Ex Parte Gilbert

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Oct 19, 2010

11208904 (B.P.A.I. Oct. 19, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
11/208,904 08/22/2005 Lanny Gilbert 00122-C2 2081
36192 7590 10/20/2010
AT&T Legal Department - CC
Attn: Patent Docketing
Room 2A-207
One AT&T Way
Bedminster, NJ 07921
EXAMINER
MESFIN, YEMANE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2444
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/20/2010 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________

Ex parte LANNY GILBERT
_____________

Appeal 2009-007918
Application 11/208,904
Technology Center 2400
______________

Before, ROBERT E. NAPPI, JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO, and
THOMAS S. HAHN, Administrative Patent Judges.

NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1

1The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, or for filing a request for rehearing,
as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the “MAIL DATE”
(paper delivery mode) or the “NOTIFICATION DATE” (electronic delivery
mode) shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision.

Appeal 2009-007918
Application 11/208,904

This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the final
rejection of claims 1-3, 6-8, and 11-13.2 We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of these claims.
INVENTION
The invention is directed to a method, computer readable medium,
and system for allowing a visitor to have temporary and full access to a
controlled website for a specific period of time and number of times the
website is accessed. See Spec: 1-5. Claim 1 is representative of the
invention and reproduced below:
1. A control system for providing visitors temporary access
through the Internet to a controlled access web site, the control
system comprising:
an access control mechanism for obtaining visitor
information and determining if a visitor is a registered user or a
temporary user, the access control mechanism providing full
access to the registered user and providing temporary access
information based on visitor information for a temporary user;
a database having a plurality of entries, each entry is an
access record assigned to one visitor which contains the
temporary access information;
a server control engine for receiving temporary access
requests from the visitors for analyzing the temporary access
information stored in the database, and for granting temporary
access permissions if the visitors have not exceeded a time limit
and an access limit, the time limit being measured from a time
stamp indicating when the visitor first obtained access, the
access limit is represented as a number of accesses to the web
site, a number of clicks at the web site and a size of the files
downloaded from the web site, wherein the temporary user and

2 Claims 4-5, 9-10, and 14-15 were cancelled in an Amendment After Final,
filed June 5, 2007.
2
Appeal 2009-007918
Application 11/208,904

registered user have the same level of access to the web site;
and
the server control engine offering the visitor registered status
if the visitor has exceeded at least one of the time limit and
access limit.

REFERENCES
Winters US 2001/0034635 A1 Oct. 25, 2001

Hegli US 6,606,659 B1 Aug. 12, 2003

http://web.archive.org/web/19971211100358/http://www.aol.com/3

http://web.archive.org/web/19991111024749/http://www.aol.com/index.
htm4

REJECTION AT ISSUE
Claims 1-3, 6-8, and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Hegli in view of Winters. Ans. 3-5.

ISSUE
Appellant argues on pages 4-7 of the Appeal Brief that the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1-3, 6-8, and 11-13 is in error. Appellant selects claim 1
as representative of the group comprising claims 1-3, 6-8, and 11-13. App.
Br. 7. Appellant argues that Hegli in view of Winters and Official Notice
does not disclose a temporary user and a registered user having the same
level of access to the web site. App. Br. 6.

3 This document is not part of the statement of the rejection but is part of the
rejection as it is included in the rationale supporting the rejection. Ans. 5.
4 See footnote 3.
3
Appeal 2009-007918
Application 11/208,904

Thus, with respect to claim 1, Appellant’s contention presents us with
the issue: Did the Examiner err in finding that Hegli in view of Winters and
Official Notice discloses a temporary user and registered user having the
same level of access to the web site?

ANALYSIS
Appellant’s arguments have not persuaded us that the Examiner erred
in rejecting claim 1. Claim 1 recites “wherein the temporary user and
registered user have the same level of access to the web site.” Appellant
argues that neither of the references nor the Official Notice discloses this
limitation. We disagree.
The Examiner finds that it was well known at the time the invention
was made that full access was given to temporary users for a limited time.
Ans. 5. The Examiner supports this finding by providing an AOL
screenshot that discloses a commonly known promotional offer providing
full access to AOL resources for a free trial period. Ans. 9. We concur with
these findings by the Examiner as Appellant has not provided sufficient
evidence to rebut this finding by the Examiner. Appellant merely argues
that the document does not “support or contradict the Examiner’s position.”
App. Br. 6. Additionally, Appellant’s argument, on page 6 of the Brief,
directed to the document explaining AOL’s “current free service” from
March 13, 2008 is not persuasive. Initially, we note that the document was
not provided in accordance with 37 C.F.R. 41.37 and as such has not been
fully considered. Further, as stated by the Examiner, on page 19 of the
Answer, the article which discusses AOL’s current fees as of 2008, is
irrelevant to the status of AOL’s free trial period in 1999. Additionally,
4
Appeal 2009-007918
Application 11/208,904

even if the document is relevant to show AOL’s free service in 1999, the
document describes services provided to paying full members of AOL
versus non-paying full members of AOL and does not disclose services
denied to temporary users of AOL’s services. As such, we do not find
Appellant’s arguments to be persuasive and we sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 1 and claims 2-3, 6-8, and 11-13 that have been grouped
with claim 1.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in finding that Hegli in view of Winters and
Official Notice discloses a temporary user and registered user having the
same level of access to the web site.

SUMMARY
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-3, 6-8, and 11-13 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).
5
Appeal 2009-007918
Application 11/208,904

AFFIRMED

ELD

AT&T LEGAL DEPARTMENT – CC
ATTN: PATENT DOCKETING
ROOM 2A-207
ONE AT&T WAY
BEDMINSTER, NJ 07921
6