Ex Parte Consuegra et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 12, 2016

12566934 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 12, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/566,934 0912512009
43699 7590 08/16/2016
Go Daddy Operating Company, LLC
14455 NORTH HAYDEN ROAD
SUITE 219
SCOTTSDALE, AZ 85260
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Mark Consuegra
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.
0168 3321
EXAMINER
SOMERS, MARC S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2159
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/16/2016 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):
inventions@godaddy.com
pat-dept@quarles.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MARK CONSUEGRA, YONG LEE, and
WAYNE THAYER
Appeal2015-003734
Application 12/566,934
Technology Center 2100
Before DEBRA K. STEPHENS, NATHAN A. ENGELS, and
DANIEL J. GALLIGAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
ENGELS, Administrative Patent Judge. 1
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 1-22. No other claims are pending. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
1 Appellants identify Go Daddy Operating Company, LLC as the real party in
interest. Br. 1.
Appeal2015-003734
Application 12/566,934
ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A method, comprising the steps of:
A) receiving, by at least one server computer
communicatively coupled to a network, a request to verify the
authenticity of a social website account, said request comprising
a business name and a business email address comprising a first
domain name, said request being received from an account-based
social website provider;
B) submitting, by said at least one server computer, said
business name to a search engine;
C) receiving, by said at least one server computer
responsive to step B), a search result webpage comprising a
plurality of links, each comprising a domain name;
D) selecting, by said at least one server computer, a most
relevant link from said plurality of links;
E) extracting, by said at least one server computer, a
second domain name from said most relevant link;
F) determining, by said at least one server computer,
whether said first domain name matches said second domain
name;
G) responsive to a determination that said first domain
name matches said second domain name, certifying, by said at
least one server computer, the authenticity of said social website
account to said account-based social website provider; and
H) responsive to a determination that said first domain
name does not match said second domain name, ending said
method.
THE REJECTIONS
Claims 1-22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable in view of various combinations of Lu et al. (US 2009/0248595
Al; Oct. 1, 2009), Tran (US 2008/0168175 Al; July 10, 2008), Bodapati et
2
Appeal2015-003734
Application 12/566,934
al. (US 2010/0312837 Al; Dec. 9, 2010), Beattie et al. (US 2005/0166262
Al; July 28, 2005), Blinn et al. (US 2007 /0067465 Al; Mar. 22, 2007),
Kevin A. Purcell, You Can Use Gmailfor Your Domain, Christian
Computing Magazine (2009), and Description of Domain name,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domain_name (last visited June 18, 2016).
ANALYSIS
Appellants argue the Examiner erred in the rejections of claims 1 and
22 because Tran does not teach or suggest "A) receiving ... a request to
verify the authenticity of a social website account, said request comprising a
business name and a business email address[,] ... from an account-based
social website provider." Br. 5 (emphasis omitted). Specifically, according
to Appellants, "Tran teaches the request (which comprises a business name
and a business email address) to verify the authenticity of a social website
account comes from 'the user of the account,"' and "[ r ]eceiving the request
from the user of the account or member (Tran) does not teach or suggest
receiving the request from an account-based social website provider as
recited in [claims 1 and 22]." Br. 5.
The Examiner's rejection cites, in relevant part, Lu's system for
verifying the authenticity of an account purporting to represent a business in
combination with Tran's teachings of verifying business accounts created on
a social-networking website. See Final Act. 2---6; Ans. 3--4. The Examiner
explains, and we agree, the combination teaches or suggests a social-
networking website such as that taught by Tran, submitting business-account
information to a verification system such as that taught by Lu. Ans. 4.
3
Appeal2015-003734
Application 12/566,934
Appellants' arguments directed to Tran individually do not
substantively address the combined teachings of the cited references and are
therefore unpersuasive. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981) ("one
cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where ...
the rejections are based on combinations of references").
Further, we disagree with Appellants' characterization of Tran as
being limited to teaching verification requests that come from users, as
opposed to requests that come from the claimed "account-based social
website provider." Br. 5._As the Examiner finds, Tran teaches a social-
networking website connected to a web server, and, while Tran teaches that
a user's "claim to be a business owner" may trigger the need for
authentication, Tran additionally describes a social-networking website
sending business information to a server to validate the user's claim. See
Ans. 4--5; Tran Fig. 2, i-fi-128 (if the creator of a social-networking account
"claims to be a business owner and provides content allegedly associated
with a local business, the website performs validation functions to
authenticate the business information"), 30 ("website transmits the
information to its web server"), 48 ("the website will validate whether the
member is the business owner or agent by comparing the member business
information against the business information contained in its database")).
Accordingly, we agree with and adopt as our own the Examiner's
findings, conclusions, and reasons in the rejections of claims 1 and 22, as
well as claims 2-21 which are not argued independently.
4
Appeal2015-003734
Application 12/566,934
DECISION
For the above reasons, we affirm the Examiner's rejections of claims
1-22.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended. 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
5