Ex Parte Monk et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 29, 2016

12792560 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jan. 29, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
121792,560 06/02/2010
132862 7590 02/02/2016
Schwegman Lundberg & Woessner, P.A. I PayPal
P.O. Box 2938
Minneapolis, MN 55402
J. Thomas Monk
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
2043.805US 1 4994
EXAMINER
HENDERSON, ESTHER BENOIT
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2458
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/02/2016 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):
slw@blackhillsip.com
uspto@slwip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte J. THOMAS MONK and HEMAL DOSHI
Appeal2014-002166
Application 12/792,560
Technology Center 2400
Before JASON V. MORGAN, CATHERINE SHIANG, and
MELISSA A. RAAP ALA, Administrative Patent Judges.
RAAP ALA, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final
rejection of claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We
reverse.
We have reviewed Appellants' contentions in the Briefs, the
Examiner's rejection, and the Examiner's response to Appellants'
contentions. We concur with Appellants that the Examiner errs in finding
the combination of Khoo (US 2007/0038718 Al; Feb. 15, 2007) and Donker
(US 2004/0107267 Al; June 3, 2004) teaches or suggests a determination
that rendering of a rich version of a requested page has not commenced at
expiration of a time out period, as set forth by all independent claims.
The Examiner relies on Donker as teaching the disputed limitation.
Final Act. 3--4. Specifically, the Examiner finds Donker's paragraph 43
Appeal2014-002166
Application 12/792,560
teaches a "lightweight protocol [that] re-checks for [a] web-page once [a]
time-out expires." Id. at 4.
We agree with Appellants that the cited section of Donker describes a
client-server protocol for verifying a webpage's availability. App. Br. 8-9;
see Donker i-f 43. Thus, we agree with Appellants that Donker's cited
protocol verifies the availability-but not rendering---of the hyperlinked
documents. Accordingly, we determine the Examiner has not established
the cited portions of Donker teach or suggest the disputed limitation. Nor
does the Examiner find that Khoo teaches the disputed limitation.
For the foregoing reasons, we agree with Appellants' that the
Examiner has not established the combination of Khoo and Donker teaches
or suggests the disputed limitation. Thus, we do not sustain the 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) rejection of claims 1-20.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-20 is reversed.
REVERSED
JRG
2