Ex Parte Pritchett et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 21, 2015

11687518 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 21, 2015)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
11/687,518 03/16/2007 Dan L. Pritchett
49845 7590 12/23/2015
SCHWEGMAN LUNDBERG & WOESSNER/EBAY
P.O. BOX 2938
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402
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.
2043.317US 1 8334
EXAMINER
SWEARINGEN, JEFFREY R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2445
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/23/2015 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):
USPTO@SLWIP.COM
SLW@blackhillsip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DAN L. PRITCHETT, IAN FLINT, and
CONNIE Y. YANG
Appeal2014-002312
Application 11/687 ,518
Technology Center 2400
Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, DEBRA K. STEPHENS, and
WILLIAM M. FINK, Administrative Patent Judges.
STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a final rejection of
claims 1-21. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
STATEMENT OF THE INVENTION
According to Appellants, the claims are directed to a system and
method for managing network traffic routing. A server receives and
Appeal2014-002312
Application 11/687 ,518
processes a search request to determine a context of the search request, and
based on the context, determine a network route to an application server
having the closest geographic proximity to the most relevant database
associated with the context. (Abstract). Claim 1, reproduced below, is
representative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method, including:
receiving network traffic at a server, the network traffic
including one or more data requests;
processing one data request of the one or more data requests
to determine a context of the network traffic, the
determining including inspecting the one data request and
determining the context from the one data request based on
contents contained within the one data request; and
determining, based on the context, a network route to an
application server having the closest geographic proximity
to a relevant database associated with the context of the one
data request.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Marcus
Parekh
US 6,295,528 Bl Sep. 25, 2001
US 2005/0021853 Al Jan. 27, 2005
REJECTIONS
Claims 1-3, 7-10, 14--17, and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Marcus and Parekh (Final Act. 4--6).
2
Appeal2014-002312
Application 11/687 ,518
Claims 4--6, 11-13, and 18-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as unpatentable over Marcus, Parekh, and Applicants' Admitted Prior
Art (AAP A) (Final Act. 7-8).
We have only considered those arguments that Appellants actually
raised in the Brief. Arguments Appellants could have made but chose not to
make in the Brief have not been considered and are deemed to be waived.
See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2012).
ISSUES
35 USC§ 103(a): Claims 1-3, 7-10, 14-17, and 21
Appellants assert their invention is not obvious over Marcus and
Parekh (App. Br. 8-10). The issues presented by the arguments are:
Issue 1: Has the Examiner erred in finding the combination of
Marcus and Parekh teaches or suggests "determining the context from the
one data request based on contents contained within the one data request," as
recited in claim 1 and commensurately recited in claims 9 and 16?
Issue 2: Has the Examiner erred in finding the combination of
Marcus and Parekh teaches or suggests "determining, based on the context, a
network route to an application server having the closest geographic
proximity to a relevant database associated with the context of the one data
request," as recited in claim 1 and commensurately recited in claims 2, 9,
and 16?
3
Appeal2014-002312
Application 11/687 ,518
ANALYSIS
Appellants first argue the Examiner's definition of the elements is
unrelated to the claim elements (App. Br. 9). Appellants assert Parekh fails
to disclose the context is determined from contents contained within the data
request and instead, describes determining a geographic location of Internet
users from which a query is made (id.). Thus, Appellants contend, Parekh
routes Internet visitors based on geographic distance with no consideration
of the context of the data request where the context is based on contents
within the data request (id.). Moreover, according to Appellants, Marcus
also fails to teach or suggest the disputed limitations (id. at 9--10).
Appellants additionally argue Marcus does not teach determining a
network route to an application server having the closes geographic
proximity to a relevant database associated with the context of the one data
request (id. at 10).
We are not persuaded. Initially, as a matter of claim construction, we
find the term "context" is not explicitly defined in the Specification.
Appellants have not proffered sufficient evidence or argument to persuade
us the Examiner's interpretation is in error. Thus, we determine the term
"context," interpreted broadly, in light of the Specification, encompasses the
Examiner's interpretation. It follows, Appellants have not persuaded us
Marcus and Parekh fails to teach or suggest the disputed limitations.
Specifically, Appellants argue Parekh does fails to disclose the
context is determined from contents contained within the data request (App.
Br. 9); however, the Examiner relies on Marcus as teaching this limitation
and Parekh as teaching, based on context, a network route to an application
server having the closest geographic proximity to a relevant database
4
Appeal2014-002312
Application 11/687 ,518
associated with the context of the one data request (Final Act. 4--5; Ans. 3).
In particular, the Examiner finds, and we agree, Marcus teaches determining
the context (geographic location from where the query originates) from the
one data request (URL) based on contents (geographic location input
parameter) contained within the one data request (URL) (Ans. 3; Marcus,
3:45---62). We further agree with the Examiner that Marcus teaches the
geographic location input parameter is converted to a direct marketing area
using a database that converts geographic areas to direct marketing areas (a
relevant database associated with the context of the one data request) (Ans.
3; Marcus, 3:45---62, 4:49---61).
Moreover, we agree with the Examiner that Parekh teaches selecting a
route to an application server having the closest geographic proximity (Ans.
3; Final Act. 5; Parekh i-fi-f 13, 42, 69). Specifically, Parekh teaches the
geographic location information may be used in routing of Internet traffic
(Parekh i-fi-f 13, 42, 69). Additionally, Parekh teaches determining the
appropriate information to be delivered including the type of content, what
content, what advertising, and/or the extent of content, based on geographic
location (id. i1 69).
Therefore, we are not persuaded the combination of Marcus and
Parekh fails to teach or suggest "determining the context from the one data
request based on contents contained within the one data request," as recited
in claims 1, 9, and 16; and "determining, based on the context, a network
route to an application server having the closest geographic proximity to a
relevant database associated with the context of the one data request," as
recited in independent claims 1, 2, 9, and 16.
5
Appeal2014-002312
Application 11/687 ,518
Appellants have not proffered sufficient evidence or argument to the
Examiner erred in finding the combination of Marcus and Parekh teaches or
suggests the limitations as recited in independent claims 1, 2, 9, and 16 and
the dependent claims not separately argued or that the combination of the
references would not have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan.
Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claims 1-3, 7-10, 14--17, and 21 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for obviousness over Marcus and Parekh.
35 US.C. § 103(a): Claims 4-6, 11-13, and 18-20
Appellants do not separately argue claims 4--6, 11-13, and 18-20, but
instead rely on the arguments that independent claims 1, 9, and 16 are
patentable (App. Br. 11 ). Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claims 4--6,
11-13, and 18-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for obviousness over Marcus,
Parekh, and AAP A.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1-3, 7-10, 14--17, and 21 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Marcus and Parekh is
affirmed.
The Examiner's rejection of claims 4--6, 11-13, and 18-20 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Marcus, Parekh, and AAPA is
affirmed.
6
Appeal2014-002312
Application 11/687 ,518
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
sl
7