Ex Parte Almeida

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 29, 2016

11932774 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 29, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
111932,774 10/31/2007
64724 7590 06/30/2016
John Almeida
5761 ROBBIE RD #3403
PLANO, TX 75024
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
John Almeida
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.
almeida774 2878
EXAMINER
HUYNH,THUV
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2177
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
06/30/2016 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 APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JOHN ALMEIDA
Appeal2014-007037
Application 11/932,774
Technology Center 2100
Before JAMES R. HUGHES, CATHERINE SHIANG, and
MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges.
HUGHES, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's final rejection of claims 26, 27, and 31-35. Claims 1-25 and
28-30 have been canceled. (See App. Br. 3-5.)1 We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
1 We refer to Appellant's Specification ("Spec.") filed Oct. 31, 2007
(claiming benefit of US 10/029,073, filed Dec. 20, 2001); Appeal Brief
("App. Br.") filed Dec. 10, 2013; and Reply Brief ("Reply Br.") filed June 6,
2014. We also refer to the Examiner's Answer ("Ans.") mailed April 8,
2014, and Final Office Action (Final Rejection) ("Final Act.") mailed July 2,
2013.
Appeal2014-007037
Application 11/932,774
Appellant's Invention
The invention at issue on appeal concerns methods of presenting and
displaying content in a computer network. The method presents/displays
content (virtual content) on an incorporating host (e.g., a virtual shopping
mall, web portal, or web aggregator site operating on a server (an e-mall))
where a user accesses a first host (e.g., a virtual shop or e-commerce site (an
e-shop )) that provides content from a second host (e.g., e-services from a
third party server). (Spec. 1:15-20; 4:12-6:18; 28:4-29:14; 57:2-14; and
59: 17-60: 19; Abstract.)
Illustrative Claim
Independent claim 26, reproduced below with the key disputed
limitations emphasized, further illustrates the invention:
26. A method of content presentation in a network comprising
the display of virtual content by a server computer, the server
computer comprising non-transitory memory storage medium
having a computer readable program code embodied therein, said
computer readable program code adapted to be executed to
implement a method, the method comprising the steps of:
the server hosting a plurality of content hosts on the
network, the plurality of content hosts comprising: a first content
host, a second content host, and an incorporating content host;
and
wherein the second content host comprises a content;
enabling the first content host:
to be displayed on the incorporating content host;
when so displayed on the incorporating content
host, to present the content as virtual content to a user accessing
the first content host on the incorporating content host; and
enabling presentation of the content to a user accessing the
first content host on the incorporating content host.
2
Appeal2014-007037
Application 11/932,774
Rejections on Appeal
1. The Examiner rejects claims 26, 27, and 32-34 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Flesner et al. (US 2002/0194267 Al;
published Dec. 19, 2002 (filed June 22, 2001)) ("Flesner") and Buzzell et al.
(US 7,395,223 Bl; issued July 1, 2008 (filed Aug. 25, 2000)) ("Buzzell").
2. The Examiner rejects claim 31under35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Flesner, Buzzell, and Brockhurst (US
2001/0047387 Al; published Nov. 29, 2001) (Brockhurst '387).
3. The Examiner rejects claim 35 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Flesner, Buzzell, and Brockhurst (US
2002/0087690 Al; published Dec. 14, 2001) (Brockhurst '690).
ISSUE
Based upon our review of the administrative record, Appellant's
contentions, and the Examiner's findings and conclusions, the dispositive
issue before us follows:
Does the Examiner err in concluding that the combination of Flesner
and Buzzell would have collectively taught or suggested:
the server hosting a plurality of content hosts on the
network, the plurality of content hosts comprising: a first content
host, a second content host, and an incorporating content host;
and
wherein the second content host comprises a content;
enabling the first content host:
to be displayed on the incorporating content host;
when so displayed on the incorporating content
host, to present the content as virtual content to a user accessing
the first content host on the incorporating content host
3
Appeal2014-007037
Application 11/932,774
as recited in Appellant's claim 26?
ANALYSIS
Appellant contends that Flesner and Buzzell do not teach the disputed
features of independent claim 26 (App. Br. 8-10; Reply Br. 8-12).
Specifically, Appellant contends that claim 26 requires "three hosts on a
network" and that "'content' resides on a second content host" (App. Br. 7),
where "the incorporating content host [displays] the first content host to a
user accessing the first content host on the incorporating content host where
the first content host is presenting the content of the second content host"
(App. Br. 8). As explained by Appellant, "[t]here are two levels of
complexity specified: The user accesses the first content host on the
incorporating content host; and this access displays the content from the
second content host." (App. Br. 8.) Appellant further contends that neither
Flesner nor Buzzell teach accessing a first host through an incorporating host
that presents content of a second host. (See App. Br. 8-10).
Appellant persuades us of error in the obviousness rejection of claim
26. Appellant's claim 26 requires presenting/displaying information from a
first host (a virtual shop or e-commerce site (an e-shop)) on an incorporating
host (a virtual shopping mall or web portal (an e-mall)). A user accesses the
first host on the incorporating host, and the first host provides (displays)
content from a second host (e-services from a third party server). As
explained by Appellant (supra), there are three separate hosts and two layers
of complexity - a user accessing the first content host through the
incorporating content host and accessing content from the second content
4
Appeal2014-007037
Application 11/932,774
host through the first content host. The cited portions of Flesner and Buzzell
do not describe such a host arrangement.
The Examiner asserts that Flesner describes accessing a first content
host through the incorporating content host (see Final Act. 3; Ans. 6-7
(citing Flesner iii! 6, 9, 37, and 59; Fig. 2)) and that Buzzell describes
accessing content from a second content host through the first content host
(see Final Act. 3; Ans. 6-7 (citing Buzzell col. 2, 11. 23-25; col. 3, 11. 33--44;
col. 4, 11. 26-31; Figs. 2, 4)). The portions of Flesner and Buzzell cited by
the Examiner, however, do not discuss a third host (the recited second
content host) or second layer of complexity (access content on a third host
through two separate hosts) as recited in Appellant's claim 26. Both
references merely describe accessing content through a single access layer
- Flesner provides access to content (on a different server) through
modules on its portal (Flesner iii! 9, 37) and Buzzell provides access to
dealer information and content (on a different server) through a
manufacturer's website (e-commerce store).
The Examiner merely asserts that:
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in
the art at the time the invention was made to have combined
Buzzell's teaching and Flesner's teaching to include
manufacture[r] web site in the portal page, since the combination
would have provided a portal page that allows the user to access
dealer's web site directly from the manufacture[r]
(Final Act. 3), without providing any explanation how one would combine
Flesner and Buzzell to create the second layer of complexity, or a reasonable
rationale for the combination. Thus, we cannot agree with the Examiner's
interpretation of Flesner and Buzzell.
5
Appeal2014-007037
Application 11/932,774
Consequently, we are constrained by the record before us to find that
the Examiner erred in finding Flesner and Buzzell teach the disputed
limitations of Appellant's claim 26. Claims 27 and 32-34 depend on claim
26. Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner's obviousness rejection of claims
26, 27, and 32-34 over Flesner and Buzzell.
The§ 103 Rejections of Claims 31and35
With respect to the obviousness rejections of dependent claims 31 and
35, rejected as obvious over Flesner and Buzzell as well as Brockhurst '387
and Brockhurst '690, we reverse the Examiner's obviousness rejections for
the same reasons set forth with respect to claim 26 (supra). The Examiner
improperly cites Buzzell as teaching the recited second layer of complexity
(accessing content of a second content host through a first content host).
(See Final Act. 3; Ans. 6-7.) Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner's
obviousness rejections of claims 31 and 35.
CONCLUSION
Appellant has shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 26,
27, and 31-35 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's rejections of claims 26, 27, and 31-35.
REVERSED
6