Ex Parte Smith

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jul 25, 2011

10658896 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 25, 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.
10/658,896 09/10/2003 Thomas W. Smith 79544 8996
23501 7590 07/25/2011
NAVAL SURFACE WARFARE CENTER
OFFICE OF COUNSEL CODE C7
17632 DAHLGREN ROAD
SUITE 158
DAHLGREN, VA 22448-5110
EXAMINER
CHEA, PHILIP J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2492
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/25/2011 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 THOMAS W. SMITH
_____________

Appeal 2009-013774
Application 10/658,896
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, THOMAS S. HAHN, and
ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judges.

MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2009-013774
Application 10/658,896

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of
claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

INVENTION
Appellant’s Figure 2 is depicted below:

Appellant’s Figure 2 and claimed invention are directed to a baseline
web site 202 which is primarily and ordinarily read-only, and a mirror copy
of the baseline web site 202, residing on the mirror web site 204. Personnel
can use a web application 214 to make changes to the mirror web site in a
Appeal 2009-013774
Application 10/658,896

3
cut-and-paste manner. Once an administrator has approved a particular
modification to the mirror web site 204, the baseline web site 202 can be
updated to include this information, as indicated by the arrow 222. Thus, the
baseline web site 202 is periodically updated from the mirror web site 204.
See Spec. 8-9.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on
appeal.
1. A system comprising:
a baseline web site that is primarily and ordinarily read-only, having a
plurality of web pages being remotely accessible by authorized users
through a network via client communication devices communicatively
coupled to the network, the web pages having displayable information;
a mirror web site that includes initially a mirror copy of the baseline
web site and that is remotely accessible for user-made changes to mirror
information on the mirror copy in a cut-and-paste manner by the authorized
users through the network via the client communication devices
communicatively coupled to the network; and
a web application running on the mirror web site to accept the user-
made changes to the mirror information on the mirror copy of the baseline
web site, one or more administrators being able to authorize the user-made
changes such that the baseline web site is periodically updated from the
mirror web site.

THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence of
unpatentability:
Shuping US 6,313,855 B1 Nov. 6, 2001
Peck US 2002/0188636 A1 Dec. 12, 2002
Gordon US 2004/0064352 A1 Apr. 1, 2004
Edelman US 7,240,077 B1 Jul. 3, 2007
The following rejections are before us for review:
Appeal 2009-013774
Application 10/658,896

4
Claims 1-3, 5-7, 9-12, 17, 19, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Edelman in view of Peck.
Claim 4 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Edelman in view of Gordon.
Claims 8, 13, 14, 16, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Edelman in view of Peck and further in view of
Shuping.
Claim 15 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Edelman in view of Peck, Shuping, and Gordon.

ISSUE
The pivotal issue is whether the Examiner erred in finding that the
combination of Edelman and Peck teaches or suggests a “mirror” web site to
accept cut-and-paste user-made changes to the mirror copy of the baseline
web site and periodic updating by administrators of the baseline web site
with the updated information from the mirror web site, as recited in
representative claim 1.

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
A rationale for combining or modifying reference teachings can be
based on common knowledge or common sense rather than coming from the
references themselves. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418
(2007).
The test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of the
references would have suggested to an ordinarily skilled artisan.
Accordingly, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references
Appeal 2009-013774
Application 10/658,896

5
individually where the rejection is based on a combination of references. In
re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981).

ANALYSIS
I. Analysis with respect to the rejection of claims 1-3, 5-7, 9-12, 17,
19, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Edelman in view of Peck.
Appellant argues that, as recited in representative claim 1, Edelman
and Peck do not teach or suggest a “mirror” web site to accept cut-and-paste
user-made changes to the mirror copy of the baseline web site and periodic
updating by administrators of the baseline web site with the updated
information from the mirror web site (App. Br. 11).
We reviewed the record in light of Appellant’s arguments, but we do
not agree with Appellant. We agree with the Examiner’s findings of fact as
enumerated in the Answer (Ans. 12) which we adopt as our own. The
Examiner found, and we agree, that Edelman discloses a mirror web site in
the form of an editable web site that is a mirror copy of a “live” web site that
can be edited using functions such as editing the layout and inline messages
(see Fig. 5 and col. 5, ll. 17-40). The “live” web site is considered the
baseline web site because users can edit its mirrored copy (see Fig. 5) and
update the “live” web site according to a specific schedule. The web
application is considered the tools (e.g., image manager tool, browser
builder tool, site merchandiser tool) that can run on the mirror web site so
users can edit its contents (col. 5, ll. 28-40). Administrators can authorize
the changes made to the web site by previewing the edited contents that are
scheduled to update the “live” (baseline) web site and approve them (see col.
Appeal 2009-013774
Application 10/658,896

6
3, ll. 51-59; col. 6, ll. 14-18). The “live” (baseline) web site is then updated
periodically according to the schedule.
Appellant’s argument (App. Br. 10-11) that Peck modifies a web-
based document, rather than a mirror copy of a baseline web site, is of no
moment. Peck was solely used to disclose the cut-and-paste feature of the
claimed invention (Ans. 4, 12). See Keller, 642 F.2d at 426. Peck teaches
that a cut-and-paste operation could be performed to add content from a
document to an area of a web-based document (Abstract; ¶ [0045]).
We also do not agree with Appellant’s argument (App. Br. 11) that
Peg employs tags to modify text, rather than a cut-and-paste operation,
because Peck explicitly teaches that a “user 10 pastes text cut from another
document” to edit a Web-based document (WBD) (¶ [0045] (emphasis
added)).
Thus, we agree with the Examiner’s reasoning that it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a cut-and-paste operation as
taught by Peck to update the mirror copy as taught by Edelman to quickly
transfer information to the mirror copy to get it ready for deployment to the
live web site. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 418.
We also note that Edelman’s teaching of using tools to modify a web
page does not negate the employment of a duplicate mirror copy (App. Br.
12) that thereby somehow constitutes a teaching away. Rather, Edelman’s
tools are much like Appellant’s web application 214, which makes changes
but does not negate the employment of a mirror copy 204 (see Appellant’s
Fig. 2).
Appeal 2009-013774
Application 10/658,896

7
Accordingly, we will affirm the Examiner’s rejection of representative
claim 1, and of claims 2, 3, 5-7, 9-12, 17, 19, and 20, which fall with claim
1.
II. Analysis with respect to the rejections of claims 4, 8, 13-16, and
18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
We will also affirm the rejections of claims 4, 8, 13-16, and 18.
Contrary to Appellant’s arguments (App. Br. 12), we agree with the
Examiner’s articulated rationales supporting the legal conclusion of
obviousness (Ans. 12-14). We adopt as our own the enumerated rationales,
which are based on common sense, without having to repeat them herein.
See KSR, 550 U.S. at 418. Accordingly, we will also affirm the Examiner’s
rejections of claims 4, 8, 13-16, and 18.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in finding that the combination of Edelman
and Peck teaches or suggests a “mirror” web site to accept cut-and-paste
user-made changes to the mirror copy of the baseline web site and periodic
updating by administrators of the baseline web site with the updated
information from the mirror web site, as recited in representative claim 1.

ORDER
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-20 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

Appeal 2009-013774
Application 10/658,896

8

babc