Ex Parte Mengerink

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jan 30, 2009

11027713 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 30, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
________________

Ex parte MATTHEW MENGERINK
______________

Appeal 2008-3953
Application 11/027,713
Technology Center 3600
________________

Decided: January 30, 2009
________________

Before HUBERT C. LORIN, ANTON W. FETTING, and
JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, Administrative Patent Judges.

JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. §§ 6(b) and 134(a) from the Final
Rejection of claims 1-26.
Representative claim 7 reads as follows:

7. A method for providing feedback data
within an e-commerce system, the method
comprising:
Appeal 2008-3953
Application 11/027,713

2
receiving, by a first feedback server, a search
query request for feedback data from a
user;
locating, by the first feedback server, one or
more feedback servers within a peer-to-peer
network of feedback servers to process the request;
forwarding, by the first feedback server to a
second feedback server, the search query request to
the one or more feedback servers;
generating, by the second feedback server, a
response to the search query request; and
returning, by the second feedback server to the
user, a response to the search query request.

The references set forth below are relied upon as evidence of
anticipation:
Matyas US 6,102,287 Aug. 15, 2000
Rule US 2006/0031177 A1 Feb. 9, 2006

The Examiner rejected claims 1, 3-9, 11-15, 17-22, and 24-26 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated Matyas.
The Examiner rejected claims 2, 10, 16, and 23 under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as being unpatentable over Matyas in view of Rule.
All independent claims 1, 7, 13 and 20 require a peer to peer network
and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Matyas. The
Examiner interprets
a peer-to-peer network [as]… a network of two or
more computers that use the same program or type
of program to communicate and share data. Each
computer, or peer, is considered equal in terms of
responsibilities and each acts as a server to the
others in the network. Unlike a client/server
architecture, a dedicated file server is not required.

Appeal 2008-3953
Application 11/027,713

3
(Answer 9.)

Appellant argues however that the system in Matyas is not a peer to
peer system in that:
Matyas discloses an evaluator's server system that
receives a request from a buyer's client system and
communicates a response to the buyer's client
system. Indeed, the above quote from Matyas
simply does not disclose a peer-to-peer network of
feedback servers. Rather, the above quote from
Matyas discloses a single evaluator's server system
receiving a request and responding to the request.

(Appeal Br. 13.)

Our understanding of a peer to peer computer network is based on the
following definition:
A peer-to-peer (or P2P) computer network uses
diverse connectivity between participants in a
network and the cumulative bandwidth of
network participants rather than conventional
centralized resources where a relatively low
number of servers provide the core value to a
service or application. P2P networks are
typically used for connecting nodes via largely
ad hoc connections. Such networks are useful
for many purposes. Sharing content files (see
file sharing) containing audio, video, data or
anything in digital format is very common, and
real time data, such as telephony traffic, is also
passed using P2P technology.

A pure P2P network does not have the notion of
clients or servers but only equal peer nodes that
simultaneously function as both "clients" and
"servers" to the other nodes on the network.
Appeal 2008-3953
Application 11/027,713

4
This model of network arrangement differs
from the client-server model where
communication is usually to and from a central
server. A typical example of a file transfer that
is not P2P is an FTP server where the client and
server programs are quite distinct: the clients
initiate the download/uploads, and the servers
react to and satisfy these requests.

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer-to-peer.)
Thus, the pivotal issue on appeal is what constitutes a peer to peer
computer network, and accordingly, if Matyas discloses such a system.
The Examiner (Answer 9) refers to each of the servers loading the
various browsers as evidence that the servers are peers to each other. But,
multiple client server couplets do not equate to a peer to peer network. The
Examiner maintains that the use of TCP/IP and public key cryptography is
evidence that each computer uses the same software (Answer 9). While we
agree with the Examiner that in this example, plural computers are using the
same software, simply using the same software is not evidence of a peer to
peer network, only that some communication may be occurring between
servers. A data base server and client use the same data base software, and
will also use TCP/IP if done over the internet – but they still form a client
server network and not a peer to peer network. The Examiner’s construction
of a peer to peer network has this same problem – defining such a network
as one which uses the same software. Again, the Examiner’s example just
means two computers communicate potentially, not that they are peers in
terms of processing. This is further evidenced by Matyas disclosing that its
FIG. 3 illustrates a representative client-server network environment in
which the present invention may be practiced (14:4-6).
Appeal 2008-3953
Application 11/027,713

5
Accordingly, we cannot sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) rejection of
claims 1, 7, 13 and 20 based on Matyas.
With regard to remaining dependent claims rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
102(e), because these claim rejections rely upon the underlying rejection of
independent claims 1, 7, 13 and 20, we also reverse the Examiner’s rejection
of these claims. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1074 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
Since claims 2, 10, 16, and 23 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Matyas in view of Rule does not remedy the
deficiency above, the rejection of these claims is also reversed.
We thus reverse the rejection of claims 1, 3-9, 11-15, 17-22, and 24-
26 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated Matyas.

REVERSED

hh

SCHWEGMAN, LUNDBERG & WOESSNER/EBAY
P.O. BOX 2938
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402