Ex Parte Almeida

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 29, 2016

13226301 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 29, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/226,301 09/06/2011
64724 7590 09/29/2016
John Almeida
5761 ROBBIE RD #3403
PLANO, TX 75024
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
John Almeida
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.
almeida301 3378
EXAMINER
WONG, LESLIE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2164
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
09/29/2016 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 JOHN ALMEIDA
Appeal2014-001200
Application 13/226,301
Technology Center 2100
Before ERIC S. FRAHM, DENISE M. POTHIER, and
SCOTT B. HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judges.
POTHIER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
rejection of claims 1-5, 8, and 10-27. Claims 6, 7, and 9 have been
canceled. See App. Br. 3, 9-10. 1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b). We affirm-in-part.
1 Throughout this opinion, we refer to (1) the Final Action (Final Act.)
mailed December 13, 2012, (2) the Appeal Brief (App. Br.) filed June 9,
2013, (3) the Examiner's Answer (Ans.) mailed September 9, 2013, and (4)
the Reply Brief (Reply Br.) filed October 27, 2013.
Appeal2014-001200
Application 13/226,301
Invention
Appellant's invention concerns "a virtual electronic shopping mall
where on-line users can create and update e-malls which in tum offers others
the ability to host e-shops and web sites offering products/services." Spec.
i-f 13. Claim 1 is reproduced below with emphasis:
1. A method of three-level hosting infrastructure, the method
comprising the steps of:
providing a hosting infrastructure on a server computer, the hosting
infrastructure serving a plurality of hosts, the plurality of hosts
comprising a first host and a second host, wherein said first host and
said second host are selected from the group consisting of an e-mall,
satellite e-mall, e-shop, e-distributor, e-manufacturer and web site;
receiving a content at the server computer;
the hosting infrastructure implementing the steps of:
enabling the first host to provide hosting services to the second
host;
enabling communication between the server computer, the first
host and the second host;
managing the first host and the second host;
ma/ring the content available to the second host through the
first host; and
enabling the second host to transmit the content to a computer
accessing the second host when the second host obtains the content
through the first host.
The Examiner relies on the following as evidence of unpatentability:
Hom
Mikurak
Hodson
US 2006/0136309 Al
US 2006/0178918 Al
US 2008/0071646 Al
2
June 22, 2006
Aug. 10, 2006
Mar. 20, 2008
Appeal2014-001200
Application 13/226,301
The Rejections
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 10, 12, 14--16, 19-22, 24, 25, and 27 are rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Hodson. Ans. 2-10.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Hodson and Hom. Ans. 10-11.
Claims 11, 13, 17, 18, 23, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Hodson and Mikurak. Ans. 11-12.
THE ANTICIPATION REJECTION OVER HODSON
Claims 1, 24, and 26
Appellant argues independent claims 1 and 24 as a group. App. Br.
24--30. We select claim 1 as representative. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
Regarding independent claim 1, Appellant presents several arguments.
Appellant argues that it unreasonable to consider Hodson's shopping cart a
host on server computer because the shopping cart does not permit a second
host to integrate its second host into a third host or one host to be included in
another host. App. Br. 23-24 (citing Spec., Abstract). Appellant also
asserts that Hodson does not enable one host to provide hosting services to a
second host. Reply Br. 22. Appellant further argues that the Examiner
improperly assigns at least two different items to the recited "content," such
that the content is either not made available as recited or is transmitted in the
direction opposite of what is claimed. App. Br. 25-27; Reply Br. 21.
Issues
The major issues under appeal for claim 1 are under§ 102, has the
Examiner erred by finding that Hodson discloses:
3
Appeal2014-001200
Application 13/226,301
( 1) "providing a hosting infrastructure on a server computer, the
hosting infrastructure serving ... the plurality of hosts comprising a first
host and a second host,"
(2) "receiving a content at the server computer," or
(3) "enabling the second host to transmit the content to a computer
accessing the second host when the second host obtains the content through
the first host"?
ANALYSIS
We begin by construing the key disputed limitation of claim 1 which
recites, in relevant part, "receiving a content .... " Appellant disputes that
Hodson discloses "content" as recited. In particular, Appellant contends that
the Examiner uses a "strained and unreasonable interpretation" (Reply Br.
21) of "content" in order for Hodson to anticipate the claims. App. Br.
25-26; Reply Br. 21. For the below reasons, we disagree.
During examination of a patent application, a claim is given its
broadest reasonable construction "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) (internal citations and quotations
omitted). There is a presumption that a claim term carries its ordinary and
customary meaning. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed.
Cir. 2007). An applicant may rebut this presumption, however, by acting as
his own lexicographer, providing a definition of the term in the specification
with "reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision." See In re Paulsen,
30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994). In the absence of such a definition,
4
Appeal2014-001200
Application 13/226,301
limitations are not to be read from the specification into the claims. Jn re
Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In the instant case, the disclosure fails to define the term "content"
with reasonable clarity or deliberateness such that the term is limited to a
specific type of content. In fact, the disclosure provides numerous and
varying examples of "content." For example, the Specification describes the
following as "content": services (Spec. i-f 73), user-viewed information (id.
i-f 74), file data (see id. i-f 182), and template data (see id. i-f 186). As such, the
above examples demonstrate that the disclosure contemplates the meaning of
"content" to be broad and cover different information. Moreover, there is
nothing in the claims that requires "content" to a single piece of information.
Turning to the Examiner's mapping and page 4 of the Final Action,
the Examiner relies on paragraph 49 of Hodson to teach the "making the
content available" and "enabling the second host to transmit the content to a
computer" steps, which use the recited "content." Final Act. 4 (citing
Hodson i-f 49). The Examiner elaborates in the Answer that paragraphs 48
and 49 describes various information (e.g., a vendor identifier, reference
parameter, line item number, action information, product identifier, session
identifier, and user identifier) disseminated to websites. Ans. 14 (citing
Hodson i-fi-1 48--49). Given the above, broad understanding of "content" in
light of the disclosure, we determine that the above information in Hodson
reasonably discloses the recited "content."
Further, such information is disseminated to websites by using
software sub-modules (e.g., modules 52-54 shown in Figures 2-3) that are
part of the integrated shopping cart software module 50, which is included in
server 31 as well as any affiliated website servers 3 ln. Hodson i-fi-139--40,
5
Appeal2014-001200
Application 13/226,301
43--49. As such, Hodson teaches a hosting infrastructure (e.g., integrated
shopping cart system 30 having integrated shopping cart software module
50) on a server computer (e.g., server 31) that receives the above-described
content through software modules (e.g., modules 52-54)).
Additionally, Appellant asserts that the Examiner assigns two
different items to "content." App. Br. 25. The Examiner clarifies in the
Answer what information in Hodson is being mapped the recited "content."
Ans. 14--16. To extent that Appellant argues that the content must the same
content used in the later steps of claim 1 due to its antecedent basis, we
agree. App. Br. 25. However, as explained by the Examiner (Ans. 14--16)
and below, the same content in Hodson is used when mapping Hodson to the
recited "making" and "enabling the second host" steps of claim 1.
As mentioned above, the Examiner relies on Hodson's paragraph 49
to teach both the recited "making" and "enabling the second host" steps.
Final Act. 4 and Ans. 14 (both citing Hodson i-f 49). In this paragraph,
Hodson discloses the "create-another-item sub-module 54," included on
server 31, that informs an affiliated website server 3 ln associated with an
affiliated website (e.g., a second host) of a request by a user at the first
website associated with a server (e.g., a first host) to create another item for
purchase. Hodson i-fi-140, 49, Figs. 2-3. Notably, Hodson further discloses
client 32 (e.g., a computer) connects to the first server 31 to receive
information, such as through a web page, but that the user's browser
application at a first website associated with server 31 (e.g., a first host)
permits the user to interact with other websites by allowing the user access
to additional affiliated websites (e.g., a second host). Hodson
i-f 38, Fig. 2; see also Ans. 14--15.
6
Appeal2014-001200
Application 13/226,301
As such, information, including a vendor identifier, reference
parameter, a product identifier, and a user identifier, are received by server
31 through submodules (e.g., 54) and made available to affiliated website
servers 3 ln with affiliated websites (e.g., a second host). Hodson i-f 49.
Hodson further teaches that the information may be transmitted using a
"cookie functionality." Hodson i-f 42. As such, Hodson discloses a hosting
infrastructure (e.g., integrated shopping cart module 50/30) on a server (e.g.,
31) making the same received "content" (e.g., product identifier and
reference parameter identifying a selected product or service) available to
the second host (e.g., an affiliated website located on an affiliated server
3 ln) through a first host (e.g., the request was made by the user at the first
website associated with server 31 2). See Hodson i-fi-141--42, 45, 49, Figs. 2-
3. This same information (e.g., product identifier and reference parameter)
is also made available to a second host (e.g., an affiliated website located on
affiliated server 3 ln) when using the "modify-product-in-cart" submodule
53 also described in Hodson. Hodson i-f 48, cited in Ans. 14. Given the
above explanation, Hodson teaches "making the content available to the
second host through the first host" as recited in claim 1.
Moreover, we agree with the Examiner's further explanation that at
least some of this information (e.g., product identifier and reference
parameter that identifies a selected product or service from an affiliated
website to be added to the shopping cart at the first website) are displayed to
the user in a shopping cart. Thus, when such an action as adding or
2 Although the Examiner states the first host is server 31 in the Response to
Argument section (Ans. 16), the Examiner in the rejection maps the host
more broadly to websites associated with servers (see Final Act. 3).
7
Appeal2014-001200
Application 13/226,301
modifying a product associated with an affiliated website (e.g., a second
host) is taken by the user, Hodson further teaches "enabling the second host
to transmit the content to a computer." See Ans. 15-16. That is, the same
content (e.g., the product identifier and reference parameter) is transmitted to
the user and displayed in the user's integrated shopping cart so that e-
commerce functionality is achieved. See id.; see also Hodson
i-fi-138-39. As noted above, this can be achieved using cookies that are
transmitted to the user's computer as broadly as recited. Hodson i-fi-142,
48--49; see also Ans. 17-18 (discussing cookies and Spec. i-fi-1224--25).
We therefore disagree with Appellant that Hodson teaches the
opposite of what is recited as argued. App. Br. 26-28; Reply Br. 21. Nor
were limitations in claim 1 ignored. App. Br. 29. Notably, claim 1 does not
require "the second content host ... to retrieve the content from the first
content host" as argued. App. Br. 27.
Appellant further argues that it unreasonable to consider Hodson' s
shopping cart a host on server computer because the shopping cart does not
permit a second host to integrate its second host into a third host or one host
to be included in another host. App. Br. 23-24 (citing Spec., Abstract);
Reply Br. 22. Appellant also asserts that Hodson does not enable one host to
provide hosting services to a second host. Reply Br. 22. Notably,
independent claim 1 and 24 do not recite a third host and, thus, any
argument regarding a third host are found unpersuasive. We further note
that claims 1 and 24 do not recite "hosting websites" or one host included
into another, but rather "enabling the first host to provide hosting services to
the second host." App. Br. 24, Claims App'x (emphasis added).
8
Appeal2014-001200
Application 13/226,301
Given that Hodson's first website provides access to other websites
and establishes an integrated shopping cart service for its website and
affiliated websites, we determine that Hodson effectively creates an
environment of websites within a website (e.g., a hosting service).
Additionally, Hodson teaches that a multitude of websites may be providing
a single server.
See Hodson i-fi-f 19, 39. For example, the Examiner cites an embodiment
where affiliated server 3 ln may embody "a server hub" containing multiple
web servers 82a or one server hosting several web servers (e.g., a form of
hosting services). Hodson i-f 105, Fig. 6. Based on the record, we determine
Hodson teaches "hosting services" as broadly as recited.
For the foregoing reasons, Appellant has not persuaded us of error in
the rejection of independent claims 1 and 24 and dependent claim 26 not
separately argued.
Claim 2
Claim 2 depends from claim 1 and is separately argued. App. Br.
3 7--41. Claim 2 additionally recites "forming a database table containing the
content" and "enabling the second host to access the database table."
Appellant argues that this recitation requires more than a general teaching of
forming a database but that the specific content recited in claim 1 is
contained in that database. App. Br. 38. When construed properly,
Appellant asserts that Hodson does not disclose what claim 1 recites. Id.
We are not persuaded. As noted above, paragraphs 48 and 49 of
Hodson discloses various information conveyed to an affiliated website
through an affiliated website server (e.g., the second host) and transmitted to
the user (e.g., a computer accessing affiliated website) when a user at a first
9
Appeal2014-001200
Application 13/226,301
website associated with server (e.g., the first host) requests to modify a
product in the cart or change a product in the cart. Hodson i-fi-1 48--49.
Additionally, as noted by the Examiner, Hodson teaches that product
information related to and transmitted to the user during one of the modify
products or add products actions is maintained on an online database having
records (e.g., tables) for access. Hodson i-fi-18, 15, 39, 107, cited in Ans. 4.
Such content in the databases include order histories, pricing information,
and product attributes. See Ans. 37 (citing Hodson i-f 107). Thus, Hodson
teaches a database containing "the" content (e.g., product identifiers and
reference parameters) recited in claim 1 as disputed by Appellant.
Next, Appellant argues the "enabling" step in claim 2 is not disclosed
by Hodson. App. Br. 39--41. Specifically, Appellant argues that the
Examiner's mapping of Hodson requires the first website 21 to be both the
recited first and second host. We disagree for the above-stated reason and
further refer to the above discussion of how Hodson's integrated shopping
cart function enables an affiliated website associated with an affiliated server
(e.g., the second host) to access the database table to retrieve product
information related to the product (e.g., the content) modified or added to the
integrated shopping cart module as well as transmit the content to a
computer accessing the second host. In response to Appellant's argument
that Hodson does not teach access by websites hosted on the same server
(App. Br. 40), this argument is not commensurate in scope with claim 1 's
recited "hosting services." We additionally refer to above the discussions
concerning providing a number of web servers on a single server or server
hub. See also Ans. 37.
10
Appeal2014-001200
Application 13/226,301
Lastly, although grouped with claim 2 (App. Br. 40), claim 4 depends
from claim 10 and claims 20-22 depends directly or indirectly from claim
19. These claims will be addressed below.
For the foregoing reasons, Appellant has not persuaded us of error in
the rejection of claim 2.
Claims 4 and 10
Claim 10 depends from claim 1 and is separately argued. App. Br.
43--45. Claim 10 further recites "the content is received by the hosting
infrastructure from a third-party content host." To teach this limitation, the
Examiner relies on Hodson's discussion at paragraphs 38, 39, and 46 (Ans.
7) and further states that server 31 can be associated with a number of
affiliated servers 31 n that a user can navigate among in order to select
products or services for purchase (Ans. 43).
Appellant repeats that the shopping cart is not a hosting infrastructure
because "it is a[t] most a host on the hosting infrastructure." App. Br. 44.
We disagree for the above reasons when discussing claim 1.
Appellant next contends that server 3 1 n cannot be a second host and
also a third-party content host separately recited. App. Br. 44--45. However,
this does not contemplate the third-party host being a third host or another
affiliated website associated with affiliated website server 3 ln separate from
the second host. See Ans. 43. That is, Hodson discloses more than one
server 3 ln or "a multitude of additional affiliated servers 3 ln, the additional
servers 3 ln being associated with particular vendor websites." Hodson i-f 39,
cited in Ans. 38. As such, one affiliated website associated with server 3 ln
can be mapped reasonably to the second host and another of the "multitude"
of affiliated website servers 3 ln can be mapped reasonable to the recited
11
Appeal2014-001200
Application 13/226,301
"third-party content host" that provides content to the integrated shopping
cart module 50 on server 31 (e.g., received by the hosting infrastructure).
Claim 4 depends from claim 10. We are not persuaded the Examiner
erred in rejecting claim 4 for the reasons stated above when addressing claim
2.
Finally, although grouped with claim 10 (App. Br. 43--45), claim 27
depends from claim 24 and will be addressed accordingly.
For the foregoing reasons, Appellant has not persuaded us of error in
the rejection of claims 4 and 10.
Claim 12
Claim 12 depends from claim 1 and is separately argued. App. Br.
46--49. This claim recites "further comprising the step of the hosting
infrastructure including the content in the first host and in the second host."
App. Br. 28, Claims App'x. The Examiner relies on Hodson to teach this
limitation. Ans. 8 (citing Hodson i-fi-137-39). In particular, the Examiner
finds that the first server associated with a first vendor website and is
communication with other servers associated with other vendor websites.
Ans. 46. The Examiner further relies on the process of fulfilling orders to
teach the limitation in claim 12. Ans. 46 (citing Hodson i-f 51).
Appellant argues that "having the same content at several websites on
different servers is not what applicant claims." App. Br. 47. Appellant
further contends that paragraphs 3 7 and 3 8 do not teach including content in
two different hosts on the server computer (App. Br. 47--48) and paragraph
39 does not teach a server including content from one website into another
(App. Br. 48--49). We are not persuaded by Appellant's arguments.
12
Appeal2014-001200
Application 13/226,301
Notably, claim 12 does not recite including content from one website
into another as argued. App Br. 49. Rather, claim 12 recites the hosting
infrastructure includes "the content" in the first host and in the second host.
That is, the content is in the first and second host but content from the first
website is not necessarily included into the second website. Nor does claim
1 or claim 12 recite that the two hosts on the server computer.
Turning to paragraph 39, Hodson teaches that a user may select
products and/or services using websites that may or may not be on the same
server and a system that integrates selections into the integrated shopping
cart. Hodson i-fi-139--40. Hodson further states that request's information,
including a reference parameter that identifies a product or service and a
vendor identifier, are transmitted by the first server associated with the first
website (e.g., a first host) to affiliated website servers associated with
affiliated websites (e.g., a second host), such as when a user modifies or
adds a product in its cart. Hodson i-fi-148--49, cited in Ans. 8. Thus, in this
situation, the hosting infrastructure that includes the integrated shopping cart
module 50 located on server 31 that is part the first website (Hodson i-fi-139-
40) contains product information that is also transmitted to the second
website through its affiliated server. Hodson further describes another
situation, when fulfilling an order, where vendor identifier is passed from a
first website associated with a first server (e.g., a first host) to affiliated
website associated with an affiliated server (e.g., a second host). Hodson
i1 51, cited in Ans. 46.
As a result, the content received by the hosting infrastructure through
the integrated shopping cart is included in the first and second hosts as
recited.
13
Appeal2014-001200
Application 13/226,301
For the foregoing reasons, Appellant has not persuaded us of error in
the rejection of claim 12.
Independent Claim 5
Independent claim 5 differs in scope from claim 1 and is separately
argued. App. Br. 30-33. In particular, claim 5 recites the hosting
infrastructure serving first, second, and third hosts but does not recite
enabling a second host to transmit the content to a computer. App. Br.
25-26, Claims App 'x. Many of the arguments concerning claim 5 are
similar to those of claim 1. App. Br. 30-32 (discussing the mapping of
Hodson to the recited hosts and content). We are not persuaded for the
above reasons. We repeat that the integrated shopping cart module (e.g., 50)
located on server 31 is mapped to the recited "hosting infrastructure on a
server computer" and the first website associated with server 31 is mapped
to the recited "first host." See Ans. 20-21; Final Act. 3, 5. Thus, we
disagree that the Examiner finds the Hodson's first website is both the first
host and the second host.
Additionally, we note that the third host is mapped to yet another
affiliated website associated with yet another affiliated server 3 ln. See Ans.
20-22. 3 The Examiner further indicates that Hodson teaches an affiliated
server 3 ln serves as a server hub that includes a plurality of web servers
(e.g., 82a). Hodson i-f 105, cited in Ans. 24. This teaching further illustrates
numerous hosts (e.g., websites associated with web servers) within a server
hub or a hosting infrastructure (e.g., an integrated shopping cart on a server)
3 Once again, although the Examiner maps the hosts to servers (Ans. 21 ), we
presume the Examiner intended to map the websites associated with the
servers to the hosts (Final Act. 5).
14
Appeal2014-001200
Application 13/226,301
enabling a first host (e.g., a first website associated with a first server) to
provide "hosting services" to a second host and a third host (e.g., providing
an integrated shopping cart for buying products on affiliated websites
associated with affiliated servers 3 ln or servers 82a) as recited.
Lastly, Appellant argues that the shopping cart does not permit a
second host to integrate its product into a third host or one host to be
included in another host. App. Br. 23-24 (citing Spec., Abstract); Reply Br.
22. However, we do not find this claim language in claim 5. Claim 5 recites
"including the second content in the third host" and "presenting the first
content virtually to a user accessing the third host" but not integrating the
second host's product into a third host. For the above-discussed reasons, we
find that Hodson teaches the above-quoted limitations.
For the foregoing reasons, Appellant has not persuaded us of error in
the rejection of claim 5.
Claim 14
Claim 14 depends from claim 5 and is separately argued. Claim 14
recites "comprising the step of the hosting infrastructure enabling the second
host to present the second content virtually to a user accessing the second
host." App. Br. 49-50. Appellant takes the position that "[i]t is well known
in the art that virtual presentation is accomplished by presenting products
(content) as if the content resided on the website being accessed by the user,
but not actually being present on that website." Id. However, Appellant
provides no support for this allegedly well-known understanding, amounting
to mere counsel arguments that cannot take the place of factually supported
objective evidence. See In re Huang, 100 F.3d 135, 139--40 (Fed. Cir.
1996).
15
Appeal2014-001200
Application 13/226,301
Granted, Appellant states paragraph 98 of the disclosure supports this
position. App. Br. 50. But, this paragraph at best describes one example of
a host (e.g., e-commerce infrastructure) creating a virtual environment.
Spec. i-f 98 (stating "[ e Jach e-commerce of Fig. 1 is able to present its
solutions as if each one had its own e-commerce infrastructure.") Also, as
noted by the Examiner (Ans. 7, 47), Hodson describes an e-commerce
functionality of the first website can be used by the affiliated websites.
Hodson i-f 39, cited in Ans. 47--48. As such, Hodson's integrated shopping
cart infrastructure teaches similarly an e-commerce functionality for
affiliated websites associated with affiliated servers (e.g., the second host)
simulated through the first website. See id. Accordingly, Hodson teaches an
infrastructure that enables the second host to present the second content
virtually to a user accessing the second host as recited.
For the foregoing reasons, Appellant has not persuaded us of error in
the rejection of claim 14.
Claims 15 and 16
Claim 15 depends from claim 14 and is separately argued. App. Br.
50. Appellant argues that claim 15 also includes the virtual presentation.
For the reasons stated above, we are not persuaded by counsel's argument
related to a "virtual presentation" which cannot take the place of factually
supported, objective evidence. Appellant also contends that the Hodson's
paragraph 45, 48, and 49 do not discuss a virtual presentation. However, as
previously stated, the integrated shopping cart system 30 allows e-commerce
in the first website to be used in the affiliated websites and, thus, simulates
actions through the first website. Hodson i-fi-137, 39. Accordingly, we are
not persuaded by the Appellant's argument.
16
Appeal2014-001200
Application 13/226,301
Claim 16 depends from claim 5 and is separately argued. Appellant
refers to the arguments for claim 15 (App. Br. 51), for which we are not
persuaded. Appellant also argues that the last two limitations in claim 16 are
not found in Hodson. As for the recited "enabling" step, Appellant asserts
that the Examiner makes no finding. Id. We disagree.
The Examiner makes findings related to the hosting infrastructure
enabling the first host to provide hosting service to additional hosts, such as
the second and third hosts. Final Act. 5, 7; Ans. 5 (citing Hodson i-fi-139, 41,
42). Additionally, the Examiner discusses an e-commerce framework that
integrates the functionality of the first website with affiliated websites using
the integrated shopping cart infrastructure. Ans. 20-21 (citing Hodson i-fi-1
39, 41). As such, the Examiner makes findings to support the disputed
recitation "the hosting infrastructure enabling the first host to provide
hosting services to [a] fourth host" recited in claim 16.
As for the last step of claim 16, Appellant presents a similar argument
that Hodson is devoid of enabling a "virtual presentation" (App. Br. 51 ), for
which we are not persuaded for reasons previously discussed.
Lastly, claim 25 depends from claim 24 and will be addressed below.
For the foregoing reasons, Appellant has not persuaded us of error in
the rejection of claims 15 and 16.
Independent Claim 8
Independent claim 8 is separately argued. App. Br. 33-35. This
claim recites "the third host configured to be included into at least one of the
first host and the second host" and "including the third host in the second
host so as to present the third host to a user accessing the second host," both
of which are disputed. App. Br. 33-34.
17
Appeal2014-001200
Application 13/226,301
Many of the arguments repeat the arguments of claims 1 and 5. We
are not persuaded for reasons previously stated. As for the argument that
Hodson fails to teach the limitation "including the third host in the second
host" (App. Br. 35), we refer to the discussion of the Figure 6 example
where multiple web servers may be located in affiliated web servers 3 ln that
may be embodied as a server hub of the integrated shopping system 30. See
Hodson i-fi-f l 05---07, Fig. 6; see also Ans. 27-30.
Accordingly, Appellant has not persuaded us of error in the rejection
of claim 8.
Independent Claim 19
Independent claim 19 is separately argued. App. Br. 35-37. The
arguments presented are similar to those of independent claims 1, 5, and 8.
As stated above, we are not persuaded by Appellant's argument. To the
extent that managing hosts using resources on a server must be done on a
single server, Hodson states that that the first website and multitude of
affiliated websites may all be provided on a single server 31 (e.g., enabling a
first host to manage other hosts using a server). Hodson i139. Hodson also
teaches navigating to additional servers to access affiliated websites but that
selected products are incorporated into the integrated shopping cart at the
first website (e.g., further managing other hosts product selection with the
first host). Id.
Accordingly, Appellant has not persuaded us of error in the rejection
of claim 19.
Claims 20--22
Claim 20 depends from claim 19 and recites "the first content and the
second content are dynamic contents." Appellant disputes that the content in
18
Appeal2014-001200
Application 13/226,301
Hodson is "dynamic content," arguing such data must be retrieved from
database table and changes over time. App. Br. 41 (citing
http://www.thesearchagency.com/classroom/glossary/dynamic-
content.html). We are not persuaded.
First, as stated above, Hodson teaches storing content in a database.
Second, even assuming that Appellant's understanding of "dynamic content"
is correct, Hodson discloses how the vendor parameters are updated and
maintained and how products in the shopping cart can be modified. Ans. 39
(citing Hodson i-fi-1 45, 48); see also Hodson i1 44 (discussing parameters that
are added to the shopping cart). Thus, information in a database table,
whether it be vendor contents or shopping cart contents, both of which are
received and stored at the server computer, can be changed and, thus, are
"dynamic contents" as broadly as recited.
As for claim 21 and 22, Appellant refers to the arguments presented
for claims 2, 4, and 20, for which we are not persuaded. App. Br. 42. We
additionally refer to the Examiner's findings related to their limitations.
Ans. 9-10.
Accordingly, Appellant has not persuaded us of error in the rejection
of claims 20-22
Claim 25
Claim 25 depends from claim 24. Appellant repeats that Hodson does
not teach including contents received at the server computer in the first,
second, and third hosts but rather sends order information to the shopping
cart. App. Br. 51-52. We disagree for the above-stated reasons.
19
Appeal2014-001200
Application 13/226,301
Claim 27
Claim 27 depends from claim 24 and asserts the same arguments as
those presented for claim 10. App. Br. 43--45. We are not persuaded and
refer to the discussion related to claim 10. Accordingly, Appellant has not
persuaded us of error in the rejection of claim 27.
THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OVER HODSON AND HORN
Claim 3 depends from claim 2 and further recites "the step of indexing
the content." Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Hodson and Hom. Ans. 10-11. App. Br. 42--43. Appellant contends
that Hom teaches indexing generally and not indexing content received at
the server computer. Appellant asserts that to propose that one skilled in the
art would have combined Hom's general statement with Hodson's system
such that Hodson's server would be indexed is unreasonable. App. Br. 43.
We disagree. As the Examiner notes, Hodson and Hom teach related
concepts concerning e-commerce on a larger scale and storing information
in database infrastructure. See Ans. 40 (citing Hodson i-f 39, Abstract and
Hom i-f 5, Abstract). Additionally, as explained, Hodson teaches using a
database to store product and related data but does not discuss indexing the
data. Ans. 41 (citing Hodson i-fi-1 8, 15-16, 1 O); see also Hodson i-f 107.
Hom, which is reasonably pertinent to databases within an e-commerce
environment, teaches one technique for storing data in a relational database
that uses indexing to allow for "fast sorting and selecting of records." Id.
(citing Hom i-fi-1239--40). As such, the Examiner has provided a reason with
some rational underpinning that one skilled in the art would have combined
Hom's teaching with Hodson, yielding no more than a predictable result of
20
Appeal2014-001200
Application 13/226,301
allowing for fast sorting and selecting of records. See KSR Int' I Co. v.
Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417-18 (2007).
Also, to the extent that Appellant asserts that this rejection should be
reversed due to "the distinctiveness of claims 1 and 2" (App. Br. 43), we are
not persuaded for the reasons previously set forth.
Accordingly, Appellant has not persuaded us of error in the rejection
of claim 3.
THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OVER HODSON
ANDMIKURAK
Claims 11, 13, 17, 18, 23, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Hodson and Mikurak. Ans. 11-12. Appellant
argues claims 11, 17, and 26 collectively. App. Br. 45--46. We select claim
11 as illustrative.
The Examiner states Mikurak teaches an infrastructure that enables
the first host to create the second host. Ans. 11 (citing Mikurak i-fi-f 15, 64,
66, 209, 241--42, 278, 1654). The Examiner further determines that forming
two branches in different cities connected through a virtual network as
discussed in Mikurak enables a first host to create a second host. Ans. 44
(citing Mikurak i-f 1654). The Examiner contends that extended a network
resource to different cities adds more hosts to the existing infrastructure.
Appellant argues "[ n Jo reasonable reading of Mikurak teaches a
hosting infrastructure enabling the first host to create the second host." App.
Br. 45. In Appellant's view, Mikurak teaches creating a virtual private
network between two locations, but that this does teach one host creating
21
Appeal2014-001200
Application 13/226,301
another. App. Br. 45--46 (citing Mikurak if 1654 ). We are persuaded by
Appellant's argument.
We agree that one skilled in the art would have recognized that
extending a resource may require more servers. See Mikurak if 1654.
However, extending a resource and adding a server (e.g., a host) does not
demonstrate sufficiently by itself that a first host enables the creation of a
second host. The existence of the first server and its services may enable
additional servers or host to be created by extending the resource. But, there
is insufficient evidence in Mikurak that this network extension enables the
one host to create another host. The remaining cited portions of Hodson
(Ans. 11) do not clarify how the virtual network that forms two branches in
different cities enables a first host to create a second host as recited.
Moreover, based on the record, we determine that, when the
references are combined, there is insufficient evidence the Mikurak's
teachings of extending a resource teaches or suggests adequately that
Hodson's first website and server (e.g., the mapped first host) creates
Hodson's second website and server (e.g., the mapped second host) by virtue
of an extended virtual network. As noted above, the first website's existence
may enable the services providing by the first website through the shopping
cart to be extended to the second host (e.g., a second server) but there is
inadequate evidence that this first website creates a second website and its
server (e.g., the recited second host consisting of a web site) even when
combined with Mikurak' s extended virtual network.
The Examiner also finds that assigning nodes to the ring as well as
assigning a ring to a neighbor ring forming inter-ring traffic enables a first
host to create a second host. Ans. 44--45 (citing Mikurak iii! 241--42, 278).
22
Appeal2014-001200
Application 13/226,301
This discussion addresses data routing and satisfying traffic demands.
Mikurak i-fi-1241--42. Although traffic demands may assign one ring to
neighbor node, we determine there is insufficient evidence in the record that
the assigned ring created the neighbor node or vice versa. Also, we fail to
see how combining this teaching with Hodson's servers and their associated
websites (e.g., the mapped first and second hosts) would predictably yield an
infrastructure that enables the first host to create the second host. Mikurak' s
discussion of dynamically reconfiguring a network does not assist in
teaching or suggestion sufficiently an infrastructure that enables the first
mapped host to create the second mapped host.
For the foregoing reasons, Appellant has persuaded us of error in the
rejection of (1) claim 11 and (2) claims 13, 17, 23, and 26 which recite
commensurate limitations.
Claim 18 depends from claim 8 and differs in scope from claims 11,
13, 17, 23, and 26. Because this claim is not separately argued (see
generally App. Br), we sustain the rejection of this claim for the reasons
stated above concerning claim 8 and those provided by the Examiner. Ans.
12.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 10, 12,
14--16, 19-22, 24, 25, and 27 under§ 102 and claims 3 and 18 under§ 103.
The Examiner erred in rejecting claims 11, 13, 17, 23, and 26 under
§ 103.
23
Appeal2014-001200
Application 13/226,301
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-5, 8, 10, 12, 14--16,
18-22, 24, 25, and 27 is affirmed.
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 11, 13, 17, 23, and 26 is
reversed.
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 )(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
24