Ex Parte Christodoulou et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 19, 201310629571 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 19, 2013) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte ATHENA CHRISTODOULOU, RICHARD TAYLOR, and CHRISTOPHER TOFTS ____________ Appeal 2010-007373 Application 10/629,571 Technology Center 2400 ____________ Before DAVID M. KOHUT, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and LARRY J. HUME, Administrative Patent Judges. KUMAR, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1-24. (App. Br. 2). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. Appeal 2010-007373 Application 10/629,571 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction Appellants’ invention relates to a method of providing a sub-page of a website to a requesting client by displaying an alias that prevents a user at the client side from easily being able to determine the genuine address of the actual server to which the client is being connected. (See Spec. 2:30 – 3:5). Claim 1, which is illustrative of the invention, reads as follows: 1. A method of providing a sub-page of a website to a requesting client comprising the steps of: sending to the client, with a copy of a first web page, a link which points to an address of a server on which a copy of the sub-page is hosted; actuating the link; and displaying, at the client by way of a browser, an alias for the address of the server on which the copy of the sub-page is hosted, wherein the alias is an address of a web page which is served to the client, and wherein the alias is displayed by the browser. The Examiner’s Rejections1 The Examiner rejected claims 1-24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bates (US 6,751,777 B2, Jun. 15, 2004) and Kolsky (US 2003/0028599 A1, Feb. 6, 2003). (Ans. 3-15).2 1 Throughout this opinion, we refer to the Brief (Appeal Brief, filed Feb. 8, 2008) and the Answer (mailed Apr. 17, 2009) for the respective positions of Appellants and the Examiner. 2 The Examiner rejected claims 1, 11, 21, and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first and second paragraphs. Based on an amendment filed after the final rejection, the § 112 rejections were withdrawn. Appeal 2010-007373 Application 10/629,571 3 Appellants’ Contentions With respect to independent claims 1, 11, 21, and 22, Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting the claims because the combination of Bates and Kolsky does not teach or suggest “wherein the alias is an address of a web page which is served to the client, and wherein the alias is displayed by the browser.” (Br. 7-11). Issue on Appeal Has the Examiner erred in rejecting the claims as being obvious over the cited references because the references fail to teach or suggest an “alias” as recited in independent claims 1, 11, 21, and 22? ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection in light of Appellants’ arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants’ contentions and adopt as our own (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellants’ Appeal Brief (see Ans. 15-22). However, as outlined infra, we highlight and address specific findings and arguments for emphasis. Appellants have not provided an explicit definition of “alias” in their Specification. However, Appellants’ Specification indicates that alias is an alternative name for URL links (Spec. 6:22 – 7:9). Thus, the Examiner interprets the claimed “alias” as a URL link. Appeal 2010-007373 Application 10/629,571 4 The Examiner correctly finds (Ans. 17-18) that Bates explicitly discloses (a) “the use of bookmarks (also sometimes referred to as aliases…)” (col. 1, ll. 53-55 (emphasis ours)), (b) “links to navigate to one or more of a plurality of available ‘targets’ …[e]ach target is typically identified by its storage location, e.g., a Uniform Resource Locator (URL), a filename, a path, and/or other manners of addressing a document in computer system” (col. 7, ll. 26-32 (emphasis ours)), and (c) “list of bookmarks is displayed to the user” (col. 9, ll. 58-60). Thus, the Examiner finds that Bates teaches that the alias is an address of a web page which is served to the client that is displayed by the browser. Ans. 17. The Examiner also correctly finds (Ans. 18) that Kolsky explicitly discloses: [I]n the case of a web address, the alias switch can open an HTTP connection with entity B's HTTP server and act as an HTTP proxy towards entity A or it may send entity A's web browser a redirect message with the URL that the alias id was resolved to. Kolsky, ¶ [0051] (emphasis ours). Thus, the Examiner finds that Kolsky teaches that the alias is an address of a web page which is served to the client. Ans. 18. As such, we agree with the Examiner (Ans. 17-18) that the combination of Bates and Kolsky teaches that the alias is an address of a web page which is served to the client, and displayed by the browser. Regarding dependent claims 3, 5, 7, 10, 12-14, 20, 23, and 24, while Appellants raised additional arguments for patentability of the cited claims (Br. 11-18), we find that the Examiner has rebutted in the Answer each and every one of those arguments by a preponderance of the evidence. Ans. 18- Appeal 2010-007373 Application 10/629,571 5 22. Therefore, we adopt the Examiner’s findings and underlying reasoning, which are incorporated herein by reference. Consequently, we have found no error in the Examiner’s rejections of claims 3, 5, 7, 10, 12-14, 20, 23, and 24. Separate patentability is not argued for the remaining claims. CONCLUSION The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bates and Kolsky. DECISION The decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1-24 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)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED msc Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation