10839473 (B.P.A.I. Nov. 22, 2011)

Ex Parte Karstens

Board of Patent Appeals and InterferencesNov 22, 2011

10839473 (B.P.A.I. Nov. 22, 2011)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES ____________ Ex parte CHRISTOPHER KENT KARSTENS ____________ Appeal 2009-012758 Application 10/839,473 Technology Center 2400 ____________ Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, DENISE M. POTHIER, and BRUCE R. WINSOR, Administrative Patent Judges. WINSOR, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2009-012758 Application 10/839,473 2 Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of claims 1-31, which constitute all the claims pending in this application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant’s invention relates to dissemination of status information to computer resource users. Status information regarding computer resources is stored in a message store. The computer resources are monitored to determine when one of them stops responding. Inbound messages from users that are addressed to a non-responding resource are then routed to the message store using a network address translation operation. Status information regarding the non-responding resource is sent from the message store to the user. (Abstract.) Claim 1, which is illustrative of the invention, reads as follows: 1. A method of disseminating computer resource status information, the method comprising: storing status information regarding a plurality of computer resources in a message store; determining that one of the plurality of computer resources has stopped responding; routing a message from a user that is addressed to the non-responding computer resource to the message store using a network address translation operation; and sending, responsive to receiving the message at the message store, at least some of the status information regarding the non-responding computer resource from the message store to the user. Appeal 2009-012758 Application 10/839,473 3 The Examiner relies on the following prior art in rejecting the claims: Kekic US 6,272,537 B1 Aug. 7, 2001 Vine US 2002/0056053 A1 May 9, 2002 Marejka US 2003/0140149 A1 July 24, 2003 Donzis US 2004/0107261 A1 June 3, 2004 Claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 9, 15, 20-23, 26, 29, and 31 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Vine. Claims 2, 4, 7, 8, 10-14, 25, 27, 28, and 30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Vine in view of Donzis. Claims 16, 17, and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Vine in view of Kekic. Claim 18 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Vine in view of Kekic and Donzis. Claim 19 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Vine in view of Marejka. Rather than repeat the arguments here, we make reference to the Brief (filed Dec. 2, 2008) and the Answer (mailed Feb. 4, 2009) for the respective positions of Appellant and the Examiner. ISSUE The pivotal issue presented by Appellant’s contentions is as follows: Does Vine disclose “routing a message from a user that is addressed to [a] non-responding computer resource to [a] message store using a network address translation operation” (the “routing step”), as recited in claim 1? Appeal 2009-012758 Application 10/839,473 4 ANALYSIS The Examiner finds that Vine discloses the “routing step” at paragraphs [0025]-[0027], [0031], and [0032] (Ans. 4-5, 17-18). Appellant contends that Vine does not disclose the “routing step” (Br. 4-5). Appellant explains as follows: Vine (paragraph [0021]) clearly discloses that when STRGIO server 30 detects an error (e.g., an HTTP error, a DNS error, or a TCP error) the server 30 sends a data object (i.e., a predetermined or redirection data object) to workstation 34 of user 35. The data object redirects the workstation 34 to an alternate dynamic error message that appears on a screen of the workstation 34 (as browser page 50) responsive to a new request from the workstation 34 of the user 35. In sum, while Vine redirects a workstation using a data object, Vine does not route a message from a user (to a non-responding computer resource) to a message store using a network address translation operation. … As is disclosed in Vine paragraph [0027], as a result of receiving a redirection packet, a browser (associated with user 35) issues a new request that is directed to a content delivery server (CDS), which responds with a browser page (e.g., browser page 50). (Br. 5 (emphasis in original).) We agree with Appellant. The “routing step” recites that the massage that is routed to the message store is a message that is addressed to a non-responding computer resource. We find that, rather than re-routing a message from the user addressed to a non-responding computer resource to the message store by using a network address translation operation as recited in the “routing step” of claim 1, Vine causes the user’s bowser to send a new message to the CDS (i.e., message store (see Ans. 17)) (Vine ¶ [0027]), which is not encompassed by the claim language. Appeal 2009-012758 Application 10/839,473 5 Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1 as anticipated by Vine under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Additionally, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 20 and 31, which recite the same feature we found absent from the cited passages of Vine as applied by the Examiner. Donzis, Kekic and Marejka, as variously applied by the Examiner to claims 2, 4, 7, 8, 10- 14, 16-19, 24, 25, 27, and 28, do not remedy the deficiency of Vine. Therefore, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 2-19 and 21-30 which depend from claims 1 and 20, respectively.1 DECISION The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-31 is reversed. 2 REVERSED msc 1 The Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences is a review body, rather than a place of initial examination. In the event of further prosecution, we leave to the instant Examiner to determine if any of claims 1, 20, and 31, or their dependent claims, are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Vine, alone or in combination with other prior art. 2 In the event of further prosecution of claim 31, or claims in similar form, we leave it to the instant Examiner to determine the appropriateness of any further rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101. See, U.S. Patent & Trademark Office, Interim Examination Instructions for Evaluating Subject Matter Eligibility Under 35 U.S.C. § 101, Aug. 24, 2009, available at http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/dapp/opla/2009-08-25_interim_101_ instructions.pdf; see also, David J. Kappos, Subject Matter Eligibility of Computer Readable Media, 1351 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 212 (Feb. 23, 2010).