Obviousness

The obviousness of US patent 8959146 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 can be analyzed by combining the publicly available information regarding prior art, as described within the patent's own "Background of the Invention" section, with general knowledge in the field of computer automation and business optimization as of the priority date (June 16, 2006) [cite: "Prior art date 2006-06-16"]. A Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art (PHOSITA) in online advertising systems would be motivated to combine these elements to address known inefficiencies.

Prior Art Components

The patent itself describes the following as prior art or existing conditions:

1. DoubleClick's "Boomerang" System: This service places cookies on visitors' computers at an advertiser's site (a first media property) to identify and target those visitors with additional ads when they visit other sites where DoubleClick serves ads (a second media property). [cite: "DoubleClick's 'Boomerang' is a service for advertisers that places a cookie on computers of visitors to an advertiser's site for the purpose of finding those visitors on other sites where DoubleClick is the ad server ('ad' is short for advertisement). When the same visitors are found on those other sites, additional advertiser's ads are served to them by the DoubleClick ad sever or by the advertiser's ad server following a redirect from the DoubleClick ad server."]. The system uses redirection to allow DoubleClick to place and read its own cookies for cross-site recognition and ad serving. [cite: "For a site to have its ad served by an ASP-hosted ad server, such as the one operated by DoubleClick, the site needs to redirect visitors from the site to the DoubleClick ad server, to fetch the ad from the server. Following the redirect from the site, the visitor accesses the DoubleClick ad server. Because the DoubleClick server is operating under the DoubleClick domain, it can read the DoubleClick cookie or cookies and then recognize that it encountered the same visitor in the past."].
2. Behavioral Targeting (BT) Companies (e.g., AlmondNet, Tacoda, RevenueScience): These companies specialize in targeting ads based on observed visitor behavior and collected profile information (behavioral, demographic, or user-provided) from a first media property. [cite: "AlmondNet, Tacoda, RevenueScience, and other companies (herein 'BT companies'; 'BT' stands for behavioral targeting) specialize in targeting ads based on observed behavior of sites' visitors.", "a BT company may also collect other kinds of profile information, such as demographic information or user-provided information, and target ads to those visitors wherever found based on the collected profile information."]. They place cookies or tags on visitors' computers and can either directly serve ads on sites where their software is used or buy media on other sites/ad networks to deliver targeted ads. [cite: "BT companies place a cookie (or cookies) on the computers of visitors to specific sections of a publisher's website or on the computers of visitors of the publisher who conducted a specific action such as search, click content, click an ad, request information, acquire a product, etc.", "Those ads will be presented to the visitors when they are found later on the same site or on other sites."]. They also engage in "cookie matching" to enable second media properties to recognize visitors tagged by BT companies. [cite: "This process—where sites and ad networks place cookies on visitors' computers redirected to them by BT companies (or other entities interested in additional ads presented to their audience elsewhere)—is sometimes referred to as 'cookie matching.'"].
3. Known Economic Inefficiencies in Ad Placement: The patent explicitly identifies issues with prior art ad delivery, stating that "Profiles of media properties' visitors are worth different amounts to advertisers depending on the profiles." [cite: "Profiles of media properties' visitors are worth different amounts to advertisers depending on the profiles."]. It provides examples of varying advertiser willingness to pay for ads based on specific profiles (e.g., $3 for a mortgage-related click, $0.50 for socks, $25 CPM for mutual fund visitors). [cite: "For example, a person who searched for a mortgage on a search engine might be presented with a mortgage-related ad, for which the advertiser is willing to pay $3 if that person clicks on that ad. A person who searched for socks on a search engine might be presented with a socks-related ad, for which the advertiser is willing to pay $0.50 if that person clicks on that ad. A person who visited the mutual fund section of a site might be presented with a mutual-fund related ad (wherever the person is found, i.e., either on the same site or on other sites), in which case the advertiser is willing to pay $25 for every thousand ads (CPM) presented to people who visited that mutual fund section."]. Furthermore, it acknowledges that "Media properties' ad space prices vary" [cite: "Media properties' ad space prices vary."], and crucially, that "the cost of ad space at a second media property might not be covered by revenues generated for a BT company buying the space" or might not "deliver satisfactory margins to the BT company." [cite: "In summary, the cost of ad space at a second media property might not be covered by revenues generated for a BT company buying the space, i.e., from an ad delivered within the second media property ad space based on a profile collected in a first media property or properties. Alternatively, the revenues might cover the media cost but not deliver satisfactory margins to the BT company, when taking into account other costs, such as ad sales people cost, ad serving cost etc."]. This clearly articulates the problem of potential financial loss or insufficient profit in targeted ad delivery.

Obviousness Analysis of Claims

Independent Claims 1, 17, and 21

Independent claims 1 (method), 17 (device), and 21 (system) generally recite:

• Directing indicia of a condition to a third-party server controlling advertising space on a second media property.
• The condition relates to an electronic visitor for ad display when visiting the second media property after the first media property, subject to the condition being met.
• Directing the indicia is based on profile attributes received from the first media property visit.
• The advertisement is correlated with the profile attributes.

These broad aspects appear obvious in light of the known practices of DoubleClick's Boomerang and BT companies as described in the patent's background. These prior art systems already involved:

• Tracking visitors and forming profiles: BT companies explicitly collected profile attributes based on visitor actions on a first media property. [cite: "BT companies place a cookie (or cookies) on the computers of visitors to specific sections of a publisher's website or on the computers of visitors of the publisher who conducted a specific action such as search, click content, click an ad, request information, acquire a product, etc."].
• Cross-site recognition and ad delivery: Both DoubleClick and BT companies aimed to find these profiled visitors on subsequent visits to second media properties and deliver ads. [cite: "DoubleClick's 'Boomerang'... for the purpose of finding those visitors on other sites where DoubleClick is the ad server", "Those ads will be presented to the visitors when they are found later on the same site or on other sites."].
• "Indicia of a condition": The act of placing a cookie/tag or redirecting a visitor (as done by DoubleClick and BT companies for "cookie matching") inherently serves as an "indicia" to the second media property that a specific visitor with a profile (or a category of profile) has been identified, and an ad can be displayed if suitable. [cite: "BT companies enable sites and ad networks... to also place their cookies on the computers of people (visitors) on whose computers the BT company has placed its own cookie."]. The correlation of ads with profiles was the very purpose of these systems.

A PHOSITA in 2006 would understand that these core functionalities were standard practice in the behavioral targeting industry.

Dependent Claims, particularly Claim 2 (and 18, 22)

Claim 2, and its device/system counterparts (claims 18 and 22), narrows the "condition" to: "a price charged by the second media property is less than a profile-attribute-dependent price that an advertiser is willing to pay for display of the advertisement."

This specific condition introduces the profit calculation and selection based on profitability, which the patent highlights as a solution to a prior art problem.

Combination and Motivation for Claim 2:

1. Prior Art 1: Existing BT company practices: This provides the established framework for identifying visitors, collecting profile information, knowing what advertisers are willing to pay for ads based on those profiles (expected revenue), and understanding the cost of ad space on various media properties. The patent itself states that BT companies would know "how much advertisers are willing to pay for delivering ads" and that it costs them a certain amount (e.g., "$3 CPM") to deliver ads on a specific media property. [cite: "Google calculates that advertisers are willing to pay $ 3 per click on a mortgage-related ad... Google will earn $9 for every thousand mortgage-related ads...", "Google further knows that it costs Google $3 CPM to deliver a thousand ads on weather.com (i.e., 'P(mp)')"].
2. Prior Art 2: General Business and Computer Automation Principles: In 2006, it was well-known in business and computer science to automate decisions based on financial calculations, such as comparing potential revenue against costs to determine profitability. Businesses routinely used computer systems for cost-benefit analysis, pricing, and inventory management to maximize profit and avoid losses. The fundamental concept of "profit = revenue - cost" and only pursuing an activity if profit is positive is a basic economic principle.

Motivation to Combine:
A PHOSITA in the online advertising industry in 2006 would have been explicitly motivated to combine these prior art elements due to the known and clearly articulated financial inefficiencies of the existing BT systems. The patent itself identifies this motivation: "the cost of ad space at a second media property might not be covered by revenues generated... the revenues might cover the media cost but not deliver satisfactory margins..." [cite: "In summary, the cost of ad space at a second media property might not be covered by revenues generated for a BT company buying the space, i.e., from an ad delivered within the second media property ad space based on a profile collected in a first media property or properties. Alternatively, the revenues might cover the media cost but not deliver satisfactory margins to the BT company, when taking into account other costs, such as ad sales people cost, ad serving cost etc."].

Given that BT companies already possessed the necessary data points (advertiser willingness to pay for specific profiles, and the cost of ad space on different media properties), it would be an obvious step for a PHOSITA to:

• Automate the calculation of expected profit (or at least a comparison of expected revenue vs. cost) for each potential ad placement to a profiled visitor on a second media property.
• Incorporate this calculation into the existing ad delivery workflow as a "condition" for proceeding with the ad placement or tagging arrangement.
• For instance, if an advertiser is willing to pay $9 CPM for a mortgage-related ad and the media property charges $3 CPM, a PHOSITA would obviously program the system to proceed, as this yields a profit ($6 CPM). [cite: "Google therefore can calculate a profit of $6 CPM... for delivering a thousand mortgage-related ads to Google visitors... when found later within the ad space of weather.com. Google will therefore arrange for weather.com to tag the person..."]. Conversely, if the cost exceeded the potential revenue, the system would obviously be programmed to not proceed, thus avoiding a loss.

This combination applies a basic, well-understood business optimization principle to a known technical domain where the need for such optimization was already recognized.

Other Dependent Claims

• Claim 3 (specified time period for display): The patent acknowledges that "some kind of profiles such as behavioral profiles are time-sensitive (in other words, their value diminishes with time)." [cite: "Given that some kind of profiles such as behavioral profiles are time-sensitive (in other words, their value diminishes with time)..."]. It would be an obvious commercial decision for a PHOSITA to set a time limit for ad delivery based on a profile's diminishing value to ensure profitability and resource efficiency.
• Claim 4 (look-up data structure): The use of "look-up table[s]" or other "data structure[s]" for efficiently storing and retrieving pre-calculated information (like expected revenues, profits, and selected media properties) is a fundamental computer science technique. [cite: "A look-up table can be used that lists, based on the kind of profile, the media properties that should be selected."]. A PHOSITA would routinely apply such structures to optimize the speed and efficiency of any automated decision-making system.
• Claims 10, 13, 19, 23 (arranging for placement of a tag): The placement of tags (e.g., cookies) on a visitor's device, or arranging for a second media property to do so via redirection, was a core method described in the patent's background for cross-site behavioral targeting by DoubleClick and BT companies. [cite: "BT companies place a cookie (or cookies) on the computers of visitors to specific sections of a publisher's website", "The BT company 30 can redirect ( 630 ) a visitor to the selected media property 40 , 50 with a request to have the selected media property 40 , 50 tag ( 620 ) the visitor with the media property's own tag"].
• Claims 12, 14, 20, 24 (indicia in URL for redirection): Passing information via URL parameters during electronic redirects was a common and well-known method in web technology by 2006. [cite: "The BT company 30 can redirect ( 630 ) a visitor to the selected media property 40 , 50 ...", "The BT company 30 —in addition to arranging the placement of a tag readable by the second media property 40 , 50 —may also provide the second media property 40 , 50 (via the tag, for example) with a time period within which the BT company 30 will agree to deliver ads..."]. Using this mechanism to convey conditions for ad display would be an obvious application.
• Claim 15 (different medium): The patent notes the possibility of cross-media targeting (e.g., website to TV channel) and the use of personal identifiable information to achieve this. [cite: "The media properties can be of the same kind of media... or of different media (e.g., first media property can be a web site 40 on the Internet 80 , and the second media property can be a TV channel on TV or a text message system on a mobile phone, etc.)."]. While the implementation details might vary, the general concept of identifying users across different devices based on known information was a recognized goal in advertising.
• Claim 16 (temporary control of ad space): The patent's background explicitly describes that "An ad space can be... made available by a web site to an ad network... only when the web site did not sell all of the site's ad inventory." [cite: "An ad space can be a fixed position on a page, or the ad space can be made available by a web site to an ad network (for example) only when the web site did not sell all of the site's ad inventory and therefore wishes to make some of the inventory available to the ad network."]. This was a known operating model for ad networks and, as such, would be obvious to incorporate into any ad delivery system.

In conclusion, the independent claims broadly cover existing behavioral targeting techniques. The dependent claims, particularly Claim 2, describe the application of fundamental economic principles (profit calculation) to these known technical systems, utilizing data points (advertiser value, media cost) that were already known or ascertainable by prior art BT companies. The motivation to combine these elements is clearly articulated within the patent's background as a solution to recognized financial inefficiencies in online advertising.