Ex Parte Schuster et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 7, 2019

13541023 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 7, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/541,023 07/03/2012 86548 7590 03/11/2019 Garlick & Markison (IH) 100 Congress A venue, Suite 2000 Austin, TX 78701 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Bobbi D. Schuster 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. 260-LAN-06-2012 1089 EXAMINER BANTAMOI, ANTHONY ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2423 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/11/2019 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): MMurdock@TEXASPATENTS.COM bpierotti@texaspatents.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte BOBBI D. SCHUSTER, KOHINOOR BASU, MATTHEW M. FERRY, DAVID C. JELLISON JR., STEVEN GABLE, and DAVID R. MURRAY Appeal2018-000029 Application 13/541,023 Technology Center 2400 Before JEAN R. HOMERE, BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, and PHILLIP A. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges. HOMERE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from a Final Rejection of claims 23--43, which constitute all claims pending in this application. 1 App. Br. 2. Claims 1-23 have been canceled. Claims App'x. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b ). We reverse. 1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as iHeartMedia Management Services, Inc. App. Br. 3. Appeal2018-000029 Application 13/541,023 Introduction According to Appellants, the claimed subject matter relates to a media distribution method and system (100) for enabling media content providers ( e.g. advertisers) to select available advertisement spots in a commercial schedule received from nationally distributed media outlets ( e.g., radio, TV), (118). Fig. 1, Spec. 2:2-5. In particular, upon receiving from the media outlets (118) unperfected station logs containing an inventory of available advertising spots (avails), as well as an anticipated broadcast schedule (programming surrounding avails) of the media outlets, an electronic hub (112) filters the unperfected logs, and transmits the filtered unperfected logs to the advertisers via a media content provider interface (120). Id. at 7-26. Upon receiving from an advertiser a selection of a desired advertisement slot from the filtered log, the electronic hub (112) transmits the selected spot to the corresponding media outlet to broadcast the advertiser's commercial. Id. 2 Appeal2018-000029 Application 13/541,023 Figure 1, reproduced below, depicts the elements of Appellants' system 100: Fig. 1 shows an integrated media content distribution system for real- time insertion and reporting of media content. Representative Claim Claims 24, 31, and 3 8 are independent. Independent claim 24 is representative and is reproduced below with the limitations at issue italicized: 24. A method for use in a media distribution system including an electronic hub and a plurality of media outlets, the method compnsmg: receiving, from the plurality of media outlets at an electronic hub via a communication network, a plurality of unperfected station logs associated with the plurality of media outlets, wherein the unperfected station logs include both avails and programming surrounding the avails; filtering the unperfected station logs to generate filtered unperfected logs; 3 Appeal2018-000029 Application 13/541,023 transmitting the filtered unperfected logs to a media content provider interface; receiving, at an electronic hub from the media content provider interface, an advertiser selection[,] the advertiser selection indicating: a selection of at least one of the unperfected station logs; a selection of at least one media outlet inventory item associated with the at least one of the unperfected station logs; creating, at the electronic hub, a perfected version of an unperfected station log based on the advertiser selection; and transmitting playout instructions associated with the perfected version of the unperfected station log to a media delivery system. Forsythe et al. Schu Prior Art Relied Upon US 2005/0171897 Al Rejection on Appeal2 Aug. 4, 2005 Claims 24--43 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Forsythe. Final Act. 8-18. ANALYSIS 3 Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in finding Forsythe anticipates claims 23--43. App. Br. 8. In particular, Appellants argue Forsythe does not describe "receiving, from a plurality of media outlets, ... at a plurality of unperfected station logs associated with the plurality of media outlets, wherein the unperfected station logs include both avails and programming surrounding the avails and filtering the unperfected station 2 The Examiner withdrew the obviousness type double patenting previously entered against claims 23--43. Ans. 11. 3 We refer to the Final Office Action ( mailed January 10, 2017) ("Final Act."), the Appeal Brief (filed May 8, 2017) ("App. Br."), and the Answer (mailed August 24, 2017) ("Ans."), the Reply Brief (filed September 27, 2017) ("Reply Br."), and for the respective details. 4 Appeal2018-000029 Application 13/541,023 logs to generate filtered unperfected logs," as recited in independent claim 24. Id. at 8-9. According to Appellants, Forsythe's rate submission pages simply relate to rates provided by personnel of media outlets, and do not describe the claimed unperfected station logs. Id. ( citing Forsythe ,r,r 44--48). Further, Appellants argue Forsythe's rate-centric efficacy method to fill advertising slots and schedules are created by the purchasing system, whereas the claimed unperfected station logs originate from the media outlets' own desired schedule and programming priorities. Id. at 9-12 (citing Forsythe ,r 48). Appellants' arguments are persuasive. Figure 1 of Forsythe, reproduced below, depicts a user/server environment for selecting and purchasing media advertising System 1Â°0 Advertiser IC)/ Media Outlet 1ca Ad~sr Provides Buying Criteria & Custnmor Data tnrough ... Siog Au is Crna!ed â€¢ -+ c~~t.es Rate Request I J ;a? 1"1 ... S.ndâ€¢ Sook Applicablo Ratao 1 ll Figure 1 depicts a system for selecting and purchasing media advertising 5 Appeal2018-000029 Application 13/541,023 As shown in Figure 1 above, Forsythe discloses a media selection and purchasing system (100) for allowing advertisers (101) to purchase advertisement slots at desired media outlets (103) via a website. Forsythe Abstract, ,r 3 7, Fig. 1. In particular, upon receiving buying criteria from advertisers, the website forwards the collected information to a suitable media outlet (103), which returns to the website the applicable rates for the advertiser's request. Id. ,r,r 13, 55, 58. The website then creates and transmits an advertising schedule to the advertiser ( 101) for subsequent purchase and for reserving the scheduled advertisement. Id. Although we agree with the Examiner that the cited portions of Forsythe teach creating a schedule of available media outlet advertisement slots, the Examiner has not demonstrated that the schedule of available media slots are received from the media outlets themselves. Ans. 12, 13. As persuasively argued by Appellants, Forsythe teaches creating the schedule of available slots at the website itself based on the rates received from the media outlets in response to the advertiser's rate inquiry. At best, Forsythe describes a website hub that creates the schedule of available advertisement slots based on rate data received from the media outlets. However, Forsythe falls short of disclosing that the website hub receives the unperfected station logs including avails and programming surround avails (i.e. programming schedules and available media slots) received from the media outlets. Because Appellants have shown at least one reversible error in the Examiner's rejection, we need not reach Appellants' remaining arguments. Accordingly, we are persuaded or error in the Examiner's anticipation rejection of claim 23. 6 Appeal2018-000029 Application 13/541,023 Because claims 24--43 recite the disputed limitations of claim 23 discussed above, we do not sustain the Examiner's anticipation rejection of the cited claims for the same reason set forth above. DECISION For the above reasons, we reverse the Examiner anticipation rejection of claims 23--43 as set forth above. REVERSED 7