderance of the evidence.
Facts Related to the Prior Art
Brewer
01. Brewer is directed to the use of advertising space to convey
advertising information in a manner that may be more
advantageous than certain alternatives. The techniques relate to a
zoomable advertisement, in which a portion of the advertisement
may be zoomed in to reveal more detail, and/or the viewed portion
of the advertisement may be zoomed out to reveal additional
portions of the advertisement at the peripheries of the viewed
4
Appeal2013-009028
Application 12/535,168
portion. Moreover, the advertising content at the new zoom state
may contain targeted advertising information that may be of added
significance to the user, and may result in a more attention-
catching or persuasive advertisement. Brewer para. 23.
02. Brewer describes display of an advertisement for a new model
of a car. The advertisements are presumably displayed in a small
rectangular area, such as may be positioned in a comer of a
website or a computer application. Brewer para. 24.
03. Brewer describes an advertisement overview panel presented in
a first zoom state, such that the entire car is visible, and with some
introductory text that introduces the model. Brewer para. 26.
04. Brewer describes an advertisement overview panel also
including some areas that the user may select to zoom in on
various portions of the vehicle for more detail. For example, a
user may zoom in on the front tire of the car in the advertisement
overview panel to display (in the same advertising area) a
zoomed-in view of the front tire, i.e., a second zoom state of the
vehicle. The second zoom state may show the front tire in more
detail than the corresponding view of the front tire in the
advertisement overview panel. In this exemplary advertisement,
the second zoom state also includes some text to present the tire to
a particular user as having features that target the criteria of the
user. Brewer para. 27.
05. Brewer describes an advertisement overview panel also
including an indication that clicking on the rear window of the
5
Appeal2013-009028
Application 12/535,168
vehicle may present a third zoom state, which is focused on the
rear portion of the vehicle where the components of a sound
system may be located. The advertisement overview panel may
also include a window-sticker zooming indicator that leads to a
fourth zoom state that is zoomed in on the window sticker of the
vehicle. Brewer para. 28.
Belenguer
06. Belenguer is directed to ensuring advertising servers that a
banner of a web page has not only been downloaded in a web
browser but also viewed by the end customer. Belenguer para. 1.
07. Belenguer describes the display of an object on a screen of a
browser essentially depending on two parameters: the percentage
or proportion of the object (percentage of the area, of the total
length, etc.) being displayed in the browser window, and
optionally, on the minimum time in which said object is displayed
in the browser window. The situation is detected when a
percentage or proportion of a visible object displayed is equal to
or greater than a certain specified percentage in the browser
window. The situation is detected when a percentage or
proportion of a non-visible object displayed is equal to or greater
than that specified is shown in the browser window at a
percentage or proportion lower than that specified. Belenguer
paras. 71-77.
6
Appeal2013-009028
Application 12/535,168
ANALYSIS
As to independent claim 12, we not are persuaded by the Appellants'
argument that Brewer fails to describe limitation [8]. App. Br. 6-10. The
Examiner finds that Brewer's Figure 2 shows this limitation. Final Act. 14.
To understand the Examiner's finding, one must first understand the breadth
of claim 12. Although claim 12 recites a zoom level measurement, it does
not specify or narrow the implementation or manner of such level or
measurement. Claim 12 recites "the zoom level measurement being a
measure of a zoom level of the viewport", not of the content. Although
content may be displayed in the viewport, the claim does not require that
everything within the viewport, including the content, is subject to zoom
magnification. Furthermore, claim 12 does not recite any implementation
for determining whether a zoom level exceeds a threshold.
As a result, the Examiner finds that Brewer describes zoom operations as
presented in Figure 2 in which an overall image is shown at zoom level 1
and magnified portions of the image are shown at zoom levels 2, 3, and 4.
Final Act. 14. The Examiner finds that by distinguishing zoom level 1 from
higher zoom levels, Brewer describes an implementation within the scope of
determining whether a zoom level exceeds a threshold. Final Act. 14. The
Examiner also finds that Brewer's viewport or zoom state 34 as shown in
Figure 2 contains text, such as a vehicle base price, when zoomed in on the
window sticker image of the vehicle in panel 28. Final Act. 14. This price,
however, is not shown in zoom level 1 of Figure 2, but instead different text
is shown, which the Examiner equates with the recited "alternate
representation of the content item for display in the viewport." Final Act.
14.
7
Appeal2013-009028
Application 12/535,168
Thus the Appellants' argument that some portions of the car remain in
the zoom level 4 window is unpersuasive because the Examiner equates the
text rather than the car with the content item.
Claim 14, depending from claim 12, is not separately argued.
As to claim 1, we are persuaded by the Appellants' argument that the
references fail to describe "the proportional measurement threshold varying
based on changes to the zoom level measurement; and ... the zoom level
threshold varying based on changes to the proportional measurement." App.
Br. 16 (Claim 1 ). The Examiner finds that Belenguer describes a situation
being detected when a percentage or proportion of a visible object displayed
is equal to or greater than a certain specified percentage in the browser
window. Ans. 15; FF 07. This does not show that the thresholds vary as
recited in the claims. Claims 15, 20, and 21 are similar to claim 1 and the
remaining claims depend from claims 1, 15, 20, or 21.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The rejection of claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by
Brewer is proper.
The rejection of claims 1--4, 6, 15-17, and 19-23 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Belenguer and Brewer is improper.
The rejection of claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Belenguer, Brewer, and Meisel is improper.
The rejection of claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Brewer and CLK320 Sticker is proper.
8
Appeal2013-009028
Application 12/535,168
uECISION
The rejection of claims 1--4, 6, 7, 15-17, and 19-23 is reversed.
The rejection of claims 12 and 14 is affirmed.
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)(l)(iv) (2011).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
9