10370936 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 23, 2012)

Ex Parte Creig Humes

Board of Patent Appeals and InterferencesJan 23, 2012

10370936 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 23, 2012)

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. 10/370,936 02/19/2003 Donald Creig Humes SYMC102202 1599 34350 7590 01/24/2012 MCKAY AND HODGSON LLP 1900 GARDEN ROAD, SUITE 220 MONTEREY, CA 93940 EXAMINER WINDER, PATRICE L ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2452 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/24/2012 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES ____________ Ex parte DONALD CREIG HUMES ____________ Appeal 2009-010942 Application 10/370,936 Technology Center 2400 ____________ Before LANCE LEONARD BARRY, DEBRA K. STEPHENS, and JAMES R. HUGHES, Administrative Patent Judges. BARRY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE The Patent Examiner rejected claims 13-18 and 31-40. The Appellant appeals therefrom under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). Appeal 2009-010942 Application 10/370,936 2 INVENTION The Appellant describes the invention at issue on appeal as follows. [A] request [for a web page] is sequentially filtered at three different levels, if necessary. First, the URL [i.e., uniform resource locator] requested is filtered to determine if the web page associated with that URL has been pre-approved or pre- denied. If the URL has not be pre-approved or pre-denied, the header of the web page is then filtered to determine if the web page contains text data (such as [hypertext markup language]). If so, the body of the web page is filtered. . . . [D]epending on its processing of the body of the web page, the filter may deny access completely to the web page, deny access to certain portions of the web page (i. e., filter out some objectionable words), or allow complete access to the webpage. (Spec. 6.) ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM 13. A method for filtering a requested web page, the requested web page having a Uniform Resource Locator (URL) portion, a header portion, and a body portion, the method comprising: obtaining the URL portion of the requested web page; filtering the URL portion to determine if access to the requested web page is denied based upon the URL portion; determining if access to the requested web page is denied based upon the URL portion; if it is determined that access to the requested web page is denied based upon the URL portion, providing an output indicating that access to the requested-web page is denied; if it is determined that access to the requested web page is not denied based upon the URL portion, determining if the requested web page is to be output based upon the URL portion; if it is determined that the requested web page is to be output based upon the URL portion, obtaining the requested web page and providing an output of the requested web page; Appeal 2009-010942 Application 10/370,936 3 if it is determined that the requested web page is not to be output based upon the URL portion, obtaining the header portion of the requested web page; filtering the header portion to determine if access to the requested web page is denied based upon the header portion; determining if access to the requested web page is denied based upon the header portion; if it is determined that access to the requested web page is denied based upon the header portion, providing the output indicating that access to the requested web page is denied; and if it is determined that access to the requested web page is not denied based upon the header portion, obtaining and filtering the body portion of the requested web page for target content. REJECTION Claims 13-18 and 31-40 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 102(e) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 6,049,821 ("Theriault"). DISCUSSION Based on the dependencies of the claims, we will decide the appeal of claims 13-18, 31-35, and 36-40 on the basis of independent claims 13, 31, and 36, respectively. Therefore, the issue before us follows. Did the Examiner err in finding that Theriault discloses obtaining all or a part of a header of a requested web page and filtering the header thereof to make a determination, as required by independent claims 13, 31, and 36? "It is axiomatic that anticipation of a claim under Â§ 102 can be found only if the prior art reference discloses every element of the claim, and that anticipation is a fact question . . . ." In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (citing Lindemann Maschinenfabrik GMBH v. Am. Hoist & Derrick Co., 730 F.2d 1452, 1457 (Fed. Cir. 1984)). Appeal 2009-010942 Application 10/370,936 4 Here, Theriault explains that "[a]ccess to an information source may be restricted according to the protocol contained in the URL of the query. For example, the proxy may be configured to deny access to information sources of a specific type such as gopher, ftp (file transfer protocol) or email." (Col. 14, l. 66 â€“ col. 15, l. 3.) "[D]etails of this process are illustrated in the flow diagram of FIG. 9." (Col. 15, ll. 17-18.) The Examiner finds that the reference discloses "obtaining the header portion of the filtering requested web page (column 15, lines 19-44); [and] filtering the header portion to determine if access to the requested web page is denied based upon the header portion (column 15, lines 36-44) . . . ." (Ans. 4.) The cited parts of Theriault explain that "[i]n step 1000 of FIG. 9, the contents of a query are extracted to obtain URL reference information" (Col. 15, ll. 19- 20), and that "the proxy compares the URL of the query 160 to its restricted site list to determine if access is permitted." (Id. at ll. 36-38.) In other words, the reference extracts a URL from a query for a web page and uses the extracted URL for filtering. We agree with the Appellant (App. Br. 11- 12) that the claimed "'header portion of the requested web page' is a returned header portion of the web page and is thus distinguishable from a URL extracted from a query as taught by Theriault et al." (App. Br. 20.) Thus, we find Theriault does not disclose the disputed limitation. Because we agree with at least one of the arguments advanced by Appellant, we need not reach the merits of Appellant's other arguments. Therefore, we conclude that the Examiner erred in finding Theriault discloses obtaining all or a part of a header of a requested web page and filtering the header of part thereof to make a determination, as required by independent claims 13, 31, and 36. Appeal 2009-010942 Application 10/370,936 5 DECISION We reverse the rejection of claims 13, 31, and 36 and of claims 14-18, 32-35, and 37-40, which depend therefrom. REVERSED tkl