Ex Parte Svendsen et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Feb 16, 2011

10813839 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 16, 2011)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte HUGH B. SVENDSEN and AL ISSA
____________

Appeal 2009-006993
Application 10/813,839
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before JEAN R. HOMERE, ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, and
THU A. DANG, Administrative Patent Judges.

COURTENAY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1-9, 15-25, and 31-34. The Examiner has objected to
claims 10-14 and 26-30 as being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
(Final Office Action 9). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We Affirm.

Appeal 2009-006993
Application 10/813,839

2
Invention
Appellants’ invention relates generally to the field of peer-to-peer
online photosharing. More particularly, the invention on appeal is directed
to a method and system for providing Web browsing through a
firewall within the peer-to-peer network. (Spec. 1).

Representative Claim
1. A method for providing a Web browser running on a
computer with HTTP access to a peer server located behind a
firewall in a peer-to-peer network, comprising;

(a) providing the peer-to-peer network with a proxy
server;

(b) registering an outbound socket connection with the
proxy server by the peer server;

(c) in response to the proxy server receiving an HTTP
request to access the peer server from the Web browser,
translating the HTTP request into a request packet and sending
the request packet to the peer server; and

(d) in response to the peer server receiving the request
packet, translating the request packet back into the HTTP
request and responding to the request, thereby enabling generic
web traffic to flow.

Examiner’s Rejections
1. Claims 1-4 and 17-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §102(b) as
being anticipated by Sit (US 6,349,336 B1).

Appeal 2009-006993
Application 10/813,839

3
2. Claims 5-7, 15, 16, 21-23, and 31-34 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over Sit.
3. Claims 8, 9, 24, and 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a)
as being unpatentable over Sit and Gupta (US 6,917,965 B2).

First-stated rejection under § 102 over Sit
Claims 1-4 and 17-20
ISSUE
Based upon our review of the administrative record, we have
determined that the following issue is dispositive in this appeal regarding the
first-stated rejection anticipation rejection over Sit:

Under §102, did the Examiner err in finding that Sit
discloses “translating the HTTP request into a request
packet and sending the request packet to a peer server”,
within the meaning of independent claims 1 and 17?

FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Sit discloses wrapping requests from one or more
browsers with code which is recognized by the
firewall as a response rather than as a request,
which would be blocked by the firewall. (Col. 7, ll.
50-53).

ANALYSIS
Based on Appellants’ arguments in the Appeal Brief, we will decide
the appeal for the first-stated rejection on the basis of representative claim 1.
See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
Appeal 2009-006993
Application 10/813,839

4
Appellants urge the patentability of representative claim 1, as
follows:
Appellants submit that Sit does not disclose or suggest
translating an HTTP request into a request packet and
sending the request packet to a peer server, which is
located behind a firewall. Instead, Sit discloses fooling a
firewall in order to pass data to a browser, which is
behind the firewall. More specifically, Sit discloses
wrapping a request sent from the browser 314E to the
web server 3081, which is behind the firewall 305, such
that, to the firewall 305, the request appears as a
response from the browser 314E to a request sent by the
web server 308I. (See Sit, col. 7,11. 50-57). As is well
known, wrapping includes a header, which precedes
encapsulated data and a trailer, which follows the
encapsulated data such that the encapsulated data is not
viewable to a firewall. Wrapping does not involve
translating an HTTP request into a request packet. In fact,
Sit teaches away from the present invention in that Sit
discloses fooling a firewall into allowing the transmission
of a packet by altering header information such that the
packet appears as something it is not, i.e., instead of
being a request, the packet appears as a response.
(App. Br. 9-10).

At the outset, we find Appellants’ “teaching away” argument is
misplaced, because the Examiner has rejected claims 1-4 and 17-20 under 35
U.S.C. § 102. Our reviewing court has determined that “[t]eaching away is
irrelevant to anticipation.” Seachange International, Inc., v. C-Cor, Inc., 413
F.3d 1361, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
Moreover, based upon our review of the record, we are not persuaded
by Appellants’ arguments that the Examiner’s claim interpretation is
unreasonable or inconsistent with Appellants’ Specification. Specifically,
Appeal 2009-006993
Application 10/813,839

5
the Examiner broadly but reasonably construes the claimed translation of a
HTTP request as “any modification to a HTTP request into a packet, where
the packet is changed into another form, and where the packet includes a
request from a sender to a destination.” (Final Office Action 3, ll. 1-3). 1
Given this construction, we find no error in the Examiner’s finding
that Sit discloses translating the HTTP request into a request packet and
sending the request packet to the peer server, within the meaning of
independent claims 1 and 17. Sit discloses wrapping requests from one or
more browsers with code which is recognized by the firewall as a response
rather than as a request, which would be blocked by the firewall. (FF 1).
Thus, Sit describes modifying a HTTP request by wrapping it with code.
Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that Sit’s request packet is changed
(translated) into another (wrapped) response form, and the wrapped packet
includes a request from a sender to a destination. (FF1; Ans. 10).
Because “applicants may amend claims to narrow their scope, a broad
construction during prosecution creates no unfairness to the applicant or
patentee.” In re ICON Health and Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed.
Cir. 2007) (citing In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364
(Fed. Cir. 2004)). Given the aforementioned teachings in Sit and the breadth
of Appellants’ representative claim 1, we find the weight of the evidence
supports the Examiner’s position.

1 “[T]he PTO gives claims their ‘broadest reasonable interpretation.’” In re
Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (quoting In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d
1367, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2000)).

Appeal 2009-006993
Application 10/813,839

6
On this record, we find the Examiner did not err in rejecting
representative claim 1. Accordingly, we affirm the § 102 rejection of claim
1, as well as claims 2-4 and 17-20 which fall therewith. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii).

Second-stated rejection under § 103 over Sit
Claims 5-7, 15, 16, 21-23, and 31-34
Regarding claims 5-7, 15, 16, 21-23, and 31-34, Appellants “submit
that Sit does not disclose all the features recited in claims 5-7, 15, 16, 21-23,
and 31-34. As detailed above, Sit does not disclose or suggest all the
features recited in claim[s] 1 or 17, the base claims from which claims 5-7,
15, 16, 21-23, 31, and 32 ultimately depend.” (App. Br. 12, ¶ 3).
However, we find no deficiencies regarding Sit for the reasons
discussed supra regarding claims 1 and 17.
Regarding independent claims 33 and 34, Appellants additionally
submit that “Sit does not disclose that in response to a peer node receiving
an HTTP response from the Web Server, translating an HTTP packet into a
response packet and sending the response packet to a proxy server.” (App.
Br. 13, ¶ 1).
However, a statement which merely points out what a claim recites
will not be considered an argument for separate patentability of the claim.
See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(vii). Moreover, mere attorney arguments and
conclusory statements that are unsupported by factual evidence are entitled
to little probative value. In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir.
1997); see also In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705 (Fed. Cir. 1984); and
Appeal 2009-006993
Application 10/813,839

7
Ex parte Belinne, No. 2009-004693, slip op. at 7-8 (BPAI Aug. 10, 2009)
(informative), available at
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/dcom/bpai/its/fd09004693.pdf.
On this record, we affirm the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of claims
5-7, 15, 16, 21-23, and 31-34 over Sit.

Third-stated rejection under § 103 over Sit and Gupta
Claims 8, 9, 24, and 25
Regarding claims 8, 9, 24, and 25, Appellants aver that “[a]s detailed
above, Sit does not disclose or suggest all the features recited in claim 1 or
17, the base claims from which claims 8, 9, 24, and 25 ultimately depend.
Moreover, Gupta does not overcome the previously noted shortcomings of
Sit.” (App. Br. 13, ¶ 2).
However, we find no deficiencies regarding Sit for the reasons
discussed supra regarding claims 1 and 17. Therefore, we affirm the
Examiner’s § 103 rejection of claims 8, 9, 24, and 25 over the combination
of Sit and Gupta.
DECISION
We affirm the § 102 rejection of claims 1-4 and 17-20.
We affirm the § 103 rejections of claims 5-9, 15, 16, 21-25, and
31-34.

Appeal 2009-006993
Application 10/813,839

8
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
ORDER
AFFIRMED

pgc

FlashPoint Technology and Withrow & Terranova
100 Regency Forest Drive
Suite 160
Cary NC, 27518