Ex Parte Reynolds

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 22, 2018

14255867 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 22, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/255,867 04/17/2014
43699 7590 03/26/2018
Go Daddy Operating Company, LLC
14455 NORTH HAYDEN ROAD
SUITE 219
SCOTTSDALE, AZ 85260
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Daymion T. Reynolds
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.
0384 (134140.00184) 9722
EXAMINER
NGUYEN, TRUONG
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2449
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/26/2018 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):
inventions@godaddy.com
pat-dept@quarles.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DAYMION T. REYNOLDS
Appeal2017-009182
Application 14/255,867
Technology Center 2400
Before JEAN R. HOMERE, BETH Z. SHAW, and
DAVID J. CUTITTA II, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOMERE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1-22, which constitute all claims pending in this application. 1
Claims App'x. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
1 Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Go Daddy Operating
Company, LLC. App. Br. 2.
Appeal2017-009182
Application 14/255,867
Introduction
According to Appellant, the claimed subject matter relates to a reverse
proxy server (110) that acts as an intermediary between a client (100), and a
plurality of hosting server websites (150, 160, 170). Fig. 1. In particular,
upon identifying a domain name (151, 152, 161, 162, 163, 171) within an
incoming request received from the client (100), the reverse proxy server
(110) uses domain name routing rules (140) rather than the domain name
system (DNS) to fulfill the request by locating a resource stored on a
plurality of hosting servers (150, 160, 170) based on the identified domain
name. Spec. i1i12-10, 48, Fig. 1.
Representative Claim
Independent claim 1 is representative, and reads as follows:
1. A system, comprising:
(a) a plurality of hosting servers hosting a plurality of websites;
and
(b) a reverse proxy server comprising one or more hardware
servers and software,
(i) wherein the software comprises domain name
routing rules,
(ii) wherein the domain name routing rules are
configured to receive a domain name, in an
incoming request to the reverse proxy server, and
locate a resource stored on the plurality of hosing
servers based on the doemain name without using
a domain name system (DNS), and
(iii) wherin the reverse proxy server acts as an
intermediary for the plurality of hosign servers and
a client and the reverse proxy server returns
resources pro vied by the plurality of hosing servers
to the client.
2
Appeal2017-009182
Application 14/255,867
Ashley et al.
Bhat et al.
Gilroy et al.
Erb
Prior Art Relied Upon
US 2006/0031442 Al
US 2007/0150563 al
US 2007 /0283028 Al
US 2015/0271132 Al
Rejections on Appeal
Feb.9,2006
Jun.28,2007
Dec. 6, 2007
Sep.24,2015
Claims 1-22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to
non-statutory subject matter. Final Act. 2--4.
Claims 1-9, 11, 12, 14, 16-18, 20, and 22 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Erb and
Ashley. Final Act. 4--12.
Claim 10 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over the combination of Erb, Ashley, and Bhat. Final Act. 12-13.
Claims 13, 15, 19, and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over the combination of Erb, Ashley, and Gilroy. Final
Act. 13-14.
ANALYSIS
We consider Appellant's arguments seriatim, as they are presented in
the Appeal Brief, pages 7-15. 2
2 Rather than reiterate Appellant's arguments, and the Examiner's findings
in their entirety, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed August 19, 2016), and
the Answer (mailed November 2, 2016) ("Ans.") for the respective details.
We have considered in this Decision only those arguments Appellant
actually raised in the Briefs. Any other arguments Appellant could have
made but chose not to make in the Briefs are deemed to be waived. See
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
3
Appeal2017-009182
Application 14/255,867
Patent Ineligibility Rejection
Appellant argues the Examiner erred in concluding that claims 1-22
are directed to an abstract idea because the rejection is removed from the
actual claim limitations. App. Br. 7. Further, Appellant argues because the
claimed reverse proxy server is a novel computer configuration comprising
domain routing rules to act as an intermediary between the client computers
and hosting servers, it is directed to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Id. at 8. According to Appellant, because the claims are directed to
technological improvements, they are patent eligible under section 101. Id.
at 9-11 (citing Enfish). 3 Furthermore, Appellant alleges that the claimed
subject matter is instead directed to a technological solution only made
possible when implemented in a computer network based context, and it is
thereby necessarily rooted in computer technology to overcome a problem
specifically arising in the realm of computer networks. Id. at 11 (citing DDR
Holdings). 4
These arguments are persuasive. The U.S. Supreme Court provides a
two-step test for determining whether a claim is directed to patent-eligible
subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.5 In the first step, we determine
whether the claims are directed to one or more judicial exceptions (i.e., law
of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract ideas) to the four statutory
categories of invention (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, and
composition of matter). Id. (citations omitted) (citing Mayo Collaborative
Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289, 1296-97 (2012))
3 Enfzsh, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327 (2016).
4 DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1257 (Fed. Cir.
2014)
5 Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int 'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2354 (2014).
4
Appeal2017-009182
Application 14/255,867
("Mayo"). In the second step, we "consider the elements of each claim both
individually and 'as an ordered combination' to determine whether the
additional elements 'transform the nature of the claim' into a patent-eligible
application." Id. (citing Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1297-98). In other words, the
second step is to "search for an 'inventive concept'-i.e., an element or
combination of elements that is 'sufficient to ensure that the patent in
practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the [ineligible
concept] itself."' Id. (citing Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294).
At the outset, we note our disagreement with the Examiner's
conclusion that the claims are directed merely to the abstract idea of using
categories to organize, store, and transmit information (e.g., accessing and
combining hierarchically organized information in response to a request).
Final Act. 3 (citing Cyberfone Systems). 6 Although we agree with the
Examiner that the claimed reverse proxy server comprising domain routing
rules is not novel, we do not agree with the Examiner's overgeneralized
characterization of the claimed subject matter as being directed to an abstract
idea such as organizing human activity or a fundamental economic practice.
Ans. 4. The Federal Circuit, applying the Supreme Court's Alice
framework, cautions that "describing the claims at such a high level of
abstraction and untethered from the language of the claims all but ensures
that the exceptions to§ 101 swallow the rule." Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1337. As
persuasively argued by Appellant, the claims require particularly configuring
the reverse proxy server to fulfill a request by using the domain routing
rules, rather than the DNS. Spec. i-f 48. Because the claimed reverse proxy
6 Cyberfone Systems, LLC v. CNN Interactive, Inc., 558 Fed.Appx. 988 (Fed.
Cir., 2014).
5
Appeal2017-009182
Application 14/255,867
server is directed to a technological solution only made possible when
implemented in a computer network based context, we agree with Appellant
that the claimed reverse proxy server is necessarily rooted in computer
technology to overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm of
computer networks. Further, although the claimed methods and systems are
perhaps simple and straightforward, the Examiner does not provide evidence
that the claimed process is merely the automation of the same process
previously performed by a human. See McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games
Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ('"While the rules are
embodied in computer software that is processed by general-purpose
computers, Defendants provided no evidence that the process previously
used by animators is the same as the process required by the claims.)
Accordingly, we are persuaded of error in the Examiner's conclusion
that claims 1-22 are directed to patent ineligible subject matter.
Obviousness Rejections
Appellant argues the Examiner erred in finding the combination of
Erb and Ashley teaches or suggests a reverse proxy server comprising
domain name routing rules. App. Br. 12. In particular, Appellant argues
that neither Erb' s servers nor Erb' s policy database teach or suggest the
reverse proxy server including the domain routing names. Id. at 12-13.
Further, Appellant argues the proposed combination of Erb with Ashley does
not have a reasonable expectation of success as Erb' s policy server is
configured to ALLOW/DENY a connection to one or more hostnames,
whereas Ashley's reverse proxy server is used to maintain various session
states. Id. at 13-14.
6
Appeal2017-009182
Application 14/255,867
These arguments are not persuasive. At the outset, we note claim 1
recites in relevant-part a reverse proxy server comprising domain name
routing rules to facilitate locating a resource stored in a plurality of hosting
servers. Erb discloses a policy server (10) including a policy database (12)
containing domain names ( 16) of various host servers along with associated
categories (18) as well as established policies or rules (20) for granting or
denying access to requested domain names. Erb i-fi-124--27, 32, Fig. 1.
Further, Erb discloses a plurality of hosting servers (102-106), and clients
(112-114) coupled with the policy server (10) such that the servers store and
retrieve data from one another. Erb i163. Because Erb's policy server
includes a plurality of rules or policies regarding providing access to
requested hostnames, we agree with the Examiner that Erb' s policy server
teaches the claimed reverse proxy server including the domain name routing
rules under the broadest reasonable interpretation. Ans. 6. Furthermore,
Ashley discloses a reverse proxy server that provides centralized session
identifier management for application servers to thereby determine which of
a plurality of applications servers are subject to a client request so as to
retrieve requested resources on behalf of the client. Ashley i-fi-154--57. We
agree with the Examiner that Ashley's reverse proxy server complements
Erb' s policy server by allowing the latter server to perform intermediary
functions between the application/hosting servers and the clients. Ans. 7-8.
Additionally, we find the Examiner's proposed combination of the cited
teachings of Erb and Ashley is no more than a simple arrangement of old
elements, with each performing the same function it had been known to
perform, yielding no more than one would expect from such an arrangement.
KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007). The ordinarily-
7
Appeal2017-009182
Application 14/255,867
skilled artisan, being "a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton,"
would be able to fit the teachings of the cited references together like pieces
of a puzzle to predictably result in a reverse proxy server including domain
name routing rules such that the reverse proxy server can act as an
intermediary to retrieve from hosting servers a domain requested by a client.
Id. at 420-21. Because Appellant has not demonstrated that the Examiner's
proffered combination would have been "uniquely challenging or difficult
for one of ordinary skill in the art," we agree with the Examiner that the
proposed modification would have been within the purview of the ordinarily
skilled artisan. Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157,
1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 418).
For at least the aforementioned reasons, we are not persuaded or error
in the Examiner's rejection of claim 1.
Regarding the rejection of claims 2-22, because Appellant has either
not presented separate patentability arguments or has reiterated substantially
the same arguments as those previously discussed for patentability of claim
1 above, those claims fall therewith. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(vii).
DECISION
For the above reasons, we affirm the Examiner's obviousness
rejections of claims 1-22, as set forth above. However, we reverse the
Examiner's subject matter ineligibility rejection of claims 1-22.
Because we affirm at least one ground of rejection with respect to
each claim on appeal, we affirm the Examiner's decision to reject all of the
pending claims.
8
Appeal2017-009182
Application 14/255,867
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).
AFFIRMED
9