Ex Parte Beveridge

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 26, 2009

09658951 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 26, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE 1
____________________ 2
3
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS 4
AND INTERFERENCES 5
____________________ 6
7
Ex parte LYNELLE UNGH-THANH BEVERIDGE 8
____________________ 9
10
Appeal 2008-001758 11
Application 09/658,951 12
Technology Center 3600 13
____________________ 14
15
Decided:1 June 26, 2009 16
____________________ 17
18
Before: MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, ANTON W. FETTING, and JOSEPH 19
A. FISCHETTI, Administrative Patent Judges. 20
21
CRAWFORD, Administrative Patent Judge. 22
23
24
DECISION ON APPEAL 25
26
STATEMENT OF THE CASE27

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, begins to run from the decided date
shown on this page of the decision. The time period does not run from the
Mail Date (paper delivery) or Notification Date (electronic delivery).
Appeal 2008-001758
Application 09/658,951

2
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 (2002) from a final rejection 1
of claims 1 to 14. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2002). 2
Appellant invented a method of resourcing staff to an event 3
(Specification 2). 4
Claim 1 under appeal reads as follows: 5
1. A method of resourcing staff to an 6
event, comprising the steps of: 7
8
a) identifying a candidate for staffing of an 9
event; 10
b) forwarding an e-mail message by a 11
resource management system to the candidate, 12
wherein the e-mail message includes a user 13
identification and invites the candidate to a first 14
Internet web site for registering to staff the event, 15
wherein the user identification is for the candidate 16
to enter for gaining access to a second Internet web 17
site, and wherein the e-mail message includes a 18
link to the first Internet web site; 19
_ c) connecting with the candidate at the first 20
Internet web site responsive to the link in the e-21
mail message taking the candidate to a web page 22
using an Internet browser; 23
d) providing information and instruction on 24
the web page for displaying to the candidate, 25
including instruction for connecting with the 26
second web site and a request for the candidate to 27
supply certain information to the second web site 28
for registering; 29
e) receiving confirmation from the candidate 30
that the candidate has the certain information ready 31
for supplying to the second web site; 32
f) granting the candidate access to the 33
second web site responsive to receiving i) the 34
confirmation from the candidate that the candidate 35
has the certain information ready for supplying to 36
Appeal 2008-001758
Application 09/658,951

3
the second web site and ii) the user identification; 1
and 2
g) receiving the requested information for 3
registration from the candidate by the second web 4
site. 5
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on 6
appeal is: 7
Appleman US 5,918,010 Jun. 29, 1999 8
Rasansky US 5,960,406 Sep. 28, 1999 9
Furst US 6,297,819 B1 Oct. 2, 2001 10
Thompson US 6,334,133 B1 Dec. 25, 2001 11
Harrington US 6,480,958 B1 Nov. 12, 2002 12
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 9 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as 13
being unpatentable over Furst in view of Rasansky, and Appleman. 14
The Examiner rejected claims 2, 5 to 7, 12, and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 15
103(a) as being unpatentable over Furst in view of Rasansky, Appleman, and 16
Thompson. 17
The Examiner rejected claims 3, 4, 8, 10, and 11 under 35 U.S.C. 18
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Furst in view of Rasansky, Appleman, 19
and Harrington. 20
21
ISSUES 22
Has Appellant shown that the Examiner erred in finding that Furst 23
discloses the step of forwarding an electronic message by a resource 24
management system to the candidate, wherein the electronic message 25
includes a user identification and invites the candidate to a first Internet web 26
Appeal 2008-001758
Application 09/658,951

4
site for registering to staff an event, wherein the user identification is for the 1
candidate to enter for gaining access to a second Internet web site, wherein 2
the electronic message includes a link to the first Internet web site? 3
4
FINDINGS OF FACT 5
Appellant’s Specification discloses that an e-mail is sent to a 6
candidate for staffing an event. The e-mail includes a user identification and 7
password and a link to a first website. Once at the first website the user 8
must enter the user identification and password to gain access to a second 9
web site. The user registers at the second web site (Specification 6). 10
Furst discloses a method for registering with a browser-aware 11
application delivery system (“System”). To register, a user goes to the 12
System web site. The System determines whether the user’s web browser is 13
supported and queries the user on whether the user desires to register. If the 14
user answers in the affirmative, the System downloads software and places a 15
Service start icon in the Windows link (col. 14, ll. 51 to 64). The user fills in 16
mandatory fields on the Modified Profile page and selects Submit 17
Registration (col. 14, ll. 65 to 66). To complete registration and be 18
recognized by the System, the user clicks on the URL link, “Thanks for 19
Registering,” and receives a user ID in the form of a cookie (col. 15, ll. 30 to 20
55). Thereafter, when the user wishes to access the registered user portion 21
of the System, the user’s computer sends the cookie to the System server to 22
initiate connection (col. 4, ll. 58 to 62). 23
In each of the rejections, the Examiner relies on Furst for teaching the 24
step of forwarding an electronic message to a candidate that includes a user 25
Appeal 2008-001758
Application 09/658,951

5
identification and invites the candidate to a first Internet web site for 1
registering, wherein the user identification is for the candidate to enter for 2
gaining access to a second web site. The Examiner relies on column 4, lines 3
57 to 62 of Furst to support this finding which states: 4
In registering a user, the System sends to the 5
user’s computer a cookie that holds the user’s 6
identity. When the client 124 is launched, either 7
automatically when the user launches the web 8
browser 112 or otherwise, the client sends the 9
cookie to the a [sic.] System server to initiate a 10
connection with the System. 11
In the Examiner’s view, the cookie is the electronic message that contains 12
the user’s identification and invites the user to a first Internet web site for 13
registering. 14
The Examiner relies on Rasansky in each of the rejections for 15
teaching a scheduling system that includes forwarding an email message to a 16
non-member of a web site. 17
PRINCIPLES OF LAW 18
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, it is incumbent upon the 19
Examiner to establish a factual basis to support the legal conclusion of 20
obviousness. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1073 (Fed. Cir. 1988). 21
22
ANALYSIS 23
We will not sustain the rejections of the Examiner because, in our 24
view, Furst does not disclose forwarding an electronic message by a 25
resource management system to the candidate wherein the electronic 26
message includes a user identification and invites the candidate to a first 27
Appeal 2008-001758
Application 09/658,951

6
Internet web site for registering, wherein the user identification is for the 1
candidate to enter for gaining access to a second Internet web site. The 2
cookie that is sent in Furst is sent after the user has assessed the Internet web 3
site for registering and in fact is the last step in the registration process. In 4
addition, the cookie can not be said to be user identification for the 5
candidate to enter as it is automatically sent by the user’s computer when 6
the System is launched. 7
8
CONCLUSION OF LAW 9
On the record before us, Appellant has shown that the Examiner erred 10
in finding that Furst discloses the step of forwarding an electronic message 11
by a resource management system to the candidate, wherein the electronic 12
message includes a user identification and invites the candidate to a first 13
Internet web site for registering to staff an event, wherein the user 14
identification is for the candidate to enter for gaining access to a second 15
Internet web site, wherein the electronic message includes a link to the first 16
Internet web site. 17
18
DECISION 19
The decision of the Examiner is reversed. 20
21
REVERSED 22
Appeal 2008-001758
Application 09/658,951

7
hh 1
2
IBM ENDICOTT (ANTHONY ENGLAND) 3
LAW OFFICE OF ANTHONY ENGLAND 4
P.O. Box 5307 5
AUSTIN, TX 78763-5307 6
7