12387923 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 25, 2015)

Ex Parte Mustonen

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 25, 2015

12387923 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 25, 2015)

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. 12/387,923 05/08/2009 Kimmo Olavi Mustonen 060B.0002.U1(US) 7515 29683 7590 03/25/2015 HARRINGTON & SMITH 4 RESEARCH DRIVE, Suite 202 SHELTON, CT 06484-6212 EXAMINER FLEURANTIN, JEAN B ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2162 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/25/2015 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 PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte KIMMO OLAVI MUSTONEN ____________________ Appeal 2013-000963 Application 12/387,923 Technology Center 2100 ____________________ Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD, JR., JEFFREY S. SMITH, and JON M. JURGOVAN, Administrative Patent Judges. JURGOVAN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims 1–7 and 9–19. Claim 8 stands as objectionable due to dependency from a rejected based claim. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. CLAIMS SUMMARY The claims are directed to a method and apparatus for rating universal resource identifiers (URIs). Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A method of providing rating information in respect of Uniform Resource Identifiers to a client terminal, the method comprising: configuring at least one processor to perform the functions of: Appeal 2013-000963 Application 12/387,923 2 1) identifying a Uniform Resource Identifier at the client terminal; 2) sending a first query to a rating server over an IP network, the query including as a query string a first component of the identified Uniform Resource Identifier or a derivative of that first component; 3) receiving the first query at the rating server and determining whether or not a rating exists for the query string; 4) sending a response including a determined rating, or an indication that no rating exists, to the client terminal; 5) receiving the response at the client terminal and, if the response so indicates, then sending a further query to the rating server, the further query including as a query string said first component and a second component of the identified Uniform Resource Identifier, or a derivative of the first and second components; and 6) repeating steps 3) to 5) through one or more iterations, adding for each iteration a further component to the query string. Limitations at issue in this appeal are shown in italics in claim 1. Independent claims 13 and 17–19 recite similar limitations as those shown in emphasis in claim 1. The remaining claims are dependent from one of the independent claims. REJECTIONS Claims 1–7 and 9–19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) based on Dutta (US 2009/0030969 A1, published Jan. 29, 2009). Ans. 3. Claims 1–7 and 9–19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) based on Liu (US 2008/0163380 A1, published July 3, 2008). Ans. 7. Claim 8 was found objectionable by dependence from a rejected base claim but was noted as allowable if rewritten in independent form. Ans. 9. Appeal 2013-000963 Application 12/387,923 3 ANALYSIS A. Rejection of Claims 1–7 and 9–19 as Anticipated by Dutta Appellant argues Dutta fails to disclose splitting a Universal Resource Identifier (URI) into two or more components and adding a further component to a query string for each iteration of sending a query to a rating server, as claimed. App. Br. 8; Reply Br. 3. Claim 1 does not recite splitting a URI into two or more components. In addition, the claimed elements upon which Appellant relies for patentability are optional because they are performed only if the response from the rating server so indicates (see, e.g., claim 1 step 5). If the response does not so indicate, the steps subsequent to the conditional “if” clause are not performed. We find the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim by omitting the optional elements when determining whether the claim is disclosed in the prior art. See In re Johnston, 435 F.3d 1381, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“[o]ptional elements do not narrow the claim because they can always be omitted.”). Consequently, the limitations argued as distinguishing the claim over Dutta are either not recited in the claim or are optional, and Appellant’s contentions are not commensurate with the scope of the claim. Accordingly, Appellant has not provided persuasive evidence or argument to rebut the Examiner’s findings. Thus, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as anticipated by Dutta. Appellant does not present arguments for separate patentability of claims 2–7 and 9–19 which fall with claim 1. Appeal 2013-000963 Application 12/387,923 4 B. Rejection of Claims 1–7 and 9–19 as anticipated by Liu Similar to the rejection based on Dutta, Appellant argues Liu discloses no splitting of a URL into two or more components, sending a query including the first component, and then, if the response so indicates, resending a subsequent query including the first component and a second component, as claimed. App. Br. 11–12; Reply Br. 4–6. Claim 1 does not recite any limitation of splitting a URI into two or more components. Moreover, claim 1 recites the sending of a query with an additional URI component if the response from the rating server so indicates. The steps subsequent to the conditional “if” are optional and do not narrow the claim. See In re Johnston, supra. Accordingly, because the limitations argued by Appellant are either not present in the claim or are optional, we conclude that Appellant’s contentions are not commensurate with the scope of the claim. We thus sustain the Examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as anticipated by Liu. Appellant does not present arguments for separate patentability of claims 2–7 and 9–19 which fall with claim 1. DECISION For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1–7 and 9– 19 are 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) (2009). AFFIRMED lv