Go Daddy Operating Company, LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 22, 2020

14037029 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Sep. 22, 2020)

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.
14/037,029 09/25/2013 Paul Roe 173560-016100/US 1094
67395 7590 09/22/2020
GREENBERG TRAURIG (NJ)
500 CAMPUS DRIVE, SUITE 400
P.O. BOX 677
FLORHAM PARK, NJ 07932
EXAMINER
HU, JENSEN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2169
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/22/2020 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):
cadanoc@gtlaw.com
clairt@gtlaw.com
gtipmail@gtlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
_____________

Ex parte PAUL ROE and ARNOLD BLINN1
_____________

Appeal 2019-003121
Application 14/037,029
Technology Center 2100
______________

Before RICHARD M. LEBOVITZ, JASON V. MORGAN,
and JOHN A. EVANS, Administrative Patent Judges.

EVANS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE

This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner’s Final Rejection of Claims 1–21. Appeal Br. 14–24 (Claims
App’x.). We have jurisdiction over the pending claims under 35 U.S.C. §
6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicants” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). The Appeal Brief identifies Go Daddy Operating
Company, LLC, as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2019-003121
Application 14/037,029

2

Invention
The invention is directed to a method for wireless charge transfer. See
Abstract. Claims 1, 9, 16, and 21 are independent. Illustrative Claim 1 is
reproduced below.
1. A method, comprising:
A) storing in an electronic database a plurality of universal
keywords and a first plurality of related keywords, wherein
each universal keyword in the plurality of universal keywords is
associated with at least one related keyword in the first plurality
of related keywords;
B) analyzing a website, designed by a website builder, having a
text;
C) finding a first universal keyword in the text of the website;
D) determining a second plurality of related keywords in the
first plurality of keywords in the electronic database associated
with the first universal keyword;
E) excluding one or more related keywords, in the second
plurality of related keywords, already incorporated into the
website to determine a first related keyword;
F) displaying on an electronic device the first related keyword
that was not already incorporated into the website to the
website builder, wherein the website builder comprises a
webmaster of the website;
G) accepting from the website builder a response to the first
related keyword; and
H) upon accepting a positive response from the website builder
for the first related keyword, adding the first related keyword to
the code of the website.
Appeal Br. 14 (Claims App.).

Appeal 2019-003121
Application 14/037,029

3

References2
Name3 Reference Date
Petty US 2009/0234727 A1 Sept. 17, 2009
Kim US 2009/0292677 A1 Nov. 26, 2009
Fatourechi US 2014/0201180 A1 July 17, 2014

Rejections4 at Issue5
1. Claims 1–15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Fatourechi
and Kim. Final Act. 6–15.
2. Claims 16–21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Fatourechi,
Kim, and Petty. Final Act. 15–26.

ANALYSIS
We agree with and adopt as our own the Examiner’s findings as set
forth in the Answer and in the Action from which this appeal was taken, and
we concur with the Examiner’s conclusions. We have considered
Appellant’s arguments, but do not find them persuasive of error. We
provide the following explanation for emphasis.

2 Throughout this Decision, we refer to the Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.”) filed
September 20, 2018, the Reply Brief (“Reply Br.”) filed March 12, 2019, the
Final Office Action (“Final Act.”) mailed April 2, 2018, the Examiner’s
Answer mailed January 18, 2019, and the Specification (“Spec.”) filed
September 25, 2013.
3 All citations herein to the references are by reference to the first named
inventor only.
4 The present application is being examined under the first inventor to file
provisions of the AIA. Final Act. 2.
5 The Examiner has withdrawn the rejection of Claims 1–21 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 101. Ans. 3.
Appeal 2019-003121
Application 14/037,029

4

CLAIMS 1–15: OBVIOUSNESS OVER FATOURECHI AND KIM.
Limitation “E”
Claim 1 recites, inter alia, “excluding one or more related keywords,
in the second plurality of related keywords, already incorporated into the
website to determine a first related keyword,” i.e., “Limitation E”.
The Examiner finds Fatourechi essentially teaches the limitations of
Claim 1, except Fatourechi fails to teach “keyword de-duplication.” The
Examiner finds Kim teaches “keyword de-duplication.” Final Act. 8 (citing
Kim ¶¶ 234, 313). The Examiner finds Kim teaches Keyword de-
duplication in the context of search engine optimization for a website. Id.
(citing Kim ¶¶ 161, 208, 234, 313–17, 284, 389–91, and 426).
Appellant contends the keywords disclosed by Kim are keywords
used by the searcher, but not the keywords that have already been
incorporated into the website. Appeal Br. 11. Appellant argues Kim
discloses a keyword data stream, i.e., “the keyword used by the searcher
may be automatically transmitted in real-time to server facilities for
subsequent data processing.” Id. (quoting Kim ¶ 41). Appellant contends
the Examiner confuses keywords from search engine searches (as taught by
Kim) with keywords already incorporated into a website, as claimed.
Appeal Br. 12 (citing Kim ¶¶ 387–91). Appellant argues Kim teaches
removing duplicate keywords in a keyword group, but Kim’s keyword
groups are not “already incorporated into a website,” as claimed. Id.
The Examiner finds:
Kim analyzes a new keyword and determines whether it should
be added to an existing keyword group (see [0195], keyword
exploration facility may add “new keyword” to an “existing
keyword groups,” [0300], “new keywords may be processed
Appeal 2019-003121
Application 14/037,029

5

and analyzed every day, and as part of the processing, server
facility 102 may attempt to organize newly discovered
keywords into their most relevant existing Keyword Groups”).
The analysis includes keyword de-duplication so that any new
keywords that are duplicates to any “existing keyword groups”
will not be added to the updated keyword group (see [0208],
[0313] – [0316], “Keyword Duplication Elimination”). When
Kim updates a keyword group with at least one new keyword,
the editor and web publishing tools will update the existing
published web pages to include the SEO web pages that are
newly optimized. (see [0051] –[0052], [0210]
Ans. 5–6.
Appellant contends “Kim teaches removing keywords that are
duplicated within a keyword group, but does not teach excluding keywords
that are already incorporated into a website as stated in limitations 1 E), 9
F), 16 E) and 21 F).” Reply Br. 3. Appellant argues “if a particular
word was in a keyword group and that same particular word was also
already incorporated into a website, Kim does not teach removing a keyword
from the keyword group that is already incorporated into a website.” Id.
Kim discloses: “‘Search Engine Marketing (SEM) is a practice of
attracting a target audience to a web site . . . [i]t may involve identifying
relevant search terms (also known as keywords), collecting them into related
keyword groupings.” Kim ¶ 8. Kim further discloses: “the keyword
exploration facility 112 may allow users to visualize all the available
keyword data, and then visually organize keywords into keyword groups (a
grouping of semantically related keywords) in a tree-like hierarchy of
unlimited depth.” Kim ¶ 44.
The Examiner finds “[w]hen Kim updates a keyword group with at
least one new keyword, the editor and web publishing tools will update the
existing published web pages to include the SEO web pages that are newly
Appeal 2019-003121
Application 14/037,029

6

optimized.” Ans. 5–6 (citing Kim ¶¶ 51, 52, 210). The Examiner further
finds: “The analysis includes keyword de-duplication so that any new
keywords that are duplicates to any ‘existing keyword groups’ will not be
added to the updated keyword group.” Ans. 5 (citing Kim ¶¶ 208, 313, 316).
We find Kim discloses:
The method may include collecting a data set of traffic-
generating keywords, the traffic-generating keyword data set
representing keywords used to access a web resource during
different periods of time, and collecting a data set of suggested
keywords 3502; associating at least one of the suggested
keywords and the traffic-generating keywords into a working
keyword data set.
Kim ¶ 208.
[P]roviding a set of workflow tools . . . the workflow tools
facilitating at least one of . . . tools for suggesting de-
duplication of keyword groups.
Id. Thus, we find Kim discloses collecting and de-duplicating a set of
traffic-generating keywords. We find Kim’s teaching of de-duplicating
keyword groups that were previously incorporated into a webpage
reasonably suggests that de-duplicating any keyword that appears in the
website as claimed in each of independent Claims 1, 9, 16, and 21, by using
the tool provided by Kim to accomplish the same purpose in reducing the
number of keywords on the page.
In view of the foregoing, we sustain the rejection of independent
Claims 1, 9, and Claims 2–8 and 10–15, dependent therefrom.
CLAIMS 16–21: OBVIOUSNESS OVER FATOURECHI, KIM, AND PETTY.
No separate arguments are presented for the dependent claims and
therefore we sustain the rejection for the reasons previously stated. In re
Appeal 2019-003121
Application 14/037,029

7

King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Sernaker, 702 F.2d 989,
991 (Fed. Cir. 1983). In view of the foregoing, we sustain the rejection of
independent Claims 16, 21, and Claims 17–20, dependent therefrom.
CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § References Affirmed Reversed
1–15 103 Fatourechi, Kim 1–15
16–21 103 Fatourechi, Kim,
Petty
16–21
Overall 1–21

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). See
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f).
AFFIRMED