Marc Trachtenberg et al.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardDec 13, 20212021002590 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 13, 2021) Copy Citation 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. 14/788,189 06/30/2015 Marc Trachtenberg 18786.00003i 3602 67883 7590 12/13/2021 Pryor Cashman LLP Patent Department 7 Times Square NEW YORK, NY 10036-6569 EXAMINER FRUNZI, VICTORIA E. ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3688 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/13/2021 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte MARC TRACHTENBERG, FRANCOIS GARIEPY, and KETAN PATEL ____________ Appeal 2021-002590 Application 14/788,189 Technology Center 3600 ____________ Before NINA L. MEDLOCK, BRUCE T. WIEDER, and BRADLEY B. BAYAT, Administrative Patent Judges. MEDLOCK, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1–20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 We use the term “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Our decision references Appellant’s Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.,” filed November 2, 2020) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed March 4, 2021), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed January 8, 2021) and Final Office Action (“Final Act.,” mailed February 26, 2020). Appellant identifies Videri Inc. as the real party in interest (Appeal Br. 3). Appeal 2021-002590 Application 14/788,189 2 CLAIMED INVENTION The Specification states, “[t]he present invention represent[s] . . . a digital advertising platform that maximizes pricing and revenue opportunities throughout various market spaces” (Spec. 1). Claims 1 and 11, reproduced below with bracketed notations added, are the independent claims on appeal and representative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A digital advertising system for displaying on one or more display devices and optimizing revenue of at least one advertisement displayed on the one or more display device having bidding and rating information comprising: [(a)] one or more display devices, each display device having a processor, a memory, an operating system, one or more applications configured to communicate with the operating system in generating visual content, a digital signage system engine configured to create and display advertisements on the display device, and a profile containing attributes of the display device, wherein the attributes include one or more time slots that designate when at least one advertisement is to be displayed on the display device; [(b)] an advertising platform adapted to receive, for each of the one or more display devices, one or more requests for displaying at least one advertisement in one or more time slots of the one or more display devices, each of the one or more requests including bidding and rating information for one or more requested time slots of a particular display device, wherein, for each specific display device of the one or more display devices, the advertising platform automatically selects, for each particular time slot of the specific display device, a selected request from one or more requests designating the particular time slot of the specific display device, such that the selected request is determined to maximize revenue for the particular time slot of the specific display device, the advertising platform performing such selection by using bidding and rating information associated with the one or more requests designating the Appeal 2021-002590 Application 14/788,189 3 particular time slot of the specific display device, the at least one advertisement associated with the selected request being displayed on the specific display device in the particular time slot indicated in the selected request; and [(c)] an exchange adapted to securely access said advertising platform and the one or more display devices to govern the flow of data and control between the advertising platform and each of the one or more display devices, wherein the exchange communicates with the advertising platform to receive one or more selected advertisements associated with one or more selected requests, authenticates the one or more selected advertisements, routes each of the selected advertisements to be displayed on a respective display device in a respective time slot, and provides acknowledgement to the advertising platform. 11. A method for displaying on one or more display devices and optimizing revenue of at least one digital advertisement displayed on the one or more display devices having bidding and rating information comprising: [(a)] providing one or more display devices, each display device having a processor, a memory, an operating system, one or more applications configured to communicate with the operating system in generating visual content, a digital signage system engine configured to create and display advertisements on the display device, and a profile containing attributes of the display device, wherein the attributes include one or more time slots that designate when at least one advertisement is to be displayed on the at least one display device; [(b)] receiving by an advertising platform, for each of the one or more time slots of the one or more display devices, one or more requests for displaying at least one advertisement in one or more time slots of the one or more display devices, each of the one or more requests including bidding and rating information for one or more requested time slots of a particular display device; [(c)] for each specific display device of the one or more display devices, selecting automatically by the advertising platform, for each particular time slot of the specific display device, a selected request from one or more requests designating Appeal 2021-002590 Application 14/788,189 4 the particular time slot of the specific display device, such that the selected request is determined to maximize revenue for the particular time slot of the specific display device, the advertising platform performing such selection by using bidding and rating information associated with the one or more requests designating the particular time slot of the specific display device, the at least one advertisement associated with the selected request being displayed on the specific display device in the particular time slot indicated in the selected request; [(d)] securely accessing by an exchange information from said advertising platform and said at least one display device; [(e)] governing the flow of data and control between said advertising platform and said at least one display device by said exchange; [(f)] communicating by the exchange with the advertising platform to receive one or more selected advertisements associated with one or more selected requests; [(g)] authenticating the one or more selected advertisements; [(h)] routing by the exchange each of the selected advertisements to be displayed on a respective display device in a respective time slot; [(i)] providing acknowledgement to the advertising platform; and [(j)] displaying by each of the one or more display devices the selected advertisements. REJECTIONS Claims 1–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. Claims 1, 5–7, 11, and 15–17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Shaw et al. (US 8,566,152 B1, issued Oct. 22, 2013) (“Shaw”), Yeo et al. (US 2004/0172326 A1, published Sept. 2, 2004) (“Yeo”), and Charania (US 2011/0066487 A1, published Mar. 17, 2011). Appeal 2021-002590 Application 14/788,189 5 Claims 2–4, 9, 12–14, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Shaw, Yeo, Charania, and Sweeney (US 2015/0095166 A1, published Apr. 2, 2015). Claims 8, 10, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Shaw, Yeo, Charania, and Baffier et al. (US 8,849,850 B2, issued Sept. 30, 2014) (“Baffier”). ANALYSIS Patent-Ineligible Subject Matter Appellant argues the pending claims as a group (Appeal Br. 11–15). We select independent claim 11 as representative. The remaining claims stand or fall with claim 11. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). Under 35 U.S.C. § 101, “[w]hoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor.” 35 U.S.C. § 101. The Supreme Court, however, has long interpreted § 101 to include an implicit exception: “[l]aws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas” are not patentable. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 216 (2014). The Supreme Court, in Alice, reiterated the two-step framework previously set forth in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., 566 U.S. 66 (2012), “for distinguishing patents that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible applications of those concepts.” Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 217. The first step in that analysis is to “determine whether the claims at issue are directed to one of those patent-ineligible concepts.” Id. If the claims are not directed to a patent-ineligible concept, e.g., an abstract idea, the inquiry Appeal 2021-002590 Application 14/788,189 6 ends. Otherwise, the inquiry proceeds to the second step where the elements of the claims are considered “individually and ‘as an ordered combination’” to determine whether there are additional elements that “‘transform the nature of the claim’ into a patent-eligible application.” Id. (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 78). This is “a search for an ‘inventive concept’ — i.e., an element or combination of elements that is ‘sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the [ineligible concept] itself.’” Id. at 217–18 (alteration in original). The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (the “USPTO”) published revised guidance on January 7, 2019, for use by USPTO personnel in evaluating subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101. 2019 REVISED PATENT SUBJECT MATTER ELIGIBILITY GUIDANCE, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (Jan. 7, 2019) (the “2019 Revised Guidance”).2 That guidance revised the USPTO’s examination procedure with respect to the first step of the Mayo/Alice framework by (1) “[p]roviding groupings of subject matter that [are] considered an abstract idea”; and (2) clarifying that a claim is not “directed to” a judicial exception if the judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception. Id. at 50. The first step, as set forth in the 2019 Revised Guidance (i.e., Step 2A), is, thus, a two-prong test. In Step 2A, Prong One, we look to whether the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g., one of the following three groupings of abstract ideas: (1) mathematical concepts; (2) certain methods of organizing human activity, e.g., fundamental economic 2 The MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE (“MPEP”) incorporates the revised guidance and subsequent updates at Section 2106 (9th ed. Rev. 10.2019, rev. June 2020). Appeal 2021-002590 Application 14/788,189 7 principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions; and (3) mental processes. 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 54. If so, we next determine, in Step 2A, Prong Two, whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application, i.e., whether the additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception. Id. at 54–55. Only if the claim (1) recites a judicial exception and (2) does not integrate that exception into a practical application do we conclude that the claim is “directed to” the judicial exception, e.g., an abstract idea. Id. If the claim is determined to be directed to a judicial exception under revised Step 2A, we next evaluate the additional elements, individually and in combination, in Step 2B, to determine whether they provide an inventive concept, i.e., whether the additional elements or combination of elements amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself; only then, is the claim patent eligible. 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56. Here, in rejecting the pending claims under 35 U.S.C. § 101, the Examiner determined that the claims recite “displaying an advertisement based on bidding and rating information” and that the claims fall within the “[c]ertain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas (Final Act. 2–3). The Examiner also determined that the recited abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application (id. at 3), and that the claims do not include additional elements sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself (id. at 3–4). Appeal 2021-002590 Application 14/788,189 8 Step One of the Mayo/Alice Framework (2019 Revised Guidance, Step 2A) We are not persuaded here that the Examiner erred in determining that claim 11 is directed to an abstract idea. The Federal Circuit has explained that “the ‘directed to’ inquiry applies a stage-one filter to claims, considered in light of the specification, based on whether ‘their character as a whole is directed to excluded subject matter.’” Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2015)). It asks whether the focus of the claims is on a specific improvement in relevant technology or on a process that itself qualifies as an “abstract idea” for which computers are invoked merely as a tool. See id. at 1335–36. Here, it is clear from the Specification (including the claim language) that claim 11 focuses on an abstract idea, and not on an improvement to technology and/or a technical field. The Specification is titled “Advertising Platform for Ad Placement,” and describes the present invention as “a digital advertising platform that maximizes pricing and revenue opportunities throughout various market spaces” (Spec. 2). More particularly, the Specification describes that the advertising platform uses bidding and rate sheets to determine advertising media content placement and, thus, allows advertisers to acquire display time on various types of display devices through a fixed rate or bidding process (id. at 3). Also, central to the digital advertising system, is an “exchange,” adapted to securely access the advertising platform and manage the flow of information between the advertising platform and the display devices (id. at 11, Abstr.). Appeal 2021-002590 Application 14/788,189 9 Consistent with this disclosure, claim 11 recites a method for optimizing revenue of at least one digital advertisement displayed on one or more display devices having bidding and rating information comprising: (1) receiving, by an advertising platform, requests, including bidding and rating information, to display advertisements in one or more time slots of the one or more display devices, i.e., providing one or more display devices, each display device having a processor, a memory, an operating system, one or more applications configured to communicate with the operating system in generating visual content, a digital signage system engine configured to create and display advertisements on the display device, and a profile containing attributes of the display device, wherein the attributes include one or more time slots that designate when at least one advertisement is to be displayed on the at least one display device; [and] receiving by an advertising platform, for each of the one or more time slots of the one or more display devices, one or more requests for displaying at least one advertisement in one or more time slots of the one or more display devices, each of the one or more requests including bidding and rating information for one or more requested time slots of a particular display device (steps (a) and (b)); (2) automatically selecting, by the advertising platform, for each time slot of each display device, the request that maximizes revenue for that particular time slot, i.e., for each specific display device of the one or more display devices, selecting automatically by the advertising platform, for each particular time slot of the specific display device, a selected request from one or more requests designating the particular time slot of the specific display device, such that the selected request is determined to maximize revenue for the particular time slot of the specific display device, the advertising platform performing such selection by using bidding and rating information associated with the one or more requests designating the particular time slot of the specific display device, the at least one Appeal 2021-002590 Application 14/788,189 10 advertisement associated with the selected request being displayed on the specific display device in the particular time slot indicated in the selected request (step (c)); (3) communicating with the advertising platform, by an exchange, to receive the advertisements associated with the selected requests; authenticating the advertisements; routing the advertisements to be displayed on a respective display device in a respective time slot; and providing acknowledgement to the advertising platform, i.e., securely accessing by an exchange information from said advertising platform and said at least one display device; governing the flow of data and control between said advertising platform and said at least one display device by said exchange; communicating by the exchange with the advertising platform to receive one or more selected advertisements associated with one or more selected requests; authenticating the one or more selected advertisements; routing by the exchange each of the selected advertisements to be displayed on a respective display device in a respective time slot; [and] providing acknowledgement to the advertising platform (steps (d) through (i)); and (4) “displaying by each of the one or more display devices the selected advertisements” (step (j)). We agree with the Examiner that these limitations, when given their broadest reasonable interpretation, recite “displaying an advertisement based on bidding and rating information,” i.e., a method of organizing human activity,” and, therefore, an abstract idea (Final Act. 2–3). Appellant generally describes the features of claim 11 and argues, “such features cannot be summarily viewed as merely ‘displaying an advertisement based on bidding and rating information’” (Appeal Br. 12). But, aside from asserting that the claim “permits advertisements to be Appeal 2021-002590 Application 14/788,189 11 securely displayed while allowing for maximum revenue to be automatically generated for each of the time slots on the specific display device as well as the rest of the display devices as a whole” (id.), Appellant offers no persuasive argument or reasoning as to why the Examiner’s determination (i.e., that claim 11 recites an abstract idea) is unreasonable or unsupported. We also are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that claim 11 includes additional elements that integrate the recited abstract idea into a “practical application,” as that phrase is used in the 2019 Revised Guidance (Appeal Br. 13–14). The Revised Guidance references MPEP, Ninth Edition (rev. Jan 2018) (available at https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/ mpep/old/mpep_E9R08-2017.htm) § 2106.05(a)–(c) and (e) in non-exhaustively listing considerations indicative that an additional element or combination of elements may have integrated a recited judicial exception into a practical application. 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55. In particular, the Guidance describes that an additional element may have integrated the judicial exception into a practical application if, inter alia, the additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to other technology or technical field. Id. At the same time, the Guidance makes clear that merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea; adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; or only generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field are not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Id. Appeal 2021-002590 Application 14/788,189 12 Appellant argues that “the ‘additional elements’ cited by the Examiner are not recited at a high level of generality and are not generic computer components” because “no existing generic computer” performs the operations recited in steps (c) through (i) of claim 11, i.e., “automatically selects, for each time slot of a display device, a selected request . . . such that the selected request is determined to maximize revenue for the particular time slot . . . based on bidding and rating information” or “governs the flow of data . . . between an advertising platform and one or more display devices, communicates with the advertising platform to receive selected advertisements, authenticates the selected advertisements, routes the selected advertisements to . . . a respective display device . . . and provides acknowledgement to the advertising platform” (Appeal Br. 13). Yet, we find no disclosure in the Specification, nor does Appellant direct us to a disclosure, of any specialized hardware or inventive computer components for performing the identified operations. Taking the claim elements separately, the function performed at each step of the process is purely conventional. That is, each step does no more than require a generic computer to perform generic computer functions, e.g., receiving, processing, and transmitting information. Appellant argues that the claimed invention solves “the technological problems” associated with having to (1) manually select an advertisement from each advertiser; (2) negotiate a price with the advertiser; (3) manually authenticate the advertisement; (4) manually place the advertisement on each display device; and (5) provide acknowledgement that the advertisement is on the display device (Appeal Br. 13; see also id. at 14). But, we are not persuaded that these are technical problems as opposed to business problems Appeal 2021-002590 Application 14/788,189 13 or that merely adding generic computer functionality to replace routine manual activity in the longstanding business practice of scheduling advertisements is an improvement in technology or a technical field. In University of Florida Research Foundation, for example, the Federal Circuit held that replacing manual entry of portions of flowsheets with automation, even if that would eliminate transcription errors, was not sufficient to render abstract ideas patent eligible. Univ. of Fla. Research Found., Inc. v. Gen. Elec. Co., 916 F.3d 1363, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2019). The court, thus, determined that simply automating pen and paper methodologies to conserve human resources and minimize errors was a “quintessential ‘do it on a computer’ patent”; was directed to an abstract idea; and did not do “more than simply instruct the practitioner to implement the abstract idea . . . on a generic computer.” Id. at 1369; see also OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“[R]elying on a computer to perform routine tasks more quickly or more accurately is insufficient to render a claim patent eligible.”). Appellant’s further argument that the claimed invention “improves technology by enhancing security” (Appeal Br. 14) is likewise unavailing. Appellant asserts that the exchange “improves security by authenticating the selected advertisements, routing each of the selected advertisements to be displayed on a respective display device in a respective time slot, and providing acknowledgement to the advertising platform” (id.). But, we fail to see how, and Appellant does not adequately explain how, the security of the computer itself is thereby improved. It also is significant here that claim 11 merely recites that the exchange performs the various identified operations. The claim provides no Appeal 2021-002590 Application 14/788,189 14 technical details regarding how these operations are performed, and there is no indication here that the claimed “exchange” is other than a generic computer used in its normal and ordinary capacity to perform generic computer functions. Similar to the claims at issue in Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Fin. Corp., 850 F.3d 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2017), “the claim language here provides only a result-oriented solution with insufficient detail for how a computer accomplishes it. Our law demands more.” Id. at 1342 (citing Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). We conclude, for the reasons outlined above, that claim 11 recites a method of organizing human activity, i.e., an abstract idea, and that the claim does not include additional elements or a combination of elements that integrates the recited abstract idea into a practical application. Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner that claim 11 is directed to an abstract idea. Step Two of the Mayo/Alice Framework (2019 Revised Guidance, Step 2B) Having determined under step one of the Mayo/Alice framework that claim 11 is directed to an abstract idea, we next consider under Step 2B of the 2019 Revised Guidance, the second step of the Mayo/Alice framework, whether claim 11 includes additional elements or a combination of elements that provides an “inventive concept,” i.e., whether an additional element or combination of elements adds specific limitations beyond the judicial exception that are not “well-understood, routine, conventional activity” in the field (which is indicative that an inventive concept is present) or simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known Appeal 2021-002590 Application 14/788,189 15 to the industry to the judicial exception. 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56. Appellant argues that the claimed invention satisfies step 2B because the features recited in steps (c) through (i) of claim 11 are “not [in] any shape or form well-understood, routine, or conventional activities” (Appeal Br. 15). Yet, that argument is not persuasive at least because these steps are part of the abstract idea itself; they are not additional elements to be considered in determining whether claim 11 includes additional elements or a combination of elements sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. It could not be clearer from Alice, that under step two of the Mayo/Alice framework, the elements of each claim are considered both individually and “as an ordered combination” to determine whether the additional elements, i.e., the elements other than the abstract idea itself, “transform the nature of the claim” into a patent-eligible application. Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 217 (citation omitted); see Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72–73 (requiring that “a process that focuses upon the use of a natural law also contain other elements or a combination of elements, sometimes referred to as an ‘inventive concept,’ sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the natural law itself” (emphasis added) (citation omitted)). In other words, the inventive concept under step two of the Mayo/Alice test cannot be the abstract idea itself: It is clear from Mayo that the “inventive concept” cannot be the abstract idea itself, and Berkheimer . . . leave[s] untouched the numerous cases from this court which have held claims ineligible because the only alleged “inventive concept” is the abstract idea. Appeal 2021-002590 Application 14/788,189 16 Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 890 F.3d 1369, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (Moore, J., concurring); see also BSG Tech LLC v. BuySeasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“It has been clear since Alice that a claimed invention’s use of the ineligible concept to which it is directed cannot supply the inventive concept that renders the invention ‘significantly more’ than that ineligible concept.”). Here, the Examiner determined, and we agree, that the only additional elements recited in claim 11 beyond the abstract idea are “one or more display devices”; “an advertising platform”; “a digital signage system engine”; and “an exchange,” i.e., generic computer components (Final Act. 3–4). Appellant cannot reasonably maintain that there is insufficient factual support for the Examiner’s determination that the operation of these components is well-understood, routine, or conventional, where, as here, there is nothing in the Specification to indicate that the operations recited in claim 11 require any specialized hardware or inventive computer components or that the claimed invention is implemented using other than generic computer components to perform generic computer functions, e.g., receiving, processing, and transmitting information. Indeed, the Federal Circuit, in accordance with Alice, has “repeatedly recognized the absence of a genuine dispute as to eligibility” where claims have been defended as involving an inventive concept based “merely on the idea of using existing computers or the Internet to carry out conventional processes, with no alteration of computer functionality.” Berkheimer, 890 F.3d at 1373 (Moore, J., concurring) (internal citations omitted); see also BSG Tech LLC, 899 F.3d at 1291 (“BSG Tech does not argue that other, non-abstract features of the claimed inventions, alone or in combination, are not well- Appeal 2021-002590 Application 14/788,189 17 understood, routine and conventional database structures and activities. Accordingly, the district court did not err in determining that the asserted claims lack an inventive concept.”). We are not persuaded, on the present record, that the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 11, and claims 1–10 and 12–20, which fall with claim 11. Obviousness Independent Claims 1 and 11 and Dependent Claims 5–7 and 15–17 We are persuaded by Appellant’s argument that the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claims 1 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 at least because Shaw, on which the Examiner relies, does not disclose or suggest “an exchange,” as recited in claim 1, and similarly recited in claim 11, that “authenticates the one or more selected advertisements, [and] routes each of the selected advertisements to be displayed on a respective display device in a respective time slot” (Appeal Br. 16–17). The Examiner cites column 12, lines 5–50 of Shaw as disclosing the argued limitation (Final Act. 6–7). We, however, agree with Appellant that although Shaw discloses that advertisements, once selected, may be subject to ranking based on various factors, including bids, we find nothing in the cited portion of Shaw that discloses or suggests authenticating the selected advertisements, i.e., evaluating the advertisements to determine that the advertisements are “real, true, or genuine” (Appeal Br. 16 (citing a Merriam- Webster dictionary definition of “to authenticate”)). Responding to Appellant’s argument, the Examiner opines in the Answer, that, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, “the term Appeal 2021-002590 Application 14/788,189 18 ‘authenticate’ should not be limited to Applicant’s dictionary definition” (Ans. 9). The Examiner, thus, ostensibly maintains that the term can be reasonably broadly construed to include ranking and filtering advertisements, as Shaw discloses (id. at 9–10). We disagree. The law is well-settled that claims are to be given “their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification” and that claim language should be read “in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.” In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (citations omitted). We are not persuaded here that a person of ordinary skill in the art would interpret the term “authenticate,” as used in the present context, to include ranking and filtering selected advertisements, as disclosed in Shaw. Therefore, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 1 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. For the same reasons, we also do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claims 5–7 and 15–17. Cf. In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1266 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (“dependent claims are nonobvious if the independent claims from which they depend are nonobvious”). Dependent Claims 2–4, 8–10, 12–14, and 18–20 Each of claims 2–4, 8–10, 12–14, and 18–20 depends, directly or indirectly, from one of independent claims 1 and 11. The rejections of these dependent claims do not cure the deficiencies in the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 1 and 11. Therefore, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of dependent claims 2–4, 8–10, 12–14, and 18–20 for the same reasons set forth above with respect to the independent claims. Appeal 2021-002590 Application 14/788,189 19 CONCLUSION In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1–20 101 Eligibility 1–20 1, 5–7, 11, 15–17 103 Shaw, Yeo, Charania 1, 5–7, 11, 15–17 2–4, 9, 12–14, 19 103 Shaw, Yeo, Charania, Sweeney 2–4, 9, 12–14, 19 8, 10, 18, 20 103 Shaw, Yeo, Charania, Baffier 8, 10, 18, 20 Overall Outcome 1–20 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation