Ex Parte Parsons et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 24, 2014

12140459 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 24, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte ROBERT PARSONS, WARREN ADELMAN,
MICHAEL CHADWICK and ERIC WAGNER
___________

Appeal 2012-004664
Application 12/140,459
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., JEFFREY S. SMITH, and
CATHERINE SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judges.

WHITEHEAD JR., Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants are appealing the final rejection of claims 21-38 under 35
U.S.C. § 134(a). Appeal Brief 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b) (2012).
We affirm.
Introduction
The invention is directed to “the field of Domain Names and Remote
Computing and, more specifically, systems and methods for using a domain
name in conjunction with a client to access a remote computer or server
system in a hosting provider's data center.” Specification 1.

Appeal 2012-004664
Application 12/140,459
2

Representative Claim (disputed limitations emphasized)
21. A system comprising:
a. a remote desktop program displayed on one or more client computers
communicatively coupled to a network;
b. a virtual workstation environment hosted on one or more server
computers and resolving, after authentication, from a domain name
registered to a registrant, wherein the virtual workstation environment is
controlled by the remote desktop program;
c. an online community comprising one or more software applications
hosted by one or more software vendors and configured to receive from the
registrant a selection of the one or more software applications;
d. a hosting control panel hosted on the one or more server computers
hosting the virtual workstation environment and configured to:
i. install, on the one or more server computers, one or more software
applications available from the one or more software vendors; and
ii. receive from the registrant, via one or more data entry fields on the
hosting control panel, a selected sub domain and a uniform resource locator
for a path within the virtual workstation environment to the one or more
software applications; and
e. a web browser configured to display the one or more software applications
on the remote desktop program responsive to the registrant entering the
selected sub domain concatenated to the domain name into the web browser
on the one or more client computers, wherein the remote desktop program is
embedded in the web browser.

Rejections on Appeal
Claims 21-38 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory
obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 18-35
of copending Application Number 12/140,454. Answer 6-10.
Claims 21-38 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory
obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 21-38
of copending Application Number 12/140,450. Answer 10-14.
Appeal 2012-004664
Application 12/140,459
3

Claims 36-37 rejected under 35 U.S.C. §112, second paragraph, as
being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the
subject matter which applicant regards as the invention. Answer 14.
Claims 21-27, 34-35 and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as
being unpatentable over Plesk 8.3 for Windows Administrator’s Guide and
cPanel User Guide and Tutorial. Answer 14-20.
Claims 28-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Plesk, cPanel and Reisman (US Patent Application
Publication Number 2003/0229900 A1; published December 11, 2003).
Answer 20-22.
Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable
over Plesk, cPanel and Damico (US Patent Number 5,819,285; issued
October 6, 1998). Answer 22-23.
Claims 32 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Plesk, cPanel and Galea (US Patent Application
Publication Number 2007/0008973 A1; published January 11, 2007).
Answer 23-24.
Claims 36 and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Plesk, cPanel and IBM’s “Cloud Computing.” Answer
24-25.

ANALYSIS
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner,
we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed September 29, 2011), the Answer (mailed
December 22, 2011) and Reply Brief (January 31, 2012) for the respective
details.

Appeal 2012-004664
Application 12/140,459
4

Double Patenting Rejections
Appellants filed terminal disclaimers to overcome the double
patenting rejections (Appeal Brief 10) however the Examiner maintained the
rejections because the terminal disclaimers were not approved (Answer 26).
Furthermore, Appellants did not address the merits of the double patenting
rejections therefore we sustain the double patenting rejections of claims 21-
38.

35 U.S.C. §112, Second Paragraph Rejection
Appellants argue that references to “the cloud” as well as “the
internet” can be used without confusion to one of ordinary skill in the art
because the terms are well known. Appeal Brief 10-11. The Examiner finds
“‘the cloud’ could be any of a variety of public networks or other
networking segments, it is not clear what ‘the cloud’ is referring back to”
and “Therefore there is clear lack of antecedent basis with regards to the
phrase ‘the cloud.’” Answer 27.
We find Appellants’ arguments persuasive because the cloud
terminology is a term of art and does not render the claim “indefinite”
because of a lack on antecedence. See id. at 14.

35 U.S.C. §103 Rejection
Appellants contend “the CPanel reference is absolutely silent
regarding an online community made up of one or more software vendors.”
Reply Brief 4. Appellants further contend the CPanel reference only
discloses a Scripts Library that is a sharp contrast to the definition of a
software community as defined in Appellants’ Specification [0088] and
recited in independent claim 21. See id.
Appeal 2012-004664
Application 12/140,459
5

The Examiner finds the CPanel reference discloses an online
community on pages 96-99 and 107-109 in the form of PHP nuke, phpwiki
as well as other software applications. Answer 17.
We do not agree with the Examiner’s findings. We find Appellants’
arguments persuasive because the CPanel sections cited by the Examiner
only discloses a script library as Appellants contend. See CPanel, pages 96-
99 and 107-109; Appeal Brief 7-9. The Examiner attempts to support his
findings by citing additional CPanel paragraphs however, the additional
paragraphs fail to support his findings. See Answer 36. Consequently, we
do not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of independent claim
21, as well as, dependent claims 22-38 which depend upon 21.

DECISION
The Examiner’s provisional nonstatutory obviousness-type double
patenting rejections of claims 21-38 are sustained.
The Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. §112, second paragraph, rejection of claim
36-37 is reversed.
The Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejections of claims 21-38 are
reversed.

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). See
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f).

AFFIRMED

lv