Ex Parte Kim et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Aug 28, 2012

09766473 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 28, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte STEVEN D. KIM and LIOR ELAZARY
____________

Appeal 2010-000998
Application 09/766,473
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO, BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, and
JEFFREY S. SMITH, Administrative Patent Judges.

RUGGIERO, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2010-000998
Application 09/766,473

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 8, 9, 12-15, 18, 22, 23, and 26-38.1 Claims 1-7, 10, 11,
16, 17, 19-21, 24, and 25 have been canceled. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner,
we refer to the Appeal Brief (revised, filed Apr. 17, 2009), the Answer
(mailed Aug. 19, 2009), and the Reply Brief (filed Oct. 19, 2009).

Appellants’ Invention
Appellants’ invention relates to the synchronization of configuration
parameters on a server with a database of stored configuration parameters.
After a database of configuration parameters is updated, the server is
automatically updated in accordance with the database updates to
automatically maintain synchronization between the server configuration
and the database. See generally Spec. 3:8-17.
Claim 12 is illustrative of the invention and reads as follows:
12. A method of synchronizing configuration parameters on a
server with a database of stored configuration parameters comprising:
automatically updating at least one application program configuration
parameter on the server in response to receiving an update of at least one
corresponding stored application configuration parameter in said database,
the update initiated by a particular customer of a web hosting provider,

1 As noted by Appellants, dependent claims 34-38 inadvertently recite “The
system of claim 33” instead of properly reciting “The method of claim 33.”
Appellants express their intent to correct the discrepancy following this
appeal (App. Br. 2).
Appeal 2010-000998
Application 09/766,473

3
wherein each application program configuration parameter defines at
least in part a quantity of a resource on the server available to the particular
customer of a web hosting provider.

The Examiner’s Rejections
The Examiner’s Answer cites the following prior art references:
Wall US 2001/0037380 A1 Nov. 1, 2001
(eff. filed Apr. 24, 2000)
Frailong US 6,496,858 B1 Dec. 17, 2002
(filed Nov. 5, 1999)
Dan US 6,560,639 B1 May 6, 2003
(filed Feb. 12, 1999)
Wilson US 6,718,347 B1 Apr. 6, 2004
(filed Jan. 5, 1999)

Claims 12, 14, 18, 26, 27, 29, 33, 34, and 36-38 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Frailong in view of Wall.
Claims 8 and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Frailong in view of Wall and Wilson.
Claims 13, 15, 22, 23, 28, 30-32, and 35 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Frailong in view of Wall and
Dan.

ANALYSIS
Claims 12, 14, 18, 26, 27, 29, 33, 34, and 36-38
Appellants contend, with respect to the obviousness rejection of
independent claims 12, 18, 26, and 33, that Wall does not overcome what the
Examiner has identified as the deficiency in Frailong (Ans. 4). This
deficiency is the failure to teach a configuration parameter which defines a
quantity of a resource available to a user, a feature present in each of the
Appeal 2010-000998
Application 09/766,473

4
appealed independent claims. According to Appellants, while Wall teaches
(¶¶ [0027]-[0028]) that an administrator can make changes to the content of
a web site by adding pages stored on a server, and that such web pages affect
the quantity of memory space resource in use by the server, such a teaching
does not amount to defining a quantity of an available resource as claimed
(App. Br. 5-7; Reply Br. 1-3).
We agree with Appellants. As argued by Appellants (Reply Br. 3),
the actions taken by the administrator in Wall that affect the quantity of a
memory space that is being used on Wall’s server, such as adding web pages
to a web site, does not define an amount of resource available to a user.
Further, we agree with Appellants (id.) that even assuming, arguendo, that
actions taken by Wall’s administrator could be construed as defining the
amount of memory space in use at a particular time, such a teaching does not
amount to defining the quantity of a resource, e.g., memory space, that is
available to an administrator/user as claimed.
In view of the above discussion, since we are of the opinion that the
proposed combination of references set forth by the Examiner does not
support the obviousness rejection, we do not sustain the rejection of
independent claims 12, 18, 26, and 33, nor of claims 14, 27, 29, 34, and 36-
38 dependent thereon.

CONCLUSION OF LAW
Based on the analysis above, we conclude that the Examiner erred in
rejecting claims 8, 9, 12-15, 18, 22, 23, and 26-38 for obviousness under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

Appeal 2010-000998
Application 09/766,473

5
DECISION
The Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 8, 9, 12-15, 18,
22, 23, and 26-38, all of the appealed claims, is reversed.

REVERSED

babc