Ex Parte Yu

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 20, 2018

14839618 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 20, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/839,618 08/28/2015 Xiang Yu
45839 7590 06/22/2018
Schwegman Lundberg & Woessner/ Linkedln/Microsoft
POBOX2938
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402
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.
3080.E06US 1 6842
EXAMINER
KIM, PATRICK
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3621
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/22/2018 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):
USPTO@slwip.com
slw@blackhillsip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Exparte XIANG YU
Appeal2018-004175
Application 14/839,618
Technology Center 3600
Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and
JOHN A. EVANS, Administrative Patent Judges.
EV ANS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner's final rejection of Claims 1-20. Br. 1.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM. 2
1 Appellant states the real party in interest is Linkedin Corporation. Br. 2.
2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of the Appellant and the Examiner, we
refer to the Appeal Brief (filed November 29, 2017, "Br."), the Examiner's
Answer (mailed January 12, 2018, "Ans."), the Final Action (mailed June
30, 2017, "Final Act."), and the Specification (filed May 3, 2017, "Spec.")
for their respective details.
Appeal2018-004175
Application 14/839,618
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The claims relate to methods, systems, and apparatus for event
tracking using Uniform Resource Locators (URLs ). See Abstract.
INVENTION
Claims 1, 10, and 16 are independent. Illustrative Claim 1 is
reproduced below:
1. A non-transitory, machine-readable medium comprising
instructions stored thereon, which when executed by a machine
cause the machine to perform operations for tracking click and
impression event data using one or more Uniform Resource
Locator (URL) caches, one or more advertising event URLs,
and one or more winning event URLs, the operations
compnsmg:
determining whether an entry including an entry URL in
any of the one or more URL caches includes a same universally
unique identifier (UUID) as a received winning event URL of
the one or more winning event URLs or a received advertising
event URL of the one or more advertising event URLs, the one
or more winning event URLs including winning event fields
populated with data associated with winning an opportunity to
present an advertisement through a real time bidding exchange,
the winning event fields including a winning bid price field that
indicates how much money was bid for the opportunity, and the
one or more advertising event URLs including advertising
event fields populated with data associated with an
advertisement being served to a user, viewed by the user, or
selected by the user;
in response to determining the entry URL in the one or
more URL caches includes the same UUID, joining data from
the entry URL with the data in the received winning event URL
or the received advertising event URL that is not present in the
entry URL and updating a persistent storage with the joined
data;
2
Appeal2018-004175
Application 14/839,618
in response to determining no entry in the one or more
URL caches includes the same UUID, creating a new entry
URL in a cache of the one or more URL caches that includes
the UUID, the winning event fields of the advertising event
fields, and a time to live (TTL), the TTL indicating a time at
which the entry is to be removed from the URL cache and in
response to the TTL elapsing, and updating a persistent storage
with the data from the new entry URL; and
providing a bill for serving advertisements or analytics
information, the bill or analytics information determined using
data from the entry URL or the new entry URL in the persistent
storage.
Rejection3
Claims 1-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to
an abstract idea. Final Act. 9-12.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the rejections of Claim 35 in light of Appellant's
arguments that the Examiner erred. We have considered in this decision
only those arguments Appellant actually raised in the Brief. Any other
arguments which Appellant could have made but chose not to make in the
Briefs are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv). We are
not persuaded that Appellant identifies reversible error. Upon consideration
of the arguments presented in Appellant's Brief, we agree with the Examiner
that all the pending claims are unpatentable under § 101. We adopt as our
3 The Examiner has withdrawn the rejection of Claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112. Ans. 3.
3
Appeal2018-004175
Application 14/839,618
own the findings and reasons set forth in the rejection from which this
appeal is taken and in the Examiner's Answer, to the extent consistent with
our analysis below. We provide the following explanation to highlight and
address specific arguments and findings primarily for emphasis. We
consider Appellant's arguments seriatim, as they are presented in the Brief,
pages 15-33.
CLAIMS 1-20: ABSTRACT IDEA.
Independent Claims 1, 11, and 16 recite steps of "determining whether
an entry ... includes a same universally unique identifier (UUID) as a
received winning event URL," "joining data from the entry URL with the
data in the received winning event URL," "creating a new entry URL," and
"providing a bill for serving advertisements or analytics information." The
Examiner finds these recitations merely represent the concept of collecting
information, analyzing the information, and displaying results of the
collection and analysis, which corresponds to the concepts identified as an
abstract idea by the courts in Electric Power Group ( collecting information,
analyzing the information, and displaying results of the collection and
analysis) and Classen Immunotherapies ( collecting and comparing known
information). Final Act. 9-10.
Appellant contends the Federal Circuit found invalid the Classen
claims that merely recited mental steps with no practical application, but
found valid similar mental steps which were applied to "a trivial step of
immunizing a subject." Br. 20. Appellant argues the present claims are
valid because they recite the practical utility of providing, i.e., displaying, a
bill for serving advertisements. Id. Appellant contends that central to any
4
Appeal2018-004175
Application 14/839,618
proper understanding of Electric Power Group is the claims at issue only
purported to improve the data gathering, analysis, and display steps, but did
not purport to improve any other technology. Br. 21.
The Examiner concludes the claims, when "taken as a whole," are
categorized as abstract idea best characterized as "certain methods of
organizing human activity" and "an idea of itself." Ans. 4. Specifically, the
Examiner finds the abstract ideas embodied in the claims include
"collecting, manipulating, and displaying data," analogous to those found in
Intellectual Ventures I 4 and Electric Power Group. 5 Ans. 9-10. The
Examiner finds the purported advance is a process of gathering and
analyzing information of a specified content, processing that data, and then
displaying the results, but the Examiner finds Appellant fails to assert any
particular inventive technology for performing those functions. Ans. 10.
Appellant does not reply to the Answer. Appellant fails to persuade
us the claims recite inventive technology for performing the claims steps of
the method, nor are we persuaded the claims recite an inventive application
to other technologies.
4 Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank, 792 F.3d 1363 (Fed.
Cir.).
5 Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir.).
5
Appeal2018-004175
Application 14/839,618
DECISION
The rejection of Claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 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)(l ).
AFFIRMED
6