The recent Federal Circuit decision1 regarding
The 849 Patent generally relates to improved methods for presenting advertisements to a user of an interactive service. Specifically, the claimed methods minimize advertising traffic's interference with the retrieval and presentation of application data by "storing and managing" advertising at the user reception system before it is requested by the user.
Claim 1 recites:
1. A method for presenting advertising obtained from a computer network, the network including a multiplicity of user reception systems at which respective users can request applications, from the network, that include interactive services, the respective reception systems including a monitor at which at least the visual portion of the applications can be presented as one or more screens of display, the method comprising the steps of:
a. structuring applications so that they may be presented, through the network, at a first portion of one or more screens of display; and
b. structuring advertising in a manner compatible to that of the applications so that it may be presented, through the network, at a second portion of one or more screens of display concurrently with applications, wherein structuring the advertising includes configuring the advertising as objects that include advertising data and;
c. selectively storing advertising objects at a store established at the reception system.
However, the CAFC did not agree, stating that the narrow exceptions referenced in
"To further reduce the likelihood of application presentation delay, the specification describes selectively storing advertising objects at the user reception system so that when advertising is to be presented, its data might be found available at the reception system without going back to the host. The method which is described provides for storing and managing advertising objects so that advertising objects may be separately prefetched from the network and cached at the reception system in anticipation of being called for presentation."
The decision concluded that, while the 849 Patent may not require the general class of objects to be pre-fetched, it does require the specific subclass of advertising objects to be pre-fetched. Indeed, by
In conclusion, this decision highlights the dangers of relying on broad terms (objects) that can be undercut by specific examples (advertising objects). The decision also underscores the importance of specifications that support the broadest inventions claimed while avoiding embodiments that can be found limiting during prosecution due to claim construction, even if they do not appear explicitly in the claim language.
Footnotes
1.
2.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
Suite 275
TX 78738
Tel: 512480 0667
Fax: 713228 8778
E-mail: GILLIGAN@OBWBIP.COM
URL: www.obwbip.com
© Mondaq Ltd, 2024 - Tel. +44 (0)20 8544 8300 - http://www.mondaq.com, source