Ex Parte Morimoto

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Aug 26, 2010

09588879 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 26, 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.
09/588,879 06/06/2000 Nobuyoshi Morimoto 5596-00200 1074
7590 08/26/2010
Robert C. Kowert
Meyertons, Hood, Kivlin, Kowert & Goetzel P.C.
P.O. Box 398
Austin, TX 78767-0398
EXAMINER
ENGLAND, DAVID E
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2443
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/26/2010 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 NOBUYOSHI MORIMOTO
____________

Appeal 2009-006363
Application 09/588,879
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, and
CAROLYN D. THOMAS, Administrative Patent Judges.

JEFFERY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1-20, 23-30, and 32-37. Claims 21, 22, and 31 have been
canceled. See App. Br. 4. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We
affirm-in-part.

1 The 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 2009-006363
Application 09/588,879

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant invented a method, system, and medium for identifying
individual users accessing a web site. See generally Spec. 4. Claim 1 is
illustrative:
1. A method for identifying distinct users accessing a web site, the
method comprising:

storing one or more records in a database, wherein each record
comprises an Internet address and a time value, and wherein each
record corresponds to a different computer accessing said web site;

receiving a first request from a first computer to access the web
site;

sending a request for information to said first computer,
wherein said information comprises a first Internet address and a
first time value corresponding to said first computer;

receiving said information;

determining whether a matching record for said first Internet
address and said first time value exists in said database; and

identifying said first computer as a distinct user if said
matching record does not exist in said database.

The Examiner relies on the following as evidence of unpatentability:
Gerace US 5,991,735 Nov. 23, 1999
Bodnar US 6,295,541 B1 Sept. 25, 2001
(filed Aug. 18, 1998)

Appeal 2009-006363
Application 09/588,879

3
Farrow US 6,374,295 B2 Apr. 16, 2002
(filed Oct. 29, 1998)
Shapira US 6,925,442 B1 Aug. 2, 2005
(filed Jan. 29, 1999)

THE REJECTIONS
1. The Examiner rejected claims 16, 18-20, 24, 26, 28-30, 33, 34, 36,
and 37 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Shapira and Official
Notice. Ans. 3-5.2
2. The Examiner rejected claims 1-3, 5, 7-9, 11, 12, 14, and 15 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Shapira, Official Notice, and
Gerace. Ans. 5-8.
3. The Examiner rejected claims 4, 10, and 13 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Shapira, Official Notice, Gerace, and Bodnar.
Ans. 8-9.
4. The Examiner rejected claims 17, 23, 27, 32, and 35 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Shapira, Official Notice, and Bodnar.
Ans. 9-10.
5. The Examiner rejected claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Shapira, Official Notice, Gerace, and Farrow. Ans. 10.
6. The Examiner rejected claim 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Shapira, Official Notice, and Farrow. Ans. 10.

2 Throughout this opinion, we refer to (1) the Appeal Brief filed April 28,
2008; (2) the Examiner’s Answer mailed July 11, 2008; and (3) the Reply
Brief filed September 11, 2008.
Appeal 2009-006363
Application 09/588,879

4
CLAIM GROUPING
Appellant argues the following claim groupings separately: (1) claims
20, 24, 26, 28, and 29; (2) claims 30, 33, 34, 36, and 37; (3) claims 23 and
27; (4) claims 32 and 35; and (5) claim 25. See App. Br. 19-23, 35, 36.
Accordingly, we select claims 20, 30, 23, and 32 as representative of groups
(1)-(4), respectively. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii). The remaining
claims are discussed separately.

THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OVER SHAPIRA AND OFFICIAL NOTICE
Claims 16, 18, and 19
Regarding independent claim 16, the Examiner finds that Shapira
teaches all recited limitations, except for associating the recited time with a
launching a web browser on the client computer. Ans. 3-4. To teach this
missing limitation, the Examiner relies on a purportedly well-known concept
that browser applications include a home page request when the browser is
first launched, and takes Official Notice of this concept. Ans. 4-5. Among
other arguments, Appellant asserts that Shapira does not teach using a time
value included in the request to identify a fist identifier as a distinct user.
App. Br. 17. The issue before us, then, is as follows:

ISSUE
Under § 103, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 16 by finding
that Shapira would have taught or suggested a web site server operable to
identify a first identifier as a distinct computer user if a search for the first
Appeal 2009-006363
Application 09/588,879

5
identifier did not result in a match, the match including matching the first
Internet address to an Internet address in a stored identifier and matching the
first time value to a time value in a stored identifier?

FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Appellant has not specifically defined “a distinct user” or
“request.” See generally Specification.
2. Shapira teaches a communication system 9 between a remote
visitor 12, a first web site/server 10 (e.g., www.example.com), and a second
web site/server 8 (e.g., www.portal.com). The first web site/server 10 has a
log file 15 or database 16 for storing traffic data hits. Shapira, col. 3, ll. 30-
32, col. 5, ll. 4-19; Fig. 1.
3. Each request by a remote visitor 12 to a server and reply
comprises a “hit” of raw traffic data 11. While the “hit” is stored in the
format shown in Figure 2, the raw traffic data hit 11 is not in the Figure 2
format. The stored information is determined from the data exchanged
between the server 10 and the source of the traffic data hit 11. Shapira, col.
3, ll. 26-30; col. 4, ll. 18-26; Figs. 1-2.
4. The format of the stored “hit” includes various fields: (1) a visitor
address field 30, which is the Internet Protocol (IP) address or domain name
of the visitor accessing a site, and (2) a Date/Time field 33, which is the
date/time of access offset from Greenwich Mean Time (GMT). Shapira,
col. 4, ll. 27-49; col. 5, l. 45; Fig. 2.
5. Shapira teaches a visitor 12 requests a web page from a second
web server 8 (i.e., a “GET” command) and generates a reply back to visitor
(i.e., “OK” message and the requested web page). On the web page, the
Appeal 2009-006363
Application 09/588,879

6
remote visitor may click on an advertisement available on a second web
server 10. This generates a second request for a web page via a second
traffic data hit 11a shown in Figure 3 (i.e., visitor.sample.org—
[12/JAN/1996:20:37:55+0000 or Jan. 12, 1996, at 8:37:55 PM, GMT]
“GET/portal?ad.htm HTTP/1.0” 200 215
“http://www.portal.com/sompage.htm”). The first web serer 10 also stores
an entry containing the visitor’s Internet address (i.e., visitor.sample.org),
the time and data of the request (i.e., 12/Jan/1996:20:37:55+0000 or), the
request (i.e., “GET/portal?ad.ht HTTP/1.0), and the Universal Resource
Locator (URL) (i.e., http://www.portal.com/somepage.htm). Shapira, col. 5,
ll. 4-50; Figs 2-3.
6. Shapira teaches analyzing a hit to determine the visitor’s address
(e.g., at 500) by scanning the visitor session database (e.g., at step 505). At
510, Shapira checks to see if the visitor address exists in the database. If the
address is new to the database (“NO” between 510 and 515), a new entry to
the visitor session database is created at step 515. If the address exists
(“YES” between 510 and 520), the time of the current hit is determined at
step 520. At step 525, the program checks how long it has been since the
visitor’s last activity (i.e., last hit from the visitor was received). If the
length is longer than the predetermined session time (“YES” between 525
and 515), a new visitor record is created at step 515. Otherwise (“NO”
between 525 and 530), the last activity time is updated in the session
database at step 530. Each visitor session corresponds to a single visitor.
Shapira, col. 7, l. 37 – col. 8, l. 17; Fig. 8.

Appeal 2009-006363
Application 09/588,879

7
ANALYSIS
Based on the record before us, we find error in the Examiner’s
obviousness rejection of claim 16 which calls for, in pertinent part, a web
site server operable to “identify said first identifier as a distinct computer
user if said searching for said first identifier did not result in a match,
wherein a match comprises a match between the first Internet address, and
the Internet address in one of the said one or more stored identifiers and a
match between the first value and the time value in the one of said one or
more stored identifiers.” Since Appellant has not specifically defined “a
distinct user” (FF 1), we find that the broadest, but reasonable construction
of this phrase in light of the disclosure includes a user that creates a new
visitor session. See In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364
(Fed. Cir. 2004) (internal citations omitted). Moreover, Appellant has not
defined “a request” (FF 1), and we find that a request can include multiple
commands that are the raw traffic data.
Shapira teaches a server that stores data “hit” information including
both an Internet address (e.g., visitor address) and a time value (e.g., time) in
a server’s database. See FF 2-4. Additionally, Shapira teaches that a “hit”
can be a request (FF 3), and provides an example of one traffic data hit 11a
that includes both an Internet address (e.g., visitor.sample.org) and a time
value associated with access a site (20:37:55+0000 in
12/JAN/1996:20:37:55+0000) (FF 5). Thus, Shapira teaches a request to
access a web site can include an Internet address and a time value as recited
in claim 16.

Appeal 2009-006363
Application 09/588,879

8
Nonetheless, Shapira falls short of disclosing a server operable to
identify a distinct user if the searching does not result in a match as required
by claim 16. Shapira teaches comparing the visitor’s address with a
database to search for a match (e.g., at step 510). FF 6. However, if the
comparison does not result in a match (e.g., “NO” between 510 and 515), the
first identifier is identified as a distinct user (e.g., new visitor session
created). Shapira does not also comparing the time value in this scenario.
See id. While Shapira does compare the time with a predetermined time
when the visitor address does result in a match (i.e., at step 525), this is a
different scenario where the first identifier did result in a match. Shapira
therefore fails to teach a web site server operable to “identify said first
identifier as a distinct computer user if said searching for said first identifier
did not result in a match, wherein a match comprises a match between the
first Internet address, and the Internet address in one of the said one or more
stored identifiers and a match between the first value and the time value in
the one of said one or more stored identifiers” (emphasis added) as required
by claim 16.
For the foregoing reasons, we are persuaded that the Examiner erred
in rejecting (1) independent claim 16; (2) independent claim 19, which
recites commensurate limitations; and (3) claims dependent thereon for
similar reasons. Since this issue is dispositive of our reversal of the
Examiner’s rejection, we need not address Appellant’s other arguments
(App. Br. 15-19).

Appeal 2009-006363
Application 09/588,879

9
Claims 20, 24, 26, 28, and 29
Representative independent claim 20 differs in scope from
independent claim 16 and recites comparing a time value and Internet
address with a database and the time value information in the database is
associated with a time at which a user’s computer was synchronized with a
global time standard. The Examiner finds that Shapira teaches all these
limitations. See Ans. 3-5. Appellant argues that Shapira does not teach: (1)
a request having a time value; (2) a time value is associated with a time the
computer was synchronized with a global standard but rather the time a hit
was received by a server; and (3) determining distinct user instead of the
same visitor. App. Br. 19-20.
The issues before us, then, are as follows:

ISSUES
Under § 103, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 20 by finding
that Shapira would have taught or suggested:
(1) a request comprising a time value corresponding to the first
computer user accessing a web site, the time value reflects a time at which
the first computer was synchronized with a global time standard;
(2) the time value information in a database is associated with a time
at which a computer used by a computer user to access the web site was
synchronized with a globe time standard; and
(3) determining whether a matching record for the first Internet
address and the first time value exists in the database and identifying the first
computer as a distinct user if the matching record does not exist in the
database?
Appeal 2009-006363
Application 09/588,879

10
ANALYSIS
As stated above, Appellant has not defined a “request” (FF 1) and thus
a request can include a multiple commands, giving this term its broadest
reasonable construction. Additionally, as discussed, Shapira teaches that hit
can be a request (FF 3), and provides an example of one hit (e.g., 11a) that
includes a time value associated with accessing a site (20:37:55+0000 in
12/JAN/1996:20:37:55+0000) (FF 5). Thus, contrary Appellant’s assertions
(App. Br. 19), Shapira teaches a request that includes a time value.
Moreover, each hit is stored in a database with a time value with a
global time standard (e.g., GMT) offset. See FF 4. While this time value is
the time a web site was accessed, the computer must have been synchronized
to GMT (i.e., a global time standard) to obtain an offset in this time value.
Furthermore, claim 20 only requires that this time value reflects a time or is
associated with a time a computer was synchronized with a global standard.
By including a GMT offset, Shapira’s time value is associated with a
computer’s synchronization to a global time standard. We therefore disagree
with Appellant (App. Br. 19) that Shapira does not teach a time value
information in a request or a database that reflects or is associated with a
time which a computer was synchronized with a global time standard.
Lastly, claim 20 does not recite identifying a match using the time
value, but only requires comparing a time value and Internet address with a
database. As stated above, Shapira teaches comparing the visitor’s address
with a database (i.e., at step 510). FF 6. Additionally, Shapira teaches
comparing a time value (e.g., 20:37:55+0000) at step 520. See id. If the
length of activity since the last hit has exceeds a predetermined session time
(e.g., YES between 525 and 515), a new visitor session is created. As
Appeal 2009-006363
Application 09/588,879

11
explained above, a “distinct user” has not been defined and can include the
same user in a new visitor session. Thus, by creating a new visitor session,
Shapira determines whether the first computer is a distinct user as recited in
claim 20. Moreover, contrary to Appellant’s assertions (App. Br. 19-20),
Shapira teaches each visitor session relates to a single visitor (see FF 6), but
not that all the visitor sessions in the database are from the same visitor or
user.
For the foregoing reasons, Appellant has not shown error in the
obviousness rejection of: (1) independent claim 20; (2) independent claims
26 and 29 having commensurate limitations; and (3) dependent claims 24
and 28 for similar reasons.

Claims 30, 33, 34, 36, and 37
Representative independent claim 30 differs in scope from
independent claims 16 and 20. Claim 30 recites (1) associating the time
value is with a launch of a web browser on a computer operated by the
computer user, and (2) determining whether the computer user is counted as
a web hit by comparing a time value and an Internet address. The Examiner
finds that Shapira teaches all these limitations, except for the time value
being associated with a launch of a web browser. See Ans. 3-5. The
Examiner takes Official Notice that requesting a home web page when a
launching a web browser is well-known to an ordinary artisan and, as such,
the time value for a hit to the home web page is a time value associated with
a browser launch on a user’s computer. See Ans. 4, 5, 12. Appellant argues
that: (1) Shapira’s request does not include a time value associated with a
browser launch but rather a time value determined by the server after hit; (2)
Appeal 2009-006363
Application 09/588,879

12
the Examiner provides no evidence that when a browser (e.g., Explorer or
Netscape) accesses a home page after being launched that the time
associated with the launch of the browser is part of the request; and (3)
Shapira does not teach using the time of the hit to identify a distinct user.
App. Br. 20-23.
The issues before us, then, are as follows:

ISSUES
Under § 103, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 30 by finding
that Shapira and the taking of Official Notice collectively would have taught
or suggested:
(1) the request’s time value is associated with the launch of a web
browser on computer, and
(2) determining whether the computer is counted as a web hit by
comparing the time value with a database time value?

ADDITIONAL FINDINGS OF FACT
7. Many web browsers include a feature within its menus to select a
home web page that opens when the browser is launched by its user.
8. Appellant does not define a “web hit.” See generally
Specification.

ANALYSIS
Based on the record before us, we find no error in the Examiner’s
obviousness rejection of claim 30. As explained above, Shapira’s “hit” or
request includes a time value related to the time of accessing a website. See
Appeal 2009-006363
Application 09/588,879

13
FF 3, 5. Thus, while the server exchanges this information, Shapira states
the time stored is the time the web site is accessed. See FF 4. Furthermore,
we agree with the Examiner and take judicial notice that web browsers
typically include an optional feature enabling users to select a desired home
page that opens when the browser is launched by its user.3 FF 7. Armed
with this well-known teaching, an ordinarily skilled artisan would have
recognized, when combined with Shapira’s discussion, that a request for
access to a web site will also result when launching a web browser on a
computer. See FF 3, 7. Such a request would also include a time value
corresponding to the time access, and would also be at least associated with
the web browser’s launch on a computer (e.g., access time is associated with
the launch) as recited in claim 30. Moreover, while the first launch of
browser may not include stored time values (App. Br. 18), previous time
values can be stored in Shapira’s database from previous browser launches
even when a browser is launched again.
Appellant challenges the Examiner’s taking of Official Notice.
Specifically, Appellant argues that the Examiner has not provided evidence
to show that a browser accesses a home page after being launched with the
request having a time valued associated with the launch. App. Br. 22.
However, the Examiner has only taken notice that requesting a home web

3 See In re Ahlert, 424 F.2d 1088, 1091 (CCPA 1970) (explaining that “the
Patent Office appellate tribunals, where it is found necessary, may take
notice of facts beyond the record which, while not generally notorious, are
capable of such instant and unquestionable demonstration to defy dispute.”)

Appeal 2009-006363
Application 09/588,879

14
page when launching a web browser is well-known. Ans. 4-5. Shapira
teaches that a request for a web site includes a time value that a web page is
accessed. Ans. 3-5; see FF 3, 5. The Examiner has therefore provided
evidence that the request has a time value associated with the time the web
site is accessed. Accounting for inferences and creative steps an ordinary
artisan would have employed, the request’s time value is also associated
with the browser’s launch as recited in claim 30 when Shapira launches a
browser that includes a request for a home page.
Additionally, Appellant’s argument about a distinct user (App. Br. 22)
is not commensurate in scope with claim 30. Claim 30 recites determining
whether the computer user is counted as a web hit—not whether the user is
distinct. Furthermore, a “web hit” is not defined by the Specification. FF 8.
Shapira thus teaches comparing the time value with stored time value
information from previous web site accesses to determine whether the
computer user is counted as a web hit (e.g., counted as a new session at 515).
See FF 6. Shapira therefore teaches determining whether a computer user is
counted as a web hit by comparing the time value with a database of
previous stored values as recited in claim 30.
For the foregoing reasons, Appellant has not shown error in the
obviousness rejection of: (1) independent claim 30; (2) independent claims
34 and 37 having commensurate limitations; and (3) dependent claims 33
and 36 for similar reasons.

Appeal 2009-006363
Application 09/588,879

15
THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OVER SHAPIRA, OFFICIAL NOTICE,
AND GERACE

Claims 1-3, 5, 7-9, 11, and 15
Independent claims 1, 9, and 15 recite limitations commensurate with
independent claim 16. We are therefore persuaded that the Examiner erred
in rejecting these claims for the reasons indicated previously regarding claim
16. Nor has the Examiner shown that Gerace cures this deficiency. We are
therefore persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting: (1) independent
claims 1, 9, and 15 and (2) dependent claims 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, and 11 for similar
reasons.

Claims 12 and 14
Independent claim 12 recites a client computer system operable to
execute a program to synchronize time. The Examiner refers to the
discussion of claim 1, and fails to specifically address this limitation. See
Ans. 5-8, 22. Among other arguments, Appellant contends that the
Examiner has not addressed this limitation. App. Br. 28-29.
The issue before us, then, is as follows:

ISSUE
Under § 103, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 12 by finding
that Shapira, Official Notice, and Gerace collectively would have taught or
suggested a client computer system operable to execute a program to
synchronize time?

Appeal 2009-006363
Application 09/588,879

16
ANALYSIS
Based on the record before us, we find error in the Examiner’s
obviousness rejection of claim 12. We agree with Appellant that the
Examiner has not addressed the limitation of the client computer system
operable to execute a program to synchronize time as recited in claim 12.
Moreover, while Shapira’s “hit” or request includes a time value related to
synchronizing with a global time standard as previously stated (see FF 3-5),
Shapira also teaches that the server stores information related to requests and
replies in its database. See FF 3. This information is determined from a data
exchanged between a server and traffic hit sources. See id. Therefore,
Shapira, at best, suggests that a server—not a client computer system—
would execute a program to synchronize time. Gerace was not relied upon
to teach this limitation (see Ans. 6-7), and does not cure this deficiency.
The Examiner has therefore failed to establish obviousness for claim
12. We are therefore persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting
independent claim 12, and dependent claim 14 for similar reasons. Since
this issue is dispositive of our reversal of the Examiner’s rejection, we need
not address Appellant’s other arguments (Br. 28-29).

THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OVER SHAPIRA, OFFICIAL NOTICE,
GERACE, AND BODNAR

Dependent claims 4, 10, and 13 depend from independent claims 1, 9,
and 12 respectively and will not be sustained for similar reasons. Nor has
the Examiner shown that Gerace or Bodnar cures the above-noted
deficiencies. Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 4,
10, and 13.
Appeal 2009-006363
Application 09/588,879

17

THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OVER SHAPIRA, OFFICIAL NOTICE,
AND BODNAR

Claim 17
Dependent claim 17 depends from independent claim 16 and will not
be sustained for similar reasons. Nor has the Examiner shown that Bodnar
cures the above-noted deficiencies. Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 17.

Claims 23, 27, 32, and 35
Claim 23 recites the time value is generated by a time keeping device
and the time value is synchronized with the global time keeping standard
clock by the time keeping device. The Examiner states that Shapira teaches
time values are generated by a time keeping device, but the time keeping
device is not configured to synchronize the time value with a global time
keeping clock. Ans. 9. The Examiner, however, cites Bodnar to teach a
time keeping device configured for such synchronization. Id. Appellant
refers to the argument made for claims 20 and 17, which contends Bodnar
synchronizes datasets by comparing events without converting to common
time and thus does not teach synchronizing a time value to a time-keeping
device with a global time-keeping clock. App. Br. 32. Appellant also
asserts that Shapira is impervious to clock drift, and thus would have no
need to combine with Bodnar. App. Br. 32-33.

Appeal 2009-006363
Application 09/588,879

18
The issue before us, then, is as follows:

ISSUE
Under § 103, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 23 by finding
that Shapira, Official Notice, and Bodnar collectively would have taught or
suggested that the time value is (1) generated by a time-keeping device, and
(2) synchronized with the global time-keeping standard clock by the time-
keeping device?

ADDITIONAL FINDINGS OF FACT
9. Bodnar teaches that devices are synchronized so that time
comparisons to past events can be made. Bodnar discloses that devices are
synchronized to the same value or a constant offset (e.g., for devices in
different time zones), and correspond to a common time, such as GMT, so
that comparisons can be made. Bodnar, col. 9, ll. 19-47.
10. Bodnar teaches clocks can be located on servers and computers.
Bodnar also provides an example of synchronizing datasets. Bodnar, col. 9,
ll. 21-23, 47-49.

ANALYSIS
Based on the record before us, we find no error in the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 23. Shapira teaches data is collected from a request,
including the access time to a web site. See FF 3-5. This time value, as
discussed above, is a standard time (e.g., 20:37:55) and includes a GMT
offset (e.g., +0000). See FF 4-5. Thus, Shapira teaches that the time value
is generated by some time-keeping mechanism, and the time value is
Appeal 2009-006363
Application 09/588,879

19
synchronized with a global time-keeping standard. However, as the
Examiner indicates, Shapira fails to describe explicitly that a time-keeping
device synchronizes the time value with the global time-keeping standard
clock.
Bodnar teaches using a time keeping device (e.g., on a server or
computer (FF 10)) to synchronize time values of different devices so that
comparisons between the time values can then be made. See FF 9. Thus,
Bodnar relates more generally to synchronizing various devices, and not just
related to the dataset example. See id. Moreover, Bodnar teaches that the
synchronization can be achieved with an offset (see id), such as Shapira’s
GMT offset (FF 4-5). Similarly, Shapira compares a first computer’s time
value to stored time values. See FF 6. Combining Bodnar’s teaching with
Shapira thus merely yields a predictable result of using a time-keeping
device to synchronize the time value in Shapira to a global time keeping
standard so that Shapira’s comparison can be made. We therefore find that
combining Bodnar with Shapira does no more than improve Shapira in
similar manner by including an actual time-keeping device to synchronize
time values with a global time keeping standard clock (e.g., GMT). See KSR
Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007).
Claims 27, 32, and 35 are commensurate in scope, but depend from
different independent claims. Claim 27 depends from claim 26; claim 32
depends from claim 30; claim 35 depends from claim 34. We therefore
sustain claims 27, 32, and 35 for similar reasons regarding claims 23, 26, 30,
and 34.

Appeal 2009-006363
Application 09/588,879

20
THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OVER SHAPIRA, OFFICIAL NOTICE,
GERACE, AND FARROW

Dependent claim 6 depends from independent claim 1 and will not be
sustained for similar reasons. Nor has the Examiner shown that Farrow
cures the above-noted deficiencies. Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 6.

THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OVER SHAPIRA, OFFICIAL NOTICE,
AND FARROW

Claim 25 depends from claim 20 and additionally recites that database
is an object oriented database or a relational database. The Examiner cites
Farrow as teaching this missing limitation. Ans. 10. Appellant asserts that
Farrow’s teaching of logging changes in a separate area does not relate to
Shapira, and there is no reason to combine Farrow with Shapira. App. Br.
35-36. The issue before us, then, is as follows:

ISSUE
Under § 103, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 25 by finding
that Shapira, Official Notice, and Farrow collectively would have taught or
suggested the database is a relational database?

Appeal 2009-006363
Application 09/588,879

21
ADDITIONAL FINDINGS OF FACT
11. Farrow teaches a server manager 201 includes database 204 that
contains IP addresses and domain names. This database 204 is relational
and store changes in the configuration of a network. Farrow, col. 3, l. 45-
col. 4, l. 17; Fig. 2.

ANALYSIS
Based on the record before us, we find no error in the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 25. Shapira’s server database stores information related to
a reply in specific format, including a visitor address and a referring URL.
See FF 4. Thus, Shapira relates this information to each other so as to be
associated with a particular request or reply. On this basis alone and using
common sense, an ordinarily skilled artisan would have recognized that a
relational database would organize and store each entry in Shapira’s
database (FF 2) in the Figure 2 format (FF 4). See Leapfrog Enter., Inc. v.
Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1161 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Moreover,
Farrow teaches servers having relational databases that store IP addresses
and domain names are known in the art. See FF 11. Shapira also teaches
storing IP addresses (e.g., visitor addresses) and domains (referring URLs)
for hits. See FF 3-5. We therefore find that Farrow suggests that such
information would benefit from a relational database.
Lastly, Shapira teaches a scenario where the time is updated in the
database (e.g., at step 530). See FF 6. Farrow teaches that relational
databases are useful in storing similar changes. See FF 11. Thus, combining
Farrow with Shapira would have improved Shapira by allowing for changes
(e.g., time of a hit) to be stored in a relational database.
Appeal 2009-006363
Application 09/588,879

22
For the foregoing reasons, we will therefore sustain the rejection of
claim 25.

CONCLUSION
Under § 103, the Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 20, 23-30,
and 32-37, but erred in rejecting claims 1-19.

ORDER
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-19, 23-30, and 32-37 is
affirmed-in-part.
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-IN-PART

pgg

Robert C. Kowert
Meyertons, Hood, Kivlin, Kowert & Goetzel P.C.
P.O. Box 398
Austin, TX 78767-0398