Ex Parte Issa

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Nov 29, 2011

11234493 (B.P.A.I. Nov. 29, 2011)

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.
11/234,493 09/23/2005 Alfredo C. Issa 1104-009 1042
74548 7590 11/30/2011
FlashPoint Technology and Withrow & Terranova
100 Regency Forest Drive
Suite 160
Cary, NC 27518
EXAMINER
LEE, PHILIP C
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2453
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/30/2011 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 ALFREDO C. ISSA
____________________

Appeal 2010-000172
Application 11/234,493
Technology Center 2400
____________________

Before LANCE LEONARD BARRY, JOHN A. JEFFERY,
and THU A. DANG, Administrative Patent Judges.

DANG, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-000172
Application 11/234,493

2
I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1-37. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
A. INVENTION
Appellant’s invention relates to a proxy server that controls when
traffic bypasses the proxy server for the purpose of lowering its bandwidth
utilization by determining whether a user at a peer (or guest) node requests
digital content stored on another peer node that is bandwidth rich (e.g.,
digital images, video, or audio content); wherein, when the content is
bandwidth rich, the server uses the Uniform Resource Locator (URL)
corresponding to the content to generate a Hypertext Transfer Protocol
(HTTP) Redirect signal which is sent to the requesting node to enable direct
access of the content (Abstract; Spec. ¶¶ [0031]-[0034]).

B. ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
Claim 1 is exemplary:
1. A proxy server for a hybrid peer-to-peer system
comprising:

a) a communication interface coupled to a network; and

b) a control system adapted to:

i) receive a first request for digital content residing
at a first node from a requesting node via the
communication interface; and

Appeal 2010-000172
Application 11/234,493

3
ii) redirect the requesting node to the first node if
the digital content is bandwidth rich content such that a
transfer of the digital content from the first node to the
requesting node by-passes the proxy server.

C. REJECTIONS
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Rau US 2001/0007099 A1 Jul. 05, 2001
Beesley US 2003/0093520 A1 May 15, 2003
Tate US 2006/0047839 A1 Mar. 02, 2006
(filed Aug. 24, 2004)
Gvily US 7,370,015 B2 May 06, 2008
(filed Oct. 12, 2000)
Arsenault US 7,401,115 B1 Jul. 15, 2008
(filed Oct. 23, 2000)

Claims 1-3 and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Rau in view of the Appellant’s admitted prior art
(“AAPA”).
Claims 4-6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Rau in view of AAPA and Beesley.
Claims 7 and 12-14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Rau in view of AAPA and Gvily.
Claim 22 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Rau in view of AAPA and Tate.
Claims 23-25 and 37 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Rau in view of Arsenault and AAPA.
Claims 26 and 27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Rau in view of Arsenault, AAPA, and Beesley.
Appeal 2010-000172
Application 11/234,493

4
Claims 28 and 31-33 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Rau in view of Arsenault AAPA and Gvily.
Claims 8-11 and 15-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Rau in view of AAPA, Gvily, and Tate.
Claims 29, 30, and 34-36 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Rau in view of Arsenault, AAPA, Gvily, and Tate.

II. ISSUE
The dispositive issue before us is whether the Examiner has erred in
determining that the combination of Rau and AAPA teaches or would have
suggested a proxy server that includes “a control system adapted to[] receive
a first request for digital content residing at a first node from a requesting
node via the communication interface; and redirect the requesting node to
the first node if the digital content is bandwidth rich content such that a
transfer of the digital content from the first node to the requesting node by-
passes the proxy server” (claim 1, emphases added). In particular, the issue
turns on whether Rau’s system comprises a control system that is adapted to,
i.e., capable of, redirecting the requesting node to the first node if the digital
content is bandwidth rich content.

III. FINDINGS OF FACT
The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of
the evidence.
The Invention
1. AAPA discloses a hybrid peer-to-peer architecture having a
proxy server and peer nodes that store bandwidth rich content (photo/digital
Appeal 2010-000172
Application 11/234,493

5
images); wherein, the proxy server is used to direct traffic between the peer
node requesting the digital content and the peer node that stores the digital
content (Spec. ¶ [0003]).
Rau
2. Rau discloses an automated single-point shopping cart system
and method having a proxy server 1010 that eliminates high traffic as a
result of downloading of images for a web page by downloading a mini-
program 1080 such as a Java- applet or a Java script from the proxy server
1010 to the user 1000; wherein, when the mini-program 1080 identifies a
request for an image to be displayed within the page, it routes user’s
computer directly to the target site (Fig. 10; ¶ [0070]).
Gvily
3. Gvily discloses a proxy server that instructs the user’s browser
to redirect a request; wherein, the browser initiates a new request which
includes the URL of the digital content (“www.mybank.com”), special
characters (“$proxy$”) indicating that the request is to be intercepted by the
server, and a cookie including a user identification number (UserID) (col. 6,
ll. 5-17).

IV. ANALYSIS
Claim 1-3 and 21
Appellant does not provide separate arguments with respect to claims
1-3 and 21 (App. Br. 11-15). Accordingly, we select independent claim 1 as
being representative of the claims. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
Appellant contends that “neither Rau nor the [AAPA], either alone or
in combination, discloses or suggests a proxy server that receives a request
Appeal 2010-000172
Application 11/234,493

6
for digital content residing on a first node from a requesting node and
redirects the requesting node to the first node if the digital content requested
by the requesting node is bandwidth rich content” (App. Br. 12).
Specifically, Appellant argues that “Rau does not disclose that a proxy
server has a control system that redirects a requesting node to a first node,
which has the requested content, if digital content requested by the
requesting node is bandwidth rich content,” since “Rau discloses that the
user, via the ‘mini-program’ 1080, performs this functionality” and “the
‘mini-program’ 1080 is not part of the proxy [server]” (App. Br.13, Reply
Br. 4).
However, the Examiner finds that “Rau teaches a proxy server (1010,
fig. 10) having a control system (program 1080, fig. 10) that is transmitted
from the proxy server to the user ([0070])” (Ans. 24) and that “Rau further
teach[es] the program 1080 (i.e., control system of proxy server) is adapted
to determine whether a request for content is associated with a bandwidth
rich content” (Ans. 25).
To determine whether the combined teachings of Rau and AAPA
teaches or would have suggested a proxy server including a control system
that is adapted to redirecting the requesting node to the first node if the
digital content is bandwidth rich content as recited in claim 1, we give the
claim its broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the Specification.
See In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997). However, we will
not read limitations from the Specification into the claims. In re Van Geuns,
988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Claim 1 merely requires that the control system is “adapted to”
receive a first request and redirect the requesting node to the node that stores
Appeal 2010-000172
Application 11/234,493

7
the digital content when the request is for bandwidth rich content. We find
such “adapted to” language to merely represent a statement of intended use
of the control system which does not limit the claim. Particularly, an
intended use will not limit the scope of the claim because it merely defines a
context in which the invention operates. Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica,
Inc. v. Schering-Plough Corp., 320 F.3d 1339, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
Although ''[s]uch statements often . . . appear in the claim's preamble,'' In re
Stencel, 828 F.2d 751, 754 (Fed. Cir. 1987), a statement of intended use or
purpose can appear elsewhere in a claim. Id. Thus, we give “a control
system adapted to[] receive a first request for digital content” and “redirect
the requesting node to the first node if the digital content is bandwidth rich
content” its broadest reasonable interpretation as a control system capable of
receiving a request and redirecting the requesting node to the node that
stores the bandwidth rich content, as consistent with the Specification and as
specifically defined in claim 1.
Rau discloses a proxy server that eliminates high traffic as a result of
downloading of images for a web page by downloading a mini-program,
such as a Java- applet or a Java script, to the user’s terminal; wherein, the
mini-program re-routes traffic from the user directly to the target site when
the user requests the download of an image (FF 2). We find that Rau’s mini-
program comprises a system that is capable of directing traffic,
“redirect[ing] the requesting node to the first node if the digital content is
bandwidth rich content” as required by claim 1.
In addition, AAPA discloses a hybrid peer-to-peer architecture having
a proxy server; wherein, the proxy server is used to direct traffic between the
peer node requesting the digital content and the peer node that stores the
Appeal 2010-000172
Application 11/234,493

8
bandwidth rich digital content, such as photo/digital images (FF 1). That is,
AAPA discloses that “proxy server for a hybrid peer-to-peer system” as
required by claim 1 is known.
In view of our claim construction above, we find that the combination
of Rau and AAPA at least suggests providing a proxy server including a
control system that is adapted to redirecting the requesting node to the first
node if the digital content is bandwidth rich content as specifically required
by claim 1.
The Supreme Court has stated that “[t]he combination of familiar
elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does
no more than yield predictable results.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550
U.S. 398, 416 (2007).
Thus, we find no error in the Examiner’s finding that the combination
of AAPA’s proxy server with the mini-program, as disclosed in Rau,
produces a proxy server that redirects traffic bypassing the proxy server
when the user requests bandwidth rich content which would be obvious
(Ans. 4 and 24-25; FF 1 and 2).
Accordingly, we find that Appellant has not shown that the Examiner
erred in rejecting claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Rau in view of
AAPA; and claims 2, 3, and 21 depending from claim 1which have been
grouped therewith.
Claims 4-12, 15-20, and 22
Appellant argues that claims 4-12, 15-20, and 22 are patentable over
the cited prior art for the same reasons asserted with respect to claim 1 (App.
Br. 15, 16, and 19).
Appeal 2010-000172
Application 11/234,493

9
As for claims 4-6, Appellant argues that “Beesley does not overcome
the previously noted deficiencies of both Rau and [AAPA]” (App. Br. 15).
As to claims 7 and 12, Appellant argues that “Gvily does not overcome the
previously noted deficiencies of both Rau and [AAPA]” (App. Br. 15). As
for claim 22, Appellant argues that “Tate does not overcome the previously
noted deficiencies of both Rau and [AAPA]” (App. Br. 16).
As noted supra with respect to claim 1, we find no deficiencies with
respect to the combined teachings of Rau and AAPA. We therefore also
find no error in the Examiner’s rejection of claims 4-6 over Rau and AAPA
in further view of Beesley; of claims 7 and 12 over Rau and AAPA in
further view of Gvily; of claim 22 over Rau and AAPA in further view of
Tate; and of claims 8-11 and 15-20 over Rau and AAPA in further view of
Gvily and Tate.
Claims 13 and 14
As to claims 13 and 14, Appellant contends that “none of the
references, either alone or in combination, disclose or suggest constructing a
URL for digital content that includes a unique single token” (App. Br. 15).
Claim 13 does not place any limitation on what “unique single use
token” means, includes, or represents. Thus, we give “unique single use
token” its broadest reasonable interpretation as data, as consistent with the
Specification and as specifically defined in claim 13.
Gvily discloses a proxy server that initiates a new request which
includes the URL of the digital content, special characters indicating that the
request is to be intercepted by the server, and a cookie including a user
identification number (FF 3). We find that special characters and the cookie
Appeal 2010-000172
Application 11/234,493

10
including a user identification number are data that is sent with the
constructed URL associated with the digital content (FF 3).
In view of our claim construction above, we find that the combination
of Rau, AAPA, and Gvily at least suggests a control system adapted to
“generate a unique single use token” and “construct a Uniform Resource
Locator (URL) for the digital content … including the unique single use
token” as specifically required by claim 13.
Accordingly, we find that Appellant has not shown that the Examiner
erred in rejecting claim 13 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Rau in
view of AAPA and Gvily.
Claims 23-25 and 37
As to claims 23, 24, and 37, Appellant does not provide separate
arguments with respect to the claims (App. Br. 16-17). Accordingly, we
select claim 23 as being representative of the claims.
Appellant contends that “[w]hile Arsenault does disclose that a proxy
server intercepts browser requests and redirects browser requests, Arsenault
does not disclose that the proxy server redirects the browser request to the
peer node from which the requesting node originally requested the content”;
rather, “Arsenault discloses redirecting the browser request to a jump server,
which is different from a node from which a requesting node originally
requested content” (App. Br. 17).
As noted supra with respect to claim 1, we find that the combined
teaching of Rau and AAPA at least suggests redirecting, at the proxy server,
the requesting node to the peer node if the digital content is bandwidth rich
content such that a transfer of the digital content from the peer node to the
requesting node by-passes the proxy server (FF 1-2). Thus, we also find no
Appeal 2010-000172
Application 11/234,493

11
error in the Examiner’s rejection of claims 23, 24, and 37 over Rau and
AAPA in further view of Arsenault.
As to claim 25, Appellant contends “that none of the cited references,
either alone or in combination, disclose or suggest determining whether a
type of digital content is one of at least one predetermined type associated
with bandwidth rich content, thereby determining whether the digital content
is bandwidth rich content” (App. Br. 18).
As noted supra with respect to claim 1, we find that Rau discloses a
mini-program that determines whether the requested content is a digital
image (bandwidth rich content), for the purpose of eliminating traffic
through the proxy server (FF 2). Thus, we also find no error in the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 25 over Rau and AAPA in further view of
Arsenault.
Claims 26-36
Appellant argues that claims 26-36 are patentable over the cited prior
art for the same reasons asserted with respect to claim 23 (App. Br. 18).
As for claims 26 and 27, Appellant argues that “Beesley does not
overcome the previously noted problems of Rau, Arsenault, and [AAPA]”
(App. Br. 18). As for claims 28 and 31- 33, Appellant argues that “Gvily
does not overcome the previously noted problems of Rau, Arsenault, and
[AAPA]” (App. Br. 18). As for claims 29, 30, and 34-36, Appellant argues
that “Tate does not overcome the previously noted problems of … Rau,
Arsenault, [AAPA], and Gvily” (App. Br. 19).
As noted supra with respect to claim 23, however, we find no error in
the Examiner’s reliance on the combined teachings of Rau, Arsenault and
AAPA. We therefore also affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 26 and
Appeal 2010-000172
Application 11/234,493

12
27 over Rau, Arsenault, AAPA and further in view of Beesley; of claims 28
and 31-33 over Rau, Arsenault, AAPA and further in view of Gvily; and of
claims 29, 30 and 34-36 over Rau, Arsenault, AAPA, Gvily and further in
view of Tate.

V. CONCLUSION AND DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-37 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) 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

peb