Ex Parte 7340506 et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 27, 2014

95001129 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 27, 2014)

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.
95/001,129 12/19/2008 7340506 WEBX-101REX1 9225
7590 06/30/2014
LAWRENCE B. GOODWIN P.C.
525 EAST 86TH STREET
SUITE 5H
NEW YORK, NY 10028
EXAMINER
CABRERA, ZOILA E
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3992
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/30/2014 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 PATENT TRIAL AND APPEALS BOARD
____________________

MICROSOFT CORPORATION
Requester and Respondent

v.

WEBXCHANGE INCORPORATED
Patent Owner and Appellant
____________________

Appeal 2013-008997
Reexamination Control 95/001,129
Patent 7,340,506 B2
Technology Center 3900
____________________

Before HOWARD B. BLANKENSHIP, STEPHEN C. SIU, and
DENISE M. POTHIER, Administrative Patent Judges.

POTHIER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
I. STATEMENT OF CASE
Requester, Microsoft Corporation, made a third party request for inter partes
reexamination of US Patent No. 7,340,506 B2 (“the ’506 patent”) to Lakshmi
Arunachalam, entitled Value-Added Network Switching and Object Routing issued
March 4, 2008 and assigned to WebXchange, Incorporated (“WebXchange.”)
Appeal 2013-008997
Patent 7,340,506 B2
Reexamination Control 95/001,129

2
Appellant, Patent Owner WebXchange, appeals under 35 U.S.C. §§ 134(b)
and 315 from the decision in the Examiner’s Right of Appeal Notice (RAN)
rejecting claims 1-38, 40-50, and 52-60 of the ’506 patent. App. Br. 2.
Respondent, Microsoft, filed a Respondent Brief disputing WebXchange’s
contentions and supporting the Examiner’s decision. Resp. Br. 5-18.
WebXchange filed a Rebuttal Brief. Rebuttal Br. 1-24.
The Examiner’s Answer relies solely on the RAN, incorporating it by
reference. The Examiner finds newly-added claims 39 and 51 patentable. See
RAN 2.
An oral hearing was conducted on October 30, 2013. The transcript of the
oral hearing has been made of record.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. §§ 134(b) and 315.
We affirm the adopted rejections of claims 1-38, 40-50, and 52-60.
Claim 1 on appeal reads as follows:
1. A method for providing a service over a digital network, the method
comprising:
sending first display information from a first computer system to a user
device, wherein the first display information includes a control associated
with a commercial service;
accepting a first signal in response to a user input to activate the control;
associating an object identity with information entries and attributes,
wherein the object identity represents a networked object;
storing said information entries and said attributes in a virtual
information store;
assigning a unique network address to said object identity;
initiating, in response to the first signal, communication between the user
device and a second computer system;
using the second computer system for sending second display
information to the user device, wherein the second display information
includes a list of at least one commercial service;
Appeal 2013-008997
Patent 7,340,506 B2
Reexamination Control 95/001,129

3
accepting a second signal in response to a user input to select a
commercial service from the list; and
completing a commercial transaction relating to the selected commercial
service.

Claims App’x, App. Br. 55.
A. Prior Art Relied Upon
The Examiner relies on the following as evidence of unpatentability:
Payne US 5,715,314 Feb. 3, 1998
Gifford US 5,724,424 Mar. 3, 1998
Ginter US 5,910,987 June 8, 1999
Popp US 6,249,291 B1 June 19, 2001
(filed Sept. 22, 1995)

Marshall T. Rose & Keith McCloghrie, Structure and Identification of
Management Information for TCP/IP-based Internets (Network Working Group
Request for Comments: 1155) 1-221 (1990), available at
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1155.txt (“RFC 1155”).

Keith McCloghrie & Marshall T. Rose, Management Information Base for
Network Management of TCP/IP-based internets: MIB-II (Network Working
Group Request for Comments: 1213) 1-692 (1991), available at
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1213 (“RFC 1213”).

Keith McCloghrie & James M. Galvin, Party MIB for version 2 of the Simple
Network Management Protocol (SNMPv2) (Network Working Group Request for
Comments: 1447) 1-503 (1993), available at http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1155.txt
(“RFC 1447”).

1 Twenty-two printed pages of this reference were provided, and these page
numbers correspond sequentially to the pages provided.
2 Sixty-nine printed pages of this reference were provided, and these page numbers
correspond sequentially to the pages provided.
3 Fifty pages of this reference were provided, and these page numbers correspond
sequentially to the pages provided.
Appeal 2013-008997
Patent 7,340,506 B2
Reexamination Control 95/001,129

4

B. The Adopted, Proposed Rejections
The Examiner maintains the following proposed rejections:
Reference(s) Basis Claims Presented
Payne § 102(e)
1-20, 22, 29-
34, 38, 40-49,
and 52-60
RAN 83-101
Payne § 102(e)/103 5, 9, and 13 RAN 149-151
Payne and Gifford §103(a)
1-20, 22, 29-
34, 38, 40-49,
and 52-60
RAN 156-
157
Ginter § 102(e)
1-20, 22, 29-
34, 38, 40-50,
and 52-60
RAN 115-
132
Popp and RFC 1155 or
RFC 1213 § 103(a)
1-4, 6, 10, 11,
14-16, 20, 22,
29-34, 38, 40-
49, and 52-60
RAN 168-
170
Popp, RFC 1213, and
RFC 1447 § 103(a)
1-4, 6, 10, 11,
14-16
RAN 171-
173
Popp and RFC 1447 § 103(a)
20, 22, 29-34,
38, 40-49, and
52-60
RAN 173
Popp, RFC 1213, and
Miller §103(a)
1-4, 6, 10, 11,
14-16, 20, 22,
29-34, 38, 40-
49, and 52-60
RAN 174-
177
Popp and Payne § 103(a) 1-19
RAN 180-
183
Popp, Payne, and Gifford § 103(a) 5, 7-9, 13, and 17-19
RAN 185
Popp, RFC 1155 or RFC
1213, and Payne § 103(a)
5, 7-9, 12, 13,
17-19
RAN 186-
188, 190-192

Appeal 2013-008997
Patent 7,340,506 B2
Reexamination Control 95/001,129

5
§ 112, ¶ 1 21-28 and 35-
37
RAN 9-12,
75-78
§ 112, ¶ 2 36 RAN 78-79

II. ISSUES ON APPEAL
WebXchange and Microsoft raise the following issues:
(1) Did the Examiner err in construing the terms, “object identity,”
“networked object,” and “a control” found in independent claims 1, 14-16, 21, 23,
and 35 unreasonably broad?
(2) Does Popp qualify as prior art?
(3) Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 1, 14-16, 21, 23, and 35 by
finding the cited reference(s) either disclose under § 102 or teach under § 103:
(a) a control;
(b) an object identity;
(c) a networked object; and
(d) assigning a unique network address to the object identity?

III. ANALYSIS
A. Preliminary Matters
During the oral hearing, Microsoft expressed concerns regarding new
arguments presented for the first time by WebXchange. Oral H’g 18. We
acknowledge that some of the discussion by WebXchange was newly presented
and is not found in WebXchange’s briefs. We will confine our opinion to the
contentions presented in Appellant’s briefs. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.73(e).

Appeal 2013-008997
Patent 7,340,506 B2
Reexamination Control 95/001,129

6
B. Claim Construction
WebXchange discusses various terms found in independent claims 1, 14-16,
21, 23, and 35, including “object identity,” “networked object,” and “control,” and
proposes how they should be construed. App. Br. 6-9, 12-16. Microsoft offers
alternative constructions for some of these terms. Resp. Br. 8-9.
During reexamination, a claim is given its broadest reasonable construction
“in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in
the art.” See In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir.
2004) (internal citations and quotations omitted). We presume that claim terms
have their ordinary and customary meaning. See In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504
F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (internal quotations omitted) (“The ordinary and
customary meaning is the meaning that the term would have to a person of
ordinary skill in the art in question.”). However, a patentee may rebut this
presumption by acting as her own lexicographer, providing a definition of the term
in the Specification with “reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision.” In re
Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
1. Object Identity
Claim 1 recites “associating an object identity with information entries and
attributes, wherein the object identity represents a networked object . . . .” Other
than what the object identity represents (i.e., a networked object), this recitation
offers no meaning of what “an object identity” is. Claim 1 at best recites
associating the object identity with information entries and attributes but does not
define that an object or an object identity has information entries and attributes.
See Rebuttal Br. 15.
Appeal 2013-008997
Patent 7,340,506 B2
Reexamination Control 95/001,129

7
WebXchange asserts that it has acted as its own lexicographer in defining
the phrase, “object identity,” and that the prosecution history must be considered
when construing this term. App. Br. 6-9; Rebuttal Br. 5-6, 8-9, 13-15. When
properly construed, WebXchange argues that “an object identity” is a data
structure (e.g., a checking account) in a POSvc (Point of Service) web application
on a Web page. App. Br. 9-10; Rebuttal Br. 6, 9. We disagree.
Considering the ’506 patent’s disclosure, we do not find a definition for the
term, “object identity.” The ’506 patent states “[t]he networked object identity
identifies the information entries and attributes in the DOLSIB [distributed on-line
service information bases] as individual networked objects[.]” The ’506 patent
8:52-54. The ’506 patent also describes the object identity is: (1) needed for the
object router to determine (a) if the object is local or remote, (b) argument
parameters, and (c) object serialization and (2) provided in a preferred embodiment
by the WxObject in the wx.lib library. The ’506 patent 11:65-12:5. However,
there is no clear or deliberate definition located within these passages. See id; see
also RAN 17. Moreover, we will not import into the recited phrase, “an object
identity,” a particularly-described embodiment appearing in the disclosure. See
SuperGuide Corp. v. DirecTV Enterprises, Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875 (Fed. Cir.
2004). As such, WebXchange has not rebutted the presumption that the claim
terms are given their plain and ordinary meaning. See Paulsen, 30 F.3d at 1480.
While the ’506 patent does not define “an object identity,” the patent
provides an example of an object. The ’506 patent states “if object 610 is
information about models of cars, then one instance of that object would provide
user 100 with information about a specific model of the car while another instance
would provide information about a different model of the car.” The ’506 patent
Appeal 2013-008997
Patent 7,340,506 B2
Reexamination Control 95/001,129

8
9:7-15.4 As such, one instance of an object provides information. WebXchange
also has failed to demonstrate that an object is a well-known term of art that is
limited to a data structure specific to an application. See generally App. Br.;
Rebuttal Br. 5.
“Absent claim language carrying a narrow meaning, the PTO should only
limit the claim based on the specification or prosecution history when those
sources expressly disclaim the broader definition.” See In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320,
1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004). As stated above, claim 1 carries no narrow meaning of the
phrase, “object identity” and the disclosure does not contain a definition for this
term. Also, just like the Examiner concluded (RAN 15-16), we are not persuaded
that the prosecution history of the ‘506 patent or its parent US Patent No.
5,778,178 (referred to as the ’178 Patent or parent Patent) demonstrates that
WebXchange expressly disclaims a broader definition of “an object identity,” to
the claim construction proffered by WebXchange. See App. Br. 7-9; Rebuttal
Br. 6-9. The prosecution history discussed by WebXchange does not expressly
disclaim a broader definition for “an object identity” but rather provides an
example of a checking or savings account for claim 12 of a patent different from
the ‘506 patent. See App. Br. 7-8 (stating “according to the presently claimed
invention . . ., for example, if a Web merchant decides to offer a POSvc application
that allows access to checking and savings accounts, the object identities according
to the claimed invention refer to the individual checking and savings accounts . . .
.”) (emphases omitted).

4 Unfortunately, reference number 610 is not located in Figures. When asked
during oral argument, WebXchange asserts that the described number 610 was
intended to be “510.” Oral H’g 25-26. However, the number “510” is used
separately to describe POSvc applications. See, e.g., the ’506 patent, 7:5-7, 17-19.
Appeal 2013-008997
Patent 7,340,506 B2
Reexamination Control 95/001,129

9
We therefore will give the phrase, “an object identity,” its broadest
reasonable construction. The plain and ordinary meaning of “object identity”
includes a characteristic by which an object is recognized or known. Additionally,
as noted by both the Examiner and Respondent (RAN 17; Resp. Br. 3, 8), the ‘506
patent’s disclosure states “[e]ach object in the DOLSIB has a name, a syntax and
an encoding. The name is an administratively assigned object ID specifying an
object type.” The ‘506 patent, 9:3-5. As such, a characteristic by which an object
is recognized or known, including a name given to an object specifying an object
type or its identity (e.g., ID) for an object, can reasonably be considered “an object
identity.” See RAN 17; Resp. Br. 8.
2. Networked Object
Claim 1 also recites “the object identity represents a networked object.” No
further limitation about what the networked object is can be located in claim 1.
WebXchange urges that this phrase, “networked object” means
that the ‘object identity’ is connected between a POSvc Web application to a
provider’s (e.g., Web merchant’s) services, allowing a user to utilize the
POSvc Web application to perform the claimed real-time Web transactions,
thus accessing data from a host or data repository in the provider’s (e.g.,
Web merchant) ‘Back Office’ via a service network running on top of a
facilities network and in the Bank example, to the Bank’s services via the
service network (ie, [sic] networked).

App. Br. 12-13. WebXchange also states a “networked object” is defined as
“structured data networked between a POSvc Web application and a provider’s
(eg, [sic] Web merchant’s) services.” App. Br. 21; Rebuttal Br. 8-10, 15-17.
Microsoft asserts that “a network object” is broadly defined as “[a]n object that
exists in a network environment.” Resp. Br. 8-9.
Appeal 2013-008997
Patent 7,340,506 B2
Reexamination Control 95/001,129

10
We find WebXchange’s assertion that “a networked object” has been coined
in the disclosure is unsupported by the record. Like “an object identity,” the
phrase, “networked object” is not defined in the '506 patent in a clear and
deliberate manner, such that WebXchange has acted as its own lexicographer for
this phrase. The ’506 patent states:
The networked object identity identifies the information entries and
attributes in the DOLSIB as individual networked objects, and each
networked object is assigned an Internet address . . . For example, in FIG.
5A, network server 104 is a node on the Internet, with an IP address. All
networked object associated with network server 104 will therefore be
assigned an Internet address based on the network server 104's IP address . .
. The Internet address for each networked object in the tree essentially
establishes the individual object as an “IP-reachable” or accessible node on
the Internet.

The ’506 patent 8:52-66; see also RAN 18 (quoting portions of the above passage).
While this passage in the ’506 patent describes networked objects having assigned
Internet addresses, there is no clear definition of “a networked object.”
Additionally, WebXchange points to Figure 5D and its accompanying
disclosure to support its ascribed definition that a networked object is “an ‘object
identity’ that is networked . . . .” App. Br. 13 (citing the ’506 patent 7:32-44, 6:21-
23; Fig. 5D). Yet, these cited portions of the ’506 patent describe a service
network, a Bank services, and a Bank application, but not a “networked object.”
The ’506 patent 7:32-44, 6:21-23. Moreover, as stated above, we will not import
into the phrase, “a networked object,” a particularly-described embodiment in the
disclosure. See SuperGuide, 358 F.3d at 875. Contrary to WebXchange’s
assertions (App. Br. 12-13) and as explained above, WebXchange also provides
insufficient evidence from the prosecution history that it expressly disclaims a
broader construction of the phrase, “a networked object.”
Appeal 2013-008997
Patent 7,340,506 B2
Reexamination Control 95/001,129

11
We therefore construe the phrase, “networked object,” to have its plain and
ordinary meaning. We find a broad but reasonable construction of “a networked
object” includes an object that operates within a network or transmitted over a
network. Additionally, as recited and as the Examiner indicates, the “networked
object” is represented by the object identity as recited by claim 1. RAN 18.
3. Control
Claim 1 also recites “sending first display information from a first computer
system to a user device, wherein the first display information includes a control
associated with a commercial service . . . .” WebXchange does not present a clear
definition of “control” but states
the VAN [Value Added Network] Switch includes all the other elements of
the claims associated with a “control,” including “Web page control”;
“compris[es] one or more application interfaces”; and includes “application
logic, encapsulated in a “data structure” specific to the POSvc application on
a Web page, including “information entries and attributes.”

App. Br. 15; Rebuttal Br. 17. Microsoft asserts that WebXchange provides
no definition for the term “control.” Resp. Br. 9.
We agree with Microsoft. Yet, in order to determine whether the cited prior
art discloses the recited “control,” we construe this term broadly, but reasonably, to
have its plain meaning or include a component or mechanism that regulates or
guides the operation of an apparatus or system. This construction is consistent
with the disclosure which describes various information displayed (e.g., button 500
or any mechanism) that hands over a user’s request to an exchange. The ’506
patent 6:39-47. While the patent further discusses the exchange creating
“distributed control” (App. Br. 14-15 (citing the ’506 patent, 6:63-7:4)), the
distributed control is not described as “first display information” as recited, and we
Appeal 2013-008997
Patent 7,340,506 B2
Reexamination Control 95/001,129

12
do not find that claim 1 limits the “control” based on the distributed control
discussion.
C. Art Rejections
Given the above construction of the disputed terms, we turn to the art
rejections.
1. Payne under § 102(e) or Payne and Gifford under § 103
a. Independent Claims 1, 12, 14-16, 21, 23, and 35
For the independent claims, we select independent claim 1 as representative.
WebXchange argues that Payne does not disclose “a control associated with a
commercial service” as recited in independent claims. App. Br. 19-20; Rebuttal
Br. 18. Specifically, Patent Owner asserts that Payne does not use the word,
“control,” and that the hypertext link is not a control associated with commercial
services but rather the opposite of control requiring human intervention. App.
Br. 19-20. We disagree.
First, we first note that identity of terminology between Payne and claimed
limitation, “a control,” is not required to anticipate a claim. See In re Bond, 910
F.2d 831, 832 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Second, there is no language in claim 1 that
excludes human interaction. Third, the Examiner explains that Payne discloses a
display showing product descriptions and receiving requests for product display
description which cause a product hypertext link to be activated. RAN 30, 85
(quoting from Payne 3:29-34, 5:27-30). Implicit in this discussion is that the user
makes these requests from display information, and thus, the first display
information includes a mechanism that causes a product hypertext link derived
from a purchase transaction record to be activated (e.g., a control which guides an
operation of the system). See Payne 3:29-37. Additionally, as these operations
Appeal 2013-008997
Patent 7,340,506 B2
Reexamination Control 95/001,129

13
relate to purchasing a product, they are associated with a commercial service. See
Payne 4:50-52; see also App. Br. 17 (indicating Payne displays goods such as
newspapers). Payne thus discloses “the first display information includes a control
associated with a commercial service” as broadly as recited.
Even assuming these passages in Payne alone do not disclose the display
information includes a control, the Examiner also discusses Gifford (U.S. Patent
Application No. 08/169, 519 and issued as U.S. Patent No. 5,724,424), which is
incorporated in its entirety by reference in Payne. Payne 1:18-24; see RAN 85; see
also Resp. Br. 10-11. Contrary to WebXchange’s assertions (App. Br. 20), Payne
properly incorporates this application by reference, and U.S. Application No.
08/169, 519 is as much a part of Payne’s disclosure. See MPEP § 2163.07(b).
Moreover, “[m]aterial not explicitly contained in the single, prior art document
may still be considered for purposes of anticipation if the material is incorporated
by reference into the document.” Advanced Display Systems, Inc. v. Kent State
University, 212 F.3d 1272, 1282 (Fed. Cir. 2000).
Alternatively, even if Gifford is not considered to incorporate its entire
disclosure, the Examiner presents an obviousness rejection based on Payne and
Gifford. RAN 156-157; see also Resp. Br. 13. Figure 2 of Gifford shows such a
display with links (e.g., 1 and 2) that when activated by a user cause the system to
take specific actions (e.g., display products for Today’s Headlines or Radio
Headings) or shows a control associated with a commercial service (e.g., news
information). Gifford 5:7-11; Fig. 2. Thus, Payne, by incorporating Gifford’s
application by reference, further discloses display information that includes a
control associated with a commercial service as recited in claim 1. Additionally,
the Examiner only relies upon Gifford’s disclosure for the disputed control feature
Appeal 2013-008997
Patent 7,340,506 B2
Reexamination Control 95/001,129

14
in claim 1. RAN 84-85. Thus, any arguments concerning Gifford failing to teach
an object identity and networked object are not consistent with the Examiner’s
position. App. Br. 24-25.
WebXchange further argues that Payne fails to disclose the recited “object
identity” and “networked object.” App. Br. 20-22; Rebuttal Br. 12, 18. These
arguments rely heavily on the purported coined terms or definitions. See id. As
stated above, we are not persuaded that WebXchange defines “object identity” and
“networked object” as argued and refer to our above discussion. Additionally, as
noted, identity of terminology is not needed to establish anticipation. See Bond,
910 F.2d at 832. Based on our understanding of these terms, we agree with the
Examiner that Payne discloses an object identity (e.g., payment URL
authenticator/unique digital signature for the payment URL) that represents a
networked object (e.g., the hash is information shared over an interconnected
computer network using the payment URL mechanism). See RAN 86-89, 31-33.
WebXchange further asserts that Payne does not “associat[e] an object
identity with information entries and attributes.” App. Br. 21. WebXchange’s
argument focuses on its understanding that Payne fails to disclose an object
identity and thus cannot associate an object identity with information entries and
attributes. We are not persuaded based on our construction of the term, “object
identity,” and refer to our previous discussion. The Examiner finds that the unique
signature (e.g., an object identity as discussed above) is a hash of other data in the
payment URL (e.g., identifiers payment, time), and thus information entries and
attributes (e.g., other data) as broadly recited are associated with an object identity
(e.g., the unique signature). RAN 32-33, 87-89 (citing Payne 5:27-46).
Appeal 2013-008997
Patent 7,340,506 B2
Reexamination Control 95/001,129

15
Finally, WebXchange argues that Payne fails to disclose “assigning a unique
network address to said object identity,” because Payne fails to disclose an object
and an object identity. App. Br. 23. We are not persuaded for previously-stated
reasons. Additionally, we refer to the rejection as to how Payne discloses the
disputed limitation. RAN 90-91 (citing Payne 5:44-47); see also Resp. Br. 12.
For any remaining contentions, we adopt the Examiner’s findings in the
RAN as our own.
b. Dependent Claims 2-5, 9, 13, 17, and 18
Regarding claim 2, the Examiner maps the object router to step 92
performed in Figure 2G of Payne, where the payment computer redirects (e.g.,
routes) a URL to a buyer computer. See RAN 83 (incorporating Request 109,
which refers to App. A, Element 14, pp. 38-39). The rejection further relies on the
teachings in Gifford. See id. (incorporating Request 109, App. A, Element 14, pp.
39-41).
WebXchange argues that Payne does not describe an object router as
defined, requiring a routing switch function within the application layer of the OSI
(Open Systems Interconnection). App. Br. 48-49 (citing 5:22-23, 50-53). We
disagree that Patent Owner has defined the phrase, “object router.” There is no
clear or precise definition of an object router found in column 5, which only
describes where the routing switch is implemented. The ’506 patent also does not
define “an object router” to exclude hyperlinking function. App. Br. 49. None of
the argued restrictions are not found in claim 2, which only requires the second
computer system includes an object router. Thus, as broadly recited, Payne’s
object router does not need to function within the application layer of the OSI
model.
Appeal 2013-008997
Patent 7,340,506 B2
Reexamination Control 95/001,129

16
Additionally, the Examiner’s rejection relies upon the redirecting process –
not just hyperlinking – to disclose or teach the recited “object router.” Thus,
WebXchange’s contention that Payne relies upon web forms (App. Br. 49), which
are explicitly disclaimed, is not consistent with the Examiner’s position for
claim 2. See RAN 83 (incorporating Request 109).
Concerning claim 3, the Examiner finds its limitations are taught by Payne
and Gifford, including accessing a database used to store account information as
well as a shopping cart of products and an array storing item descriptions. RAN 83
(incorporating Request 109, App. A, Element 15, pp. 41-44), 109-110.
WebXchange contends that a database, which holds real data, cannot be “a virtual
information store.” App. Br. 49-50 (citing the ’506 patent, 8:49-52).
Granted, the ’506 patent states the “DOLSIBs are virtual information stores
optimized for networking.” The ’506 patent 8:48-49; see also RAN 26, 46.
However, the disclosure does not exclude the virtual information store from being
something else, including a database with stored information concerning a
shopping cart and the array containing item descriptions. See RAN 83
(incorporating Request 109, App. A, Element 15, pp. 41-44). Nor has
WebXchange adequately shown that a virtual information store would have been
understood by an ordinarily skilled artisan to have a particular meaning. App. Br.
49-50. Additionally, even from WebXchange’s perspective, the DOLSIBs, which
are called a virtual information store, contain real information. The ’506 patent
8:49-52. Thus, Payne’s information stored in the database and on arrays is
broadly, but reasonably, considered “a virtual information store.”
WebXchange further argues that Payne’s web page store, which admittedly
displays products for sale, is not maintaining a virtual information store. App.
Appeal 2013-008997
Patent 7,340,506 B2
Reexamination Control 95/001,129

17
Br. 50. Given that the Examiner does not rely on a web page to disclose the virtual
information store (RAN 83 (incorporating Request 109, App. A, Element 15, pp.
41-44), we need not address this argument further.
Regarding claim 4, the Examiner finds that Payne discloses using a value-
added network (VAN) switch when the user selecting a web page control sends a
request to switch from web application to a transactional application. RAN 83
(incorporating Request 109, App. A, Element 16, pp. 44-47). RAN 111.
WebXchange argues the phrase, “value-added network switch,” is a coined term by
relying on the description of Figure 6A and argues Payne does not disclose the
VAN switch as purportedly defined. App. Br. 50-51. We disagree.
The ’506 patent states, “Fig. 6A illustrates a value-added network (VAN)
switch.” The ’506 patent 3:39. As description states, Figure 6A is an illustration
or an example of a VAN switch – not a definition. Additionally, some of the other
cited portions of the patent that purportedly define the VAN switch only describe
the illustrated Figure 6A. See the ’506 patent 6:66-7:4, 8:21-25, 34-35. Also, the
discussion of what layer the VAN switch is implemented on in the’506 patent does
not define the VAN switch itself and implementation limitations are not found in
claim 4. See App. Br. 51 (citing the ’506 patent 5:50-55, 9:18-10:15; Fig. 7); see
also RAN 111. We therefore are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments.
Claim 13 depends from claim 12 and further recites that the user is provided
with access to a payment back office system. The Examiner finds Payne discloses
this limitation when addressing how Payne’s system interacts with and sends
messages to conventional or existing financial system networks. RAN 83
(incorporating Request 112, App. A, Element 25, pp. 62-63), 113-114, 150-151.
WebXchange argues that any database is local to the Back Office and the user has
Appeal 2013-008997
Patent 7,340,506 B2
Reexamination Control 95/001,129

18
no access to the database. App. Br. 51. We do not see a restriction in claim 13 that
requires the payment electronic back office system be remote. Moreover, Gifford
teaches payment orders are authorized by the network payment system by sending
messages to a financial authorization network (Request 83, App. A, p. 63
(discussing Gifford 2:45-48, 3:46-48)) or provides the user access to a payment
electronic back office system as broadly as recited (e.g., by sending a message).
Additionally, the Examiner presents an alternative rejection for claim 13. RAN
150-151. WebXchange does not challenge the specific findings of this alternative
rejection.
WebXchange argues claims 5, 9, and 13 as a group, asserting that they are
not obvious over Payne because there is no second computer system involved
when hyperlinking. See App. Br. 51-52. We disagree and select claim 5 as
representative. The rejection for claim 1 addresses how Payne teaches using a
second computer system, and we refer to the RAN for more details. RAN 92-93
(discussing the payment computer). Additionally, we refer to the adopted rejection
with modification presented by the Examiner. RAN 149-150 (referring to Request
153-154, 157-161, App. A, Element 17, 21, 25, pp. 47-48, 54-55, 62-63).
As for claim 17, WebXchange argues that sending a message to another
business entity is not exchanging information as recited, because this is a one-way
communication. App. Br. 52. We are not persuaded. The Examiner relies upon
more than sending the message. See RAN 83 (incorporating Request 120 (citing
Payne 1:27-35), App. A, Element 67, pp. 88-89). As explained, the buyer
computer sends a purchase message to the merchant computer, the purchase is
authorized, and then the merchant computer sends an authorization message.
Payne 1:27-35. Thus, an exchange of information occurs.
Appeal 2013-008997
Patent 7,340,506 B2
Reexamination Control 95/001,129

19
As for claim 18, WebXchange argues that hyperlinking does not allow for
three-way transactions as recited. App. Br. 52. We are not persuaded because the
Examiner does not rely on hyperlinking but the process where a merchant
computer, a payment computer, and a user device (e.g., buyer computer) interact to
display and purchase a product to disclose the recited “three-way transaction.”
RAN 83 (incorporating Request 120 (citing Payne 1:27-35, 4:35-45; Fig. 1), App.
A, Element 68, pp. 89-91).
Lastly, regarding all the disputed dependent claims, with the possible
exception of claim 13 discussed above, WebXchange does not challenge the
additional findings in Gifford. App. Br. 48-53. We therefore summarily find no
error in the rejections of these claims based on Payne/Gifford under §§ 102 or 103.
c. Remaining Dependent Claims
The remaining claims depend directly or indirectly from an independent
claim and are not separately argued. We find no error for the reasons previously
stated concerning the independent claim from which each claim depends.
d. Declarations
The Examiner refers to certain declarations finding that they do not
overcome the rejections. The Examiner finds WebXchange fails to provide
evidence of good and sufficient cause why the declarations are necessary and were
not presented earlier. RAN 7-8. While not entered, the Examiner finds that the
declarations unpersuasive in demonstrating various recited terms, including
“virtual information store,” have particular meanings, given that the terms are not
defined in the disclosure or prosecution history and some argued limitations are not
found in the claims. See RAN 25; see also RAN 30, 40, 50, 51, 53 (incorporating
previous discussions at RAN 7-8 and 13-22).
Appeal 2013-008997
Patent 7,340,506 B2
Reexamination Control 95/001,129

20
WebXchange does not rebut these findings or present an argument
concerning any of the 37 C.F.R. § 1.132 declarations filed during reexamination.
See generally App. Br. and Rebuttal Br.
The Examiner also discusses the 37 C.F.R. § 1.131 declaration by Lakshmi
Arunachalam (hereafter “the 1.131 Arunachalam declaration”) declaration. RAN
3-6, 177. This declaration attempts to overcome Popp and is not relevant to the
above rejections.
The weight of the evidence taken as a whole supports the Examiner’s
findings for anticipation rejection based on Payne, which incorporates Gifford, or
the alternative obviousness rejection based on Payne and Gifford.
2. Ginter Under § 102
a. Independent Claims 1, 12, 14-16, 21, 23, and 35
For the independent claims, we select independent claim 1 as representative.
WebXchange argues Ginter fails to disclose an object that is a data structure. App.
Br. 26. As stated above, we do not find that an object needs to be any particular
data structure, and the ‘506 patent describes an instance of an object that provides
information. Moreover, we note that claim 1 does not recite an object but rather
“an object identity.”
WebXchange also draws a distinction between the VAN switch in the ‘506
patent and Ginter’s object switch, including the layer in the OSI model where the
switches operate. App. Br. 26-27; Rebuttal Br. 21. WebXchange argues that the
Ginter’s network does not run on top of the web and facilities network and does
not address real-time transactions. App. Br. 27-28; Rebuttal Br. 21-22. Given that
independent claims 1, 14-16, 21, 23, and 35 do not recite a switch, the layer of the
OSI model where the switch operates, where the network runs, or real-time
Appeal 2013-008997
Patent 7,340,506 B2
Reexamination Control 95/001,129

21
transactions, we find these arguments are not commensurate in scope with the
disputed claims. See RAN 40-41.
Concerning the contention that Ginter fails to disclose “a service over a
digital network” as recited in the preamble of claim 1, we disagree. App. Br. 27-
28. Ginter discloses using the technique with various services, including financial
transactions and legal research. RAN 41-42, 116 (citing Ginter 229:8-13, 272:50,
273:61-62); see also Resp. Br 13 (discussing Ginter 132:1-8). Ginter also shows in
Figures 72B-D a commercial service dealing approving of a news purchase (e.g.,
button 2662 in Fig. 72B, Ginter 236:9-12) or setting dollar limits per session or
transaction (e.g., buttons 2666 and 2668 in Fig. 72C, Ginter 236:19-25). RAN 42,
119 (including Figs. 72B-C).
WebXchange argues that Ginter does not disclose an object identity or
networked object. App. Br. 29. These arguments are once again rooted in
WebXchange’s position that it has defined “an object identity” and “a networked
object” to have very particular meanings. App. Br. 29. Yet, as explained above,
we disagree with WebXchange’s position and find that Ginter’s VDE identifier
field (e.g., 466(4) labeled OBJECT ID in Fig. 31) for an object (e.g., VDE object)
can be “an object identity,” as broadly recited, because the identifier specifies the
object and this identifier field is a characteristic for which the object is known.
RAN 44-45, 122-124. Moreover, the Examiner reasonably finds the object identity
represents a networked object (e.g., the VDE object) through the identifier and the
VDE object is “a networked object” because the VDE object is used over a
network or in a network environment. RAN 45, 124.
WebXchange also argues that Ginter does not disclose a control and does
not teach accepting a first signal in response to the user input to activate the
Appeal 2013-008997
Patent 7,340,506 B2
Reexamination Control 95/001,129

22
control. App. Br. 29-31. We disagree. The Examiner explains that Ginter teaches
various controls in Figures 72B-D, such as selecting a choice (e.g., buttons)
activates actions or begins a path of execution. RAN 41-43, 118-120 (citing
Ginter, Figs. 72B-D). As seen in Figure 72B, the “Approve” button 2662 is
displayed and allows the user to approve an expense and proceed (e.g., a
mechanism that guides an operation of Ginter’s system). Ginter 236:8-12; Fig.
72B. As another example, Figure 72C shows a session dollar or transactions dollar
limit fields and an OKAY button (e.g., 2666, 2668, 2674) that regulates how much
a user can spend within the system. Ginter 236:14-27, Fig. 72C.
Patent Owner also asserts that Ginter does not disclose associating an object
identity with information entries and attributes, where the object identity represents
a networked object because an object identity is more than just a name. App. Br.
32. We disagree for reasons previously set forth when discussing the terms,
“object identity” and “networked object.” Additionally, the Examiner relies upon
Figure 31 to show associating the object identity with other information fields.
RAN 122-124. Figure 31 shows an association of the object identity with other
information (e.g., site record number, object type, registration interval, attributes)
for an object registration record 460(N). Ginter 155:5-60, Fig. 31.
Lastly, Patent Owner contends that Ginter does not disclose assigning a
unique network address to an object identity but only that specific content can be
located by an address. App. Br. 32-33. However, the Examiner finds Ginter
teaches assigning an object identity a network address by assigning a VDE object a
unique URL that locates the object’s content, including the object identifier, with a
VDE repository. RAN 125-126 (citing Ginter 285:67-286:13).

Appeal 2013-008997
Patent 7,340,506 B2
Reexamination Control 95/001,129

23
b. The Dependent Claims
As for claim 4, Appellant argues, referring to section 6 of the Appeal Brief,
that a VAN switch is different from an object switch. App. Br. 51. As explained
above, we are not persuaded by the purported distinction. Namely, claim 4 fails to
recite that the VAN switch operates at Application Layer 7 of the OSI model.
Also, a VAN switch is not defined by disclosure of the ’506 patent or disclaimed
during the prosecution, such that the switch must operate in Layer 7. Thus,
contrary to WebXchange’s assertions (App. Br. 51), claim 4 does not require that
the VAN switch operates between a service network running on top of the Web
and a facilities network.
Regarding claims 5, 9, and 13, WebXchange asserts that “[n]one of the cited
art” disclose their limitations. App. Br. 52. Yet, a mere assertion without any
further argument is not considered a separate argument for patentability. See In re
Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
Concerning claim 18, WebXchange argues Ginter fails to teach its
recitations, because the Examiner admits Ginter discloses an electronic agreement
and not a transaction. App. Br. 52. The Examiner finds Ginter teaches this
limitation and incorporates the Request by reference. RAN 116 (citing Request
121-142, App. B). The relied-upon discussion in Ginter addresses more than an
electronic agreement, including making content or credit available through
negotiations that result in an agreement. Request 141 (citing App. B, Element 136,
pp. 135-139). WebXchange’s contention is thus not consistent with the Examiner
position.
The remaining, rejected claims depend directly or indirectly from an
independent claim and are not separately argued. We find no error for the reasons
Appeal 2013-008997
Patent 7,340,506 B2
Reexamination Control 95/001,129

24
previously stated concerning the independent claim from which each claim
depends.
For the above reasons, we will sustain the Examiner’s anticipation rejection
based on Ginter.
3. Obviousness Rejection Over Popp and Other References
a. Popp Qualifies as Prior Art
WebXchange argues that Popp does not qualify as prior art, because the
claimed invention was conceived and reduced to practice diligently prior to the
effective filing date of Popp. App. Br. 5; Rebuttal Br. 12. WebXchange asserts
that the 1.131 Arunachalam declaration and accompanying Exhibits A-F swear
behind Popp, demonstrating conception of the invention no later than September
22, 19955 and due diligence from prior to the effective filing date of Popp that
continues until the reduction to practice as of the filing of a provisional application
on November 13, 1995.6 App. Br. 5 n. 2.
Although the 1.131 Arunachalam declaration and its exhibits are not
included in the Appeal Brief, the Examiner considered and found them
unpersuasive. RAN 3-6, 177. To antedate Popp by a constructive reduction to
practice, WebXchange must show conception of the invention prior to the effective
date of Popp (i.e., September 22, 1995) coupled with due diligence from prior to
the reference date to the filing of the application. See 37 C.F.R. § 1.131(b). The

5 Popp’s filing date is September 22, 1995.
6 U.S. Application No. 09/792,323, filed February 23, 2001, issued into the ‘506
patent and is continuation of U.S. Application No. 09/296,207, filed April 21,
1999. It is not clear on the record whether WebXchange has support for the
claimed subject matter of the ’506 patent back to U.S. Prov. Application No.
60/006,634, filed November 13, 1995.

Appeal 2013-008997
Patent 7,340,506 B2
Reexamination Control 95/001,129

25
Examiner finds that Exhibits A-F only provide a general discussion of the
invention – not the particular claimed invention – and specifically discusses that
the Exhibits do not show conception of the claimed sending first display
information from a first computer system to a user device, the information
including a control associated with commercial services and accepting a first signal
in response to the user activating the control as recited in claims 1 and 14-16.
RAN 6. The Examiner further includes the Requester’s reasons in finding the
1.131 Arunachalam declaration insufficient to disqualify Popp. RAN 177. We
agree with the Examiner.
The 1.131 Arunachalam declaration and accompanying exhibits do not
provide a mapping to where the recited displayed control associated with the
commercial services as well as where the recited accepting a signal in response to
the user activated the control were conceived prior to September 22, 1995. See the
1.131 Arunachalam declaration. WebXchange fails to point to any paragraphs in
the declaration or pages of the Exhibits for support. App. Br. 5. For example,
general statements that the claimed invention was conceived of prior to September
22, 1995 (e.g., the conclusion made in Paragraphs 3, 5, and 31) is insufficient.
Rather, specific facts supporting this conclusion need to be provided. See MPEP
§ 715.07(I).
Additionally, the Examiner states that diligence need not be considered,
because conception has not been demonstrated, but adds that the provided business
plan does not show due diligence. RAN 6. While the business plan may relate to
some of the claimed subject matter, the plan alone does not show due diligence in
attempting to reduce the claimed subject matter to practice (e.g., demonstrating
Appeal 2013-008997
Patent 7,340,506 B2
Reexamination Control 95/001,129

26
that Appellant was diligently working to file the application for the constructive
reduction to practice).
We now turn to the specific limitations WebXchange argues are missing
from Popp and other cited references.
b. Popp and RFC 1155 Under § 103
i. Claims 1, 12, 14-16, 21, 23, and 35
We select independent claim 1 as representative. The Examiner finds that
Popp and RFC 1155 collectively teach the limitations found in independent claim
1. RAN 168 (referring to Request 223-234, App. C), 180. WebXchange argues
that Popp does not disclose “Web application/transaction-specific ‘object
routing.’” App. Br. 33. WebXchange also argues that Popp does not disclose a
mechanism for a user to select an interactive real-time POSvc Web application or
switching to transactional applications from a Web page. App. Br. 34. We fail to
find such limitations in claim 1. Also, Patent Owner’s mere assertion that Popp
fails to disclose “any of the structures of the invention” (App. Br. 34) without any
further argument is not probative or a persuasive argument.
We further disagree that the Examiner construed the terms, “object identity,”
“networked object,” and “control” as meaningless. App. Br. 35; Rebuttal Br. 12.
We refer to the above claim construction for a broad, but reasonable, construction
of these terms. Thus, we disagree that “object identifier denotes an attribute of a
device” or that an “attribute of a device is coined as an ‘object.’” App. Br. 35.
When given the previously discussed construction, Popp and RFC 1155
collectively teach the claimed “object identity,” “networked object,” and “control.”
See, e.g., RAN 168 (referring to Request 224-226, App. C).
Appeal 2013-008997
Patent 7,340,506 B2
Reexamination Control 95/001,129

27
Specifically, WebXchange argues that neither Popp nor RFC 1155 teaches a
control, because a control is not a CGI (Common Gateway Interface) or hyperlink.
App. Br. 36. The Examiner finds that Popp teaches first display information in
Figure 3B with input area that allows a shopper to identify model, prices, and car
type. Request 224 (referring to App. C, Element 141, pp. 2-3 (citing Popp 9:29-31;
Fig. 3B)). Popp describes Figure 3B as a tool that permits the user to select
options and submit a page and, in response, displays a page with cars that meet the
specified criteria. Popp 9:29-63; Fig. 3B; see also App. Br. 36 (quoting Popp 9:31-
44). Given the broad construction of “control” as discussed above, Popp
demonstrates a mechanism (e.g., input areas and submission) that regulates or
guides the system’s operation to other information pages (e.g., 334 shown in Fig.
3B).
WebXchange also asserts that neither Popp nor RFC 1155 teaches
associating the object identity, the object identity represents a networked object.
App. Br. 37-38. WebXchange argues that the scripting in Popp is excluded from
the coined term, “object identity.” App. Br. 37-38. We disagree.
The Examiner finds these limitations are taught by Popp and RFC 1155.
RAN 168 (incorporating Request 224-226, App. C, Elements 143-144, pp. 4-10).
For example, Popp discloses a URL, which contains information, such as an
application to be processed, or an instantiation of an object. Request 225 (referring
to App. C, pp. 4-5). Popp discloses the URL contains a name (e.g., app_name) or
specifies the object type or its identity (e.g., an object identity). Popp 6:52-7:12,
24-35. Other examples discussed in Popp and RFC 1155 include objects that have
object identifiers or names that specify an object’s identity. Request 225 (referring
Appeal 2013-008997
Patent 7,340,506 B2
Reexamination Control 95/001,129

28
to App. C, Element 143 (citing Popp 9:45-55, 12:1-6, RFC 1155, p. 4)). Given the
broadest, reasonable construction, Popp and RFC 1155 teach an object identity.
The Examiner additionally finds that Popp and RFC 1155 teach an object
identity represents a networked object. RAN 168 (referring to Request 225-226,
App. C, Element 144, pp. 9-10). For example, Popp describes the application and
the URL concern information from external sources and runs on servers through a
corporate network. Popp 8:26-31, 9:37-44, 56-63. Popp thus has an object identity
operating within a network or representing a networked object as recited.
WebXchange does not challenge these specific findings. App. Br. 37-38.
WebXchange discusses how an object identifier is not the instantiation of the
character string/MIB (Management Information Base) variable. Id. However,
because language concerning an instantiation of a character string/MIB variable is
not found in claim 1, we find this discussion unpersuasive.
Lastly, WebXchange argues that neither Popp nor RFC 1155 teaches
assigning a unique network address to the object identity because neither reference
teaches an “object identity.” App. Br. 38-39. We disagree for the above-stated
reasons.
WebXchange further argues that RFC 1155 does not assign its unique
address to the object but to a hardware device. Id.; Rebuttal Br. 13-14. Notably,
claim 1 recites assigning the unique network address to the object identity – not the
object itself. Nonetheless, the ’506 patent discusses assigning a unique address to
an object. The ’506 patent 8:54-55. Additionally, although WebXchange states “it
is plain that the unique address [in RFC 1155] is not assigned to the object but to
the hardware device,” (App. Br. 39), WebXchange has not provided evidence to
support this conclusion. See App. Br. 38-39. Moreover, the rejection does not rely
Appeal 2013-008997
Patent 7,340,506 B2
Reexamination Control 95/001,129

29
on the disputed passage in RFC 1155 exclusively but also Popp’s URL as a unique
network address. RAN 168 (referring to Request 225-226, App. C, Element 146,
pp. 15-19).
ii. The Dependent Claims
Concerning dependent claims 5, 9, and 13, WebXchange makes a broad
statement that none of the art teaches “any of the dependent claims . . . .” App. Br.
52. However, a mere assertion without any supporting evidence is not found
persuasive.
The remaining, rejected claims depend directly or indirectly from an
independent claim and are not separately argued. We find no error for the reasons
previously stated concerning the independent claim from which each claim
depends.
Lastly, we refer to the above discussion concerning the declaration evidence.
The weight of the evidence taken as a whole supports the Examiner’s
obviousness rejection.
c. Popp and RFC 1213 Under § 103
WebXchange repeats that Popp fails to teach an object identity and a
networked object. App. Br. 39. We disagree for previously-stated reasons.
Additionally, Patent Owner asserts that RFC 1213 suffers from the same
deficiencies as RFC 1155 but fails to provide specifics of how RFC 1213 suffers
from “the same deficiencies.” App. Br. 39. To the extent WebXchange has
presented a specific argument, we elect claim 1 as representative and disagree for
similar reasons to those discussed when addressing RFC 1155 and our broadest,
reasonable claim construction. See also RAN 169-170 (referring to Request 235-
246, App. C, Elements 139-151, pp. 1-31).
Appeal 2013-008997
Patent 7,340,506 B2
Reexamination Control 95/001,129

30
WebXchange also briefly mentions RFC 1213 concerning the purported
coined term, “object identity.” App. Br. 35. We are not persuaded that this term
has been coined for reasons previously stated.
Lastly, WebXchange mentions RFC 1213 when discussing how an object
identifier is not the instantiation of the character string/MIB variable. App.
Br. 37-38. However, because language concerning an instantiation of a character
string/MIB variable in not found in the claims, we find this discussion
unpersuasive.
We also refer to the above discussion concerning the declaration evidence.
The weight of the evidence taken as a whole supports the Examiner’s
obviousness rejection.
d. Popp, RFC 1213, and RFC 1447 or Popp and RFC 1447 Under § 103
WebXchange repeats that Popp and RFC 1213 fail to teach an object identity
and a networked object. App. Br. 40. We disagree for previously-stated reasons.
Additionally, Patent Owner asserts that the argument made for RFC 1155
are applicable to this rejection but fails to provide specifics as to how the
arguments apply to RFCs 1213 and 1447. Id. To the extent WebXchange has
presented a specific argument, we select claim 1 as representative and disagree for
similar reasons to those discussed when addressing RFC 1155 and our broadest,
reasonable claim construction. See also RAN 171 (referring Request 246-259 and
App. C). We further disagree for the reasons stated in the adopted rejection that
RFCs 1213 and 1447 have a relationship to the claimed invention. See RAN 171-
173.
Lastly, we refer to the above discussion concerning the declaration evidence.
Appeal 2013-008997
Patent 7,340,506 B2
Reexamination Control 95/001,129

31
The weight of the evidence taken as a whole supports the Examiner’s
obviousness rejection.
e. Popp, RFC 1213, and Miller Under § 103
WebXchange refers to prior arguments set for in Section 9, for which we are
not persuaded. App. Br. 40. Additionally, Patent Owner asserts that the argument
made for RFCs 1155 and 1213 are applicable to Miller. Id. WebXchange
specifically mentions Miller discloses appending an IP (Internet Protocol) address
to the entries in the MIB, but argues this is a physical device’s address. Yet,
claim 1 is not restricted to a network address that is not related to physical device.
However, to the extent WebXchange asserts that Miller does not assign a
unique network address to the object identity, we select claim 1 as representative.
The Examiner finds that Popp, RFC 1213, and Miller teach this feature. RAN 174-
177 (referring to Request 246-272 and Appendices C and D). We find this position
reasonable, given our claim construction. We further disagree for the reasons
stated above when discussing Popp and RFC 1213. Lastly, claim 1 is not
restricted to a network address unrelated to physical devices. The weight of the
evidence taken as a whole, including consideration of the declaration evidence,
supports the Examiner’s obviousness rejection.
f. The Remaining Rejections
The Examiner has adopted the following rejections under § 103: (a) Popp
and Payne (RAN 180-183), (b) Popp, Payne, and Gifford (RAN 185), (c) Popp,
RFC 1155, and Payne (RAN 186-188), and (d) Popp, RFC 1213, and Payne (RAN
190-192). For each of these rejections, WebXchange incorporates prior arguments
concerning Popp, Payne, RFC 1155, RFC 1213, and Gifford. App. Br. 40. As
previously indicated, we are not persuaded.
Appeal 2013-008997
Patent 7,340,506 B2
Reexamination Control 95/001,129

32
E. § 112 Rejections - Claims 21-28 and 35-37 Under § 112, ¶ 1
and Claim 36 Under § 112, ¶ 2

To satisfy the written description requirement, the disclosure must convey
with reasonable clarity to ordinarily skilled artisans that Appellant had possession
of the claimed invention as of the filing date. Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly &
Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (internal citations omitted).
As for claim 21, the Examiner finds that there is no written description
support for the phrases, “the object is a transactional data structure in said Web
application,” “the networked object connects from the Web application to the
service network atop the Web and provides real-time access to merchant services,”
and “said virtual information store comprising said service network atop the Web
through a Web server” in the disclosure of the ’506 patent. RAN 75-76. Although
the Examiner acknowledges “that the '506 specification describes ‘transactional
applications’ corresponding to the POSvc applications (510), . . . claim [21] is
directed to an ‘object [being] a transactional data structure in said Web
application’. . . .” RAN 12 (second alteration in original).
WebXchange argues that the central box in Figure 5D, labeled computer
system 200 and containing application 510, shows an object (e.g., a checking
account) and a data structure. App. Br. 41-43. WebXchange further asserts that
the box to the immediate left of the computer system 200 in Figure 5D shows that
“the POSvc Application 510 is a web application, because it sits on ‘web server
104’.” App. Br. 42. WebXchange concludes that “Fig.5D by itself shows an
“‘object [that] is a transactional data structure in said Web application.’” App. Br.
43. WebXchange further cites to other portions of the’506 patent for support. Id.
(citing the ’506 patent 6:48-50, 7:5-9, 10:4-9)
Appeal 2013-008997
Patent 7,340,506 B2
Reexamination Control 95/001,129

33
We disagree that Figure 5D as described shows an object or sufficiently
describes the recited object. The accompanying disclosure of Figure 5D describes
performing bank transactions and activating a Bank POSvc application – not an
object – by selecting the Bank application. The ’506 patent 7:21-24, 32-36; Fig.
5D. Although this describes a transaction concerning a bank application, we agree
with the Examiner that there is no discussion of a data structure and more
particularly an object. See RAN 12. Additionally, although the application is
shown in Figure 5D as sitting on a web server, this also fails to show the recited
object. The ’506 patent, Fig. 5D. At best, the ’506 patent describes each object in
the DOLSIB having a name, a syntax and encoding, the syntax defining the
abstract data structure corresponding to the object type. The ’506 patent, 9:3-16.
As to the other citations in the patent presented by WebXchange, we fail to
find support for an object being a transactional data structure in a Web application
in the disclosure of the ’506 patent. The ’506 patent describes exchange 501 – not
an object – that performs various activities. The ’506 patent 6:48-50, 7:5-9,
10:4-9. Based on WebXchange’s discussion, we agree with the Examiner that
WebXchange has not conveyed with reasonable clarity to an ordinarily skilled
artisan that WebXchange had possession for the recited “object [that] is a
transactional data structure in said Web application.”
Regarding the recitation in claim 21 that “the networked object connects
from the Web application to the service network atop the Web and provides real-
time access to merchant services,” WebXchange cites to various passages for
written description support. App. Br. 43-44 (citing 4:43-46, 5:52-54, 6:17-23, 31-
34, 36-48, 63-66, 7:43-58, 8:19-20, 54-64). The ’506 patent describes a service
network running on top of a facilities network (e.g., Internet or Web) but does not
Appeal 2013-008997
Patent 7,340,506 B2
Reexamination Control 95/001,129

34
discuss the networked object. The ’506 patent 6:21-23. The ’506 patent also
describes a networked object is assigned an Internet address and is accessible on
the Internet, suggesting some type of use over the Web. The ’506 patent 8:54-66.
The patent also states the flow of data from a database to a network but not an
object connected from an application to a network. The ’506 patent 5:52-64. Yet
other cited passages do not describe a network object or how it connects from the
application to a network. The ’506 patent 4:43-46, 6:31-34.
Also, the ’506 patent describes real-time transactions provided by merchant,
but this does not provide support that the network object connects from the Web
application to the service network on top of the Web. The ’506 patent 6:17-23, 36-
48, 63-66. As such, we do not find that the disclosure conveys with reasonable
clarity to ordinarily skilled artisans that Appellants had possession of the claimed
“networked object connects from the Web application to the service network atop
the Web” recited in claim 21.
Lastly, concerning the limitation, “said virtual information store comprising
said service network atop the Web through a Web server” in claim 21,
WebXchange asserts that the ’506 patent has support for this language, citing
passages similar to those for the networked object limitation. App. Br. 45
(emphasis omitted) (citing the ’506 patent 6:21-23, 31-34, 64-66, 7:24-31, 8:56-
63). As stated above, the ’506 patent describes a service network running on top of
a facilities network (e.g., Internet or Web). The ’506 patent 6:21-23. The ’506
patent also states that DOLSIBs are virtual information stores and the information
entries and attributes in a DOLSIB virtual information store are associated with the
networked object identity. The ’506 patent 8:48-57. There is no discussion that
the DOLSIB or a virtual store comprises a service, only information entries and
Appeal 2013-008997
Patent 7,340,506 B2
Reexamination Control 95/001,129

35
attributes. We therefore do not find that the disclosure conveys with reasonable
clarity to ordinarily skilled artisans that Appellant had possession of the claimed
“virtual information store comprising said service network atop the Web . . . .”
As for claims 23 and 25, the Examiner finds that the phrases, “the control
includes application logic, wherein the application logic includes one or more data
structures specific to the commercial service, wherein each of the one or more data
structures is an object” and “the networked object connects the object identity from
the Web page to a transactional application of a Web merchant,” are not described
in the ’506 patent’s disclosure. RAN 76-77. WebXchange argues to the contrary
by quoting various words found in claim 23 and mapping these words to the
disclosure of the ’506 patent. App. Br. 46. On balance, we agree with the
Examiner. WebXchange simply lists certain individual words used within various
multi-word limitations scattered throughout the Specification, but does not explain
where the invention claimed as a combination of elements, including the
interrelationship of the claimed elements set forth in the presently claimed
invention, are found. See Hyatt v. Doll, 576 F.3d 1246, 1278-79 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
Similarly, for rejected claims 35 and 37 (RAN 77-78), WebXchange points
to support in the disclosure of the ’506 patent for individuals words in these claims
but not the entire claimed limitation. App. Br. 46-47.
Claim 36 depends from independent claim 14 and recites “the control
includes an Exchange . . . .” The Examiner finds there is no written description
support for the claim and that the claim is also indefinite. RAN 78-79.
WebXchange discusses various passages of the ’506 patent, arguing that there is
written description support for the recitations in the claim. App. Br. 47-48 (citing
the ’506 patent 6:17-35, 6:48-7:4, 7:32-44, 9:55-10:3; Figs. 5B, D, 6A).
Appeal 2013-008997
Patent 7,340,506 B2
Reexamination Control 95/001,129

36
WebXchange further contends that the phrase is definite and the control is the
exchange. App. Br. 48.
Although we agree with WebXchange that there is support that the exchange
manages the connection and transactions between the user and a commercial
service (see the ’506 patent 6:48-7:4), the ’506 patent does not describe that the
control has an exchange. See generally the ’506 patent. Upon reading the
disclosure, we do not find that the Specification conveys to one of ordinary skilled
in the art with reasonable clarity that Appellant had possession of the claimed
“control includes an Exchange . . . .”
Contrary to arguments, WebXchange has also not identified the “control” as
the described and recited exchange in claim 36. App. Br. 48. In particular,
WebXchange states the control” is the VAN switch when discussing how to
construe the “control” (App. Br. 15; Rebuttal Br. 17), but then states the control is
the entire exchange, when discussing claim 36 (App. Br. 48). Also, due to its
dependency on claim 14, claim 36 requires the first display information to include
the control. Given this ambiguity, we cannot determine the boundaries of the
recited “control” of claim 36 or, as the Examiner notes, “it is not clear what the
‘control’ component is . . . .” RAN 79. For the above reasons, we agree that claim
36 is indefinite.

IV. CONCLUSION
WebXchange did not demonstrate that the Examiner erred in adopting the
above-identified rejections of claims 1-38, 40-50, and 52-60.
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-38, 40-50, and 52-60 is affirmed.

Appeal 2013-008997
Patent 7,340,506 B2
Reexamination Control 95/001,129

37
V. TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
Requests for extensions of time in this inter partes reexamination
proceeding are governed by 37 C.F.R. § 1.956. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.79.

AFFIRMED

FOR PATENT OWNER:

LAWRENCE B. GOODWIN P.C.
525 EAST 86th STREET
SUITE 5H
NEW YORK, NY 10028

FOR THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER:

ONE WORLD TRADE CENTER
SUITE 1600
121 S.W. SALMON STREET
PORTLAND, OR 97204