Ex Parte Monk et alDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardJan 29, 201612792560 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jan. 29, 2016) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation