Obviousness

Obviousness Analysis under 35 U.S.C. § 103

This analysis evaluates whether the invention claimed in U.S. Patent 8,677,398 ("the '398 patent") would have been obvious to a Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art (PHOSITA) at the time of the invention, which has a priority date of April 17, 2007. An invention is considered obvious if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the invention as a whole would have been obvious to a PHOSITA.

A PHOSITA in this field in 2007 would be a computer scientist or engineer with several years of experience in network engineering, online advertising systems, and interactive television technologies. This individual would have a working knowledge of TCP/IP, the assignment of IP addresses (including the function of Network Address Translation (NAT) in home networks), client-server architectures, the use of cookies for user tracking, and the general state of the art in both online and television advertising.

The central concept of the '398 patent's independent claims (1, 9, and 15) is the use of a shared public IP address to associate a general-purpose online device (like a computer) with a television set-top box (STB) on the same local network, and then using the online activity of the former to send targeted advertising to the latter. While the preceding prior art analysis concluded that no single reference anticipates all elements of the claims, the combination of several references, viewed through the lens of a PHOSITA's common knowledge, would have rendered the invention obvious.

---

Primary Obviousness Combination: Amron in view of Shvo and Her-daw-ih

A strong argument for obviousness can be made by combining the teachings of U.S. 2006/0069634 (Amron), U.S. 2002/0087520 (Shvo), and U.S. 2005/0240964 (Her-daw-ih).

1. Motivation to Combine:
   Amron explicitly discloses a "System and Method for Tracking and Targeting Advertising" across different media, including tracking both a user's "online behavior" and their "television viewing habits." The stated goal is to create a comprehensive user profile for more effective, targeted advertising. This provides a clear and explicit motivation for a PHOSITA to combine prior art systems for online ad targeting with systems for television ad targeting. A PHOSITA, tasked with building the cross-media system envisioned by Amron, would naturally look to existing art for the component pieces: a system for tracking online behavior and a system for delivering ads to a television.

2. Combining the Teachings:

   • Online Tracking Component (Shvo): Shvo teaches a robust system for online ad targeting. It discloses tracking a user's online activities (searches, websites visited) to build a user profile and using identifiers like cookies and the user's IP address to recognize the user. A PHOSITA would use Shvo's method to fulfill the "tracking online behavior" aspect of Amron's cross-media goal. This satisfies the claim elements of receiving an identifier and IP address from a first device and receiving user activity from that device.

   • Television Targeting Component (Her-daw-ih): Her-daw-ih teaches a system for providing targeted advertising within an interactive television network, specifically to a set-top box (STB). It describes collecting household information and using it to select and deliver ads to the STB. A PHOSITA would use Her-daw-ih's system as the mechanism to fulfill the "television" aspect of Amron's goal. This teaches the claim element of sending a targeted message to a second device (the STB).

3. The "Obvious" Step: Linking the Devices via a Shared IP Address:
   The claims require associating the two devices based on a shared public IP address. This is the crucial step that is not explicitly taught but would have been obvious to a PHOSITA in 2007. By that time, the use of broadband routers employing Network Address Translation (NAT) was standard for home internet access. A PHOSITA would have known, as a matter of fundamental networking principle, that all devices on a typical home network (e.g., a laptop and an IP-enabled STB) would communicate with the internet through a single, shared public IP address assigned to the modem/router by the ISP.

   Faced with Amron's goal of linking online activity with a television in the same household, a PHOSITA would have immediately recognized the shared public IP address as the most direct and readily available, non-personally identifiable signal that two devices are co-located. Observing requests from a PC (tracked per Shvo) and an STB (the target for ad delivery per Her-daw-ih) coming from the identical public IP address within a similar timeframe would be a simple and obvious method to infer that they belong to the same household. Creating an electronic association in a database (e.g., link(PC_cookie, STB_ID) where IP(PC) == IP(STB)) would be a routine implementation step.

   Therefore, the combination of Amron's motivation for cross-media targeting, Shvo's method for online tracking, and Her-daw-ih's system for TV ad delivery, when combined with the common knowledge of a PHOSITA about home networking (NAT and shared IP addresses), renders the claimed invention obvious.

---

Secondary Obviousness Combination: Huddersfield and Her-daw-ih

A similar argument can be constructed using U.S. 7,734,510 (Huddersfield) as the primary reference for online tracking, combined with Her-daw-ih.

• Huddersfield teaches a method for presenting an advertisement by collecting user information, including the user's IP address, and tracking their behavior across different websites to build a profile for ad targeting.
• Her-daw-ih teaches the delivery of targeted ads to an STB based on household profiles.

Motivation and Combination: The motivation to combine remains the strong commercial and technical desire to leverage rich online behavioral data for targeting high-value television advertising space. A PHOSITA seeking to improve the targeting described in Her-daw-ih would naturally look to the more mature and data-rich world of online advertising, as described in Huddersfield.

As in the previous combination, the key step of using the shared IP address as the linking mechanism would have been an obvious implementation choice for a PHOSITA. Huddersfield already uses the IP address as a key piece of user information. Her-daw-ih's STB, being a networked device, would also have an IP address. The PHOSITA would recognize that if these IP addresses match, the devices are almost certainly in the same location. Combining the profile data from Huddersfield's system with the delivery mechanism of Her-daw-ih's system, using the shared IP address as the bridge, would be an obvious path to a more effective targeted TV advertising system.

Conclusion

The independent claims of the '398 patent describe a commercially valuable and functional system. However, the inventive concept does not appear to rise to the level of non-obviousness required for patentability. The prior art clearly establishes the separate components: tracking online user behavior via IP addresses and cookies for ad targeting (Shvo, Huddersfield) and delivering targeted ads to set-top boxes (Her-daw-ih). Furthermore, the desire to link these different media for more comprehensive ad targeting was explicitly known in the art (Amron).

The specific mechanism for linking the devices—identifying a shared public IP address—was not a novel technical discovery but rather an application of a well-understood and fundamental characteristic of consumer internet architecture in 2007. For a PHOSITA tasked with creating a cross-media advertising system, using the shared IP address to associate a PC and an STB within a single household would have been an obvious, if not the most logical, design choice. Therefore, the independent claims of the '398 patent are likely invalid as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103.