Ex Parte Cragun

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Feb 28, 2008

09641184 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 28, 2008)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte BRIAN JOHN CRAGUN
____________________

Appeal 2007-1956
Application 09/641,184
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Decided: February 28, 2008
____________________

Before LANCE LEONARD BARRY, MAHSHID D. SAADAT, and
ALLEN R. MACDONALD, Administrative Patent Judges.

MACDONALD, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF CASE
Introduction
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a final rejection of
claims 21-28 and 33-37. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
According to Appellant, the invention is a method, article of
manufacture, system, and data structure for providing a chained or
Appeal 2007-1956
Application 09/641,184

2
compound uniform resource locator (URL) including a base URL and all
subsequent navigation steps necessary to access a desired resource (Spec.
3:19-21).
Representative Claim(s)
Representative independent claim 21 under appeal reads as follows:
21. A computer-implemented method for use in a browser program,
the method comprising:

storing, for each user manipulation of a currently retrieved resource,
data indicative of such user manipulation; and

combining a network address of a base resource and at least one data
structure indicative of user manipulation of said base resource to form a
compound network address, said compound network address suitable for
retrieving a resource according to the stored user manipulations, wherein at
least one user manipulation is stored using at least one coordinate of a
pointer selection made by a user, wherein the pointer selection comprises a
target network address of a resource retrieved by the user.

Prior Art
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Anupam US 6,535,912 B1 Mar. 18, 2003
Matson US 5,774,123 Jun. 30, 1998
Appeal 2007-1956
Application 09/641,184

3
Rejections
The Examiner rejected claims 21-28 and 33-37 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Anupam and
Matson.
Appellant’s Contentions
(A) Appellant contends that the claimed subject matter of
independent claim 21 would not have been obvious. More specifically,
Appellant contends that Anupam fails to describe the claimed “network
address” (Br. 10-12). Dependent claims 22-24 are not separately argued and
stand or fall with claim 21.
(B) Appellant contends that the claimed subject matter of
independent claim 25 would not have been obvious. More specifically,
Appellant contends that Anupam fails to describe the claimed “URL” (Br.
12). Dependent claims 26-28 are not separately argued and stand or fall
with claim 25.
(C) Appellant contends that the claimed subject matter of
independent claim 33 would not have been obvious. More specifically,
Appellant contends that Anupam fails to describe the claimed “URL chain
record header” (Br. 12-13). Dependent claims 34-37 are not separately
argued and stand or fall with claim 33.
(D) Further, Appellant contends that the Examiner’s Advisory Action
supports Appellant’s contentions (A), (B), and (C).
Appeal 2007-1956
Application 09/641,184

4
Result
We affirm.

ISSUE(S)
(1) Has Appellant established that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 21 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Anupam and
Matson.
(2) Has Appellant established that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 25 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Anupam and
Matson.
(3) Has Appellant established that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 33 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Anupam and
Matson.

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
Appellant has the burden on appeal to the Board to demonstrate error
in the Examiner’s position. See In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 985-86 (Fed. Cir.
2006) (“On appeal to the Board, an applicant can overcome a rejection
[under § 103] by showing insufficient evidence of prima facie obviousness
or by rebutting the prima facie case with evidence of secondary indicia of
nonobviousness.”) (quoting In re Rouffet, 149 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir.
1998)).

Appeal 2007-1956
Application 09/641,184

5
ANALYSIS
Appellant does not dispute that the Examiner has correctly shown that
the Anupam and Matson references may be combined. Nor does Appellant
dispute that the Examiner has correctly shown the teachings of the Matson
reference.
Rather, as noted supra, Appellants contend that the Anupam reference
fails to describe a network address, a URL, and a URL chain record header.
With respect to each contention, the Examiner fully addresses Appellant’s
arguments at pages 10-16 of the Answer.
We disagree with Appellant’s contentions and we adopt the
Examiner’s responses as our own.

CONCLUSION OF LAW
(1) Appellant has failed to establish that the Examiner erred in
rejecting claims 21-24 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
Anupam and Matson.
(2) Appellant has failed to establish that the Examiner erred in
rejecting claims 25-28 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
Anupam and Matson.
(3) Appellant has failed to establish that the Examiner erred in
rejecting claims 33-37 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
Anupam and Matson.
(4) Claims 21-28 and 33-37 are not patentable.
Appeal 2007-1956
Application 09/641,184

6
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 21-28 and 33-37 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

pgc

Gero G McClellan
Thomason Moser & Patterson LLP
Suite 1500
3040 Post Oak Boulevard
Houston TX 77056-6582