Ex Parte Nijjer et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 22, 2017

14010294 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 22, 2017)

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.
14/010,294 08/26/2013 Rajinder Nijjer 0337 1027
43699 7590
Go Daddy Operating Company, LLC
14455 NORTH HAYDEN ROAD
SUITE 219
SCOTTSDALE, AZ 85260
EXAMINER
ROSTAMI, MOHAMMAD S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2154
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/27/2017 ELECTRONIC
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.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
inventions@godaddy.com
pat-dept@quarles.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte RAJINDER NIJJER and JIM CHRISTIAN
Appeal 2017-008572
Application 14/010,294
Technology Center 2100
Before ALLEN R. MACDONALD, ADAM J. PYONIN and
PHILLIP A. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.
MACDONALD, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2017-008572
Application 14/010,294
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection
of claims 1—14. App. Br. 3. Claims 15—20 are canceled. Advisory Action 2
(mailed May 13, 2016). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
Representative Claims
Representative claims 1 and 13 under appeal read as follows
(emphasis added):
1. A method, comprising:
obtaining, by at least one computer server, a set of
keywords using a computer network, each keyword in the set of
keywords being relevant to a business;
presenting to the user, by the at least one computer
server, a first display containing a plurality of the keywords in
the set of keywords and an interface with an option to refine the
set of keywords on the first server;
receiving, by the at least one computer server, a refined
set of keywords from the user; and
creating, by the at least one computer server, a website
for the business', and
inserting, by the at least one computer server, keywords
from the refined set of keywords into one or more web pages of
the website.
13. The method of claim 1, wherein the option to refine
the set of keywords comprises an iterative process of presenting
a subset of the keywords in the first display and replacing a
removed keyword with a keyword from the set of keywords that
is not in the subset
2
Appeal 2017-008572
Application 14/010,294
Rejections
The Examiner rejected claims 1—14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Yu et al. (US 2012/0041938 Al; pub.
Feb. 16, 2012) (“Yu ’938”) and Yu et al. (US 2013/0046584 Al; pub. Feb.
21,2013) (“Yu ’584”).1
Issues on Appeal
Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 1 and 13 as being obvious?
ANAFYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants’
conclusions.
1
Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because:
Applicants’ Specification distinguishes creating a website
from merely modifying the web pages of a website. See e.g.
Paras. [0028]2 and [0032], An example creation process is
described at paras. [0044-0047]. While the Specification
1 Separate patentability is not argued for claims 2—12 and 14. Except for
our ultimate decision, the rejection of these claims is not discussed further
herein.
2 We note Appellants’ Specification states “such creation may include
converting a[n existing] website” and “the term website refers to any web
property communicable via the Internet, such as websites, mobile websites,
web pages within a larger website . . . and other organized data sources.”
Spec. 128.
3
Appeal 2017-008572
Application 14/010,294
contemplates modifying an existing website, the claims are
directed to creating a new website.
App. Br. 5 (emphasis added). Appellants further contend Yu ’584 “does not
describe that the server can create a website” as claimed:
For example, when the described SEO is performed on an
existing website, the server may collect identifying information
of the business once during the previous website creation
process, and again when the website is to be optimized; in
contrast, performing the claimed method of SEO allows the
server to only collect identifying information once, at the
beginning of the website building process.
App. Br. 5—6 (emphasis added).
As to Appellants’ assertion, we disagree. Appellants’ argument that
“the claims are directed to creating a new website” and “the claimed method
of SEO allows the server to only collect identifying information once, at
the beginning of the website building process” are not commensurate with
the scope of the claim language. App. Br. 5—6 (emphasis added). The
“creating” step of claim 1 is not explicitly so limited, nor do Appellants
explain how claim 1 would be inherently so limited, nor do we find
alternative language that would similarly mandate the argued “new” or
“beginning” limitations. Rather, nothing in claim 1 precludes the
performance of the website creating step at some earlier time with the
remaining steps being performed at some later time on an existing website
(the earlier created website). Appellants acknowledge Yu ’584 can perform
modifications on existing websites (“Yu 2 [’584] describes a server that can
perform modifications on existing websites.”). App. Br. 6.
2
4
Appeal 2017-008572
Application 14/010,294
Appellants also contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 13
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because:
[Cjlaim 13 recites that the option to refine the set of keywords
comprises an iterative process of presenting a subset of the
keywords in the first display and replacing a removed keyword
with a keyword from the set of keywords that is not in the subset.
The Examiner holds that Yu 2 [’ 5 84 at paragraph 71 ] teaches this
recitation, and Applicants disagree.
App. Br. 8 (emphasis added).
Applicants have reviewed Yu 2 [’584] in detail, including the
passage [paragraph 71] cited by the Examiner, and have not
identified any description of this feature with respect to Yu 2’s
interface. The cited passage only indicates that “keywords may
also be removed and will then be placed on an inactive list.” Yu
2 para. [0071]. At best, this indicates that keywords can be
removed from the web page being modified, and removed
keywords are placed on another list for tracking unused (i.e.,
inactive) keywords. The passage does not describe replacing the
removed keyword in the user interface with another keyword that
was not previously displayed to the user. Yu 1 does not cure this
deficiency and the combination of references therefore does not
teach or suggest all of the elements of the claim.
App. Br. 8—9 (emphasis added).
As to Appellants’ above assertion, we disagree. First, the issue before
us is not whether Yu’584 teaches the subject matter of claim 13, but rather
whether the combination of Yu ’938 and Yu’584 render obvious the subject
matter of claim 13.
Second, although Appellants acknowledge paragraph 71 of Yu ’584
discloses that keywords may be “removed” (App. Br. 8), Appellants
overlook that Yu ’584 also states “[a] keyword may be added” (Yu ‘584,
171). We conclude it is well within the level of skill in the art to
5
Appeal 2017-008572
Application 14/010,294
sequentially perform Yu’s “removing” and “adding” of keywords so that a
removed keyword is replaced with another keyword.
CONCLUSIONS
(1) The Examiner has not erred in rejecting claims 1—14 as being
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
(2) Claims 1—14 are not patentable.
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1—14 as being unpatentable under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) 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)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
6