Warhead, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 30, 2020

2019002207 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 30, 2020)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
14/635,821 03/02/2015 Leif Alexander 930154.402 9422
500 7590 06/30/2020
SEED INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW GROUP LLP
701 FIFTH AVE
SUITE 5400
SEATTLE, WA 98104
EXAMINER
CHEN, QING
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2191
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/30/2020 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):
USPTOeAction@SeedIP.com
pairlinkdktg@seedip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte LEIF ALEXANDER and GILBERT WALKER
____________

Appeal 2019-002207
Application 14/635,821
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, JAMES B. ARPIN, and
GREGG I. ANDERSON, Administrative Patent Judges.

ARPIN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), the Examiner’s final
rejections of claims 1–20. Final Act. 2.2 We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

1 “Appellant” here refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42.
Appellant identifies the real party-in-interest as Warhead, Inc. Appeal Br. 1.
2 In this Decision, we refer to Appellant’s Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.,” filed
September 27, 2018) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed January 16, 2019);
the Final Office Action (“Final Act.,” mailed November 29, 2017) and the
Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed November 16, 2018); and the
Specification (“Spec.,” filed March 2, 2015). Rather than repeat the
Examiner’s findings and determinations and Appellant’s contentions in their
entirety, we refer to these documents.
Appeal 2019-002207
Application 14/635,821

2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s claimed methods, servers, and computer-readable storage
media “relate[] to improving processing during development of a website
and more particularly, but not exclusively, relate[] to methods and tools to
move traditional backend server processing to a frontend browser level
during the development of a website.” Spec., 1:4–7. In particular,
A theme editor portion of the website development tool will be
operated, the theme editor portion arranged to modify themes
associated with webpages. In another act of the method, a
modification command is received at the theme editor portion.
The modification command is arranged to request a change to a
first theme associated with a first web page, and based on the
modification command, a first theme identifier of the first theme
is communicated to a sector system controller. A theme draft
based on the first theme is created, the theme draft having a
theme draft identifier, and a new [uniform resource locator
(URL)] is created by incorporating the theme draft identifier into
the first URL. The new URL is communicated to the web server
and the method, and a webpage having a control interface to the
theme editor portion is delivered.
Id. at 5:21–6:3. Referring to Figure 3 of the application, editing themes may
include determining the structure or format of the webpage, such as how
many columns appear on a webpage and whether those columns are left or
right justified. See id. at 23:15–22.
As noted above, claims 1–20 stand rejected. Claims 1, 11, and 16 are
independent. Appeal Br. 27 (claim 1), 29–30 (claim 11), 31 (claim 16)
(Claims App.). Claims 2–10 depend directly or indirectly from claim 1,
claims 12–15 depend directly from claim 11, and claims 17–20 depend
directly or indirectly from claim 16. Id. at 27–32.
Appeal 2019-002207
Application 14/635,821

3

The Examiner relies on the same references and substantially similar
arguments in rejecting independent claims 1, 11, and 16 (Final Act. 3–9, 11,
12); and Appellant does not contest the rejections of claims 2–20 separately
from claim 1 (see Appeal Br. 18, 26; Reply Br. 7).
Claim 1, reproduced below with disputed limitations emphasized, is
representative.
1. A website development tool method to implement a website
development tool, comprising:
operating a web server, the web server configured to
execute backend processing and frontend processing, the web
server configured to establish at least one frontend session
communicatively coupling the web server to an Internet
browser;
opening a website with the Internet browser, the website
addressed by a first uniform resource locator (URL), the
website having a plurality of web pages, each web page of the
website including a set of computer readable instructions, at
least some instructions of the set [of]3 computer readable
instructions configured to create one or more interactive
objects, the one or more interactive objects associated with the
backend processing of the web server;
operating a theme editor portion of the website
development tool, the theme editor portion arranged to modify
themes associated with web pages;
receiving a modification command at the theme editor
portion, the modification command arranged to request a
change to a first theme associated with a first web page, the first
web page having at least one interactive object associated with
the backend processing of the web server;

3 The Examiner objects to claim 1 as containing a typographical error.
Specifically, claim 1 omits the word “of” in the phrase “the set of computer
readable instructions.” We do not address such objections on appeal. MPEP
§ 706.01.
Appeal 2019-002207
Application 14/635,821

4

based on the modification command, communicating a
first theme identifier of the first theme to a sector system
controller;
creating a theme draft based on the first theme, the theme
draft having a theme draft identifier;
creating a new URL by incorporating the theme draft
identifier into the first URL, the new URL directed to a
modified version of the first web page, the modified version of
the first web page being absent from the plurality of web pages
when the website was opened with the Internet browser;
communicating the new URL to the web server; and
delivering, from the web server to the Internet browser, a
web page having a control panel interface to the theme editor
portion.
Id. at 27 (emphasis added).
REFERENCES AND REJECTIONS
The Examiner relies upon the following references in rejecting the
claims:
Name4 Number Publ’d Filed
Khan US 2002/0038384 A1 Mar. 28, 2002 July 13, 2001
Beesley US 2005/0021668 A1 Jan. 27, 2005 Jan. 30, 2004
Fedorynski US 2013/0073536 A1 Mar. 21, 2013 Nov. 10, 2011
Rogish US 2013/0132422 A1 May 23, 2013 Dec. 16, 2011
Walker US 2014/0053060 A1 Feb. 20, 2014 Aug. 16, 2013
In addition, the Examiner relies on the WordPress User Guide, Version 3.5,
created by Interconnect IT Ltd (UK), dated December 17, 2012 (hereinafter
“WordPress”) and “How To Create Dynamic Website Page URLs With PHP

4 All reference citations are to the first named inventor only.
Appeal 2019-002207
Application 14/635,821

5

Script,” created by Online Website Design Tutorials, posted August 9, 2013
(hereinafter “PHP”). Final Act. 3.
Claims 1, 5–7, 10–12, 15–17, and 20 are rejected as unpatentable
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over the combined teachings of Walker, WordPress,
PHP, and Fedorynski. Final Act. 3–12. In addition, claims 2–4, 9, 13, 18,
and 19 are rejected as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over the
combined teachings of Walker, WordPress, PHP, Fedorynski, and Beesley
(id. at 12–16); claim 8 is rejected as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103
over the combined teachings of Walker, WordPress, PHP, Fedorynski, and
Khan (id. at 16–17); and claim 14 is rejected as unpatentable under 35
U.S.C. § 103 over the combined teachings of Walker, WordPress, PHP,
Fedorynski, and Rogish (id. at 17–18).
Appellant contests the obviousness rejection of independent claim 1
(Appeal Br. 18–26; Reply Br. 2–7) and relies on the alleged deficiencies in
that rejection to overcome the rejections of the independent claims 11 and 16
and of the dependent claims (Appeal Br. 26; Reply Br. 7). Because we
determine that our affirmance of the rejection of independent claim 1 is
dispositive, except for our ultimate decision, we do not discuss the merits of
the rejections of claims 2–20 further herein. We review the appealed
rejection of independent claim 1 for error based upon the issues identified by
Appellant, and in light of the contentions and evidence produced thereon.
Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential).
Arguments not made are waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). Unless
otherwise indicated, we adopt the Examiner’s findings in the Final Action
and the Answer with respect to the affirmed rejections as our own and add
Appeal 2019-002207
Application 14/635,821

6

any additional findings of fact for emphasis. We address the rejection of
claim 1 below.
ANALYSIS
1. Obviousness of Claim 1 Over Walker, WordPress, PHP, and
Fedorynski
As noted above, the Examiner rejects independent claim 1 as obvious
over the combined teachings of Walker, WordPress, PHP, and Fedorynski.
Final Act. 3–9. The Examiner finds that Walker and WordPress teach or
suggest the majority of the limitations of claim 1. Id. at 3–7. Nevertheless,
the Examiner finds, “[t]he combination of Walker and
WordPress_User_Guide discloses ‘a theme draft identifier,’ but the
combination of Walker and WordPress_User_ Guide does not explicitly
disclose: - creating a new URL by incorporating the theme draft
identifier into the first URL.” Id. at 7 (emphasis in original); see Ans. 21–
22. The Examiner finds, however, PHP teaches this limitation. Final Act. 8.
In particular, PHP states, “[i]f we want to create a dynamic web page, then
we have to create a dynamic url that will create a parameter query contains a
variable string.” Id. (quoting PHP, 2); see PHP, 3 (“As an example,
dynamic-page-ex.php?username=admin or dynamic-page-
ex.php?username=author. See the results, the page content will change
according to the command in the variable.”). The Examiner concludes:
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed
invention to incorporate the teaching of [PHP] into the teaching
of Walker to include “creating a new URL by incorporating the
theme draft identifier into the first URL; and communicating the
new URL to the web server.” The modification would be
obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be
motivated to create dynamic web pages, in which the content and
Appeal 2019-002207
Application 14/635,821

7

appearance of the dynamic web pages can be changed
automatically without the need to make changes to the HTML
code of the dynamic web pages ([PHP], page 1).
Final Act. 8.
The Examiner finds, however, that neither Walker nor WordPress nor
PHP teaches or suggests, “the new URL directed to a modified version of
the first web page.” Id. Nevertheless, the Examiner finds Fedorynski
teaches this limitation. Id. In particular, Fedorynski discloses,
conventional usage of URL fragments enable usage of modified
URLs which point specifically to desired information within a
larger website context. Subsequently, solutions have been
implemented which leverage existing URL fragment techniques
to enable direct linking to partially updated/modified webpages,
i.e., to automatically generate modified URLs containing URL
fragments which correspond directly to webpages which have
been partially updated and/or modified. Specifically, for
example, websites which are enabled with the ability to provided
selective or partial updating and/or modifications thereof may
further include software functionality for generating a modified
URL containing a URL fragment for each such selective or
partial updating and/or modification. As a result, a user may be
provided with a modified URL which has a one-to-one
correspondence with a modified webpage, so that the user may
thereafter utilize such a modified URL to provide a direct link to
the specific modified version of the webpage in question.
Fedorynski ¶ 8 (emphases added); see Final Act. 8; Ans. 22, 25.
The Examiner concludes:
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed
invention to incorporate the teaching of Fedorynski into the
teaching of Walker to include “the new URL directed to a
modified version of the first web page.” The modification would
be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be
motivated to utilize a modified URL to provide a direct link to a
specific modified version of a web page in question (Fedorynski,
Appeal 2019-002207
Application 14/635,821

8

paragraph [0008]).
Final Act. 9.
Appellant challenges the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claim 1
for two reasons. First, Appellant contends the Examiner fails to show that
PHP teaches or suggests, “creating a new URL by incorporating the
theme draft identifier into the first URL.” Appeal Br. 20; see Reply
Br. 4. Second, Appellant contends the Examiner fails to show that
Fedorynski teaches or suggests, “the new URL directed to a modified
version of the first web page.” Appeal Br. 21–26; see Reply Br. 4–7. For
the reasons given below, we disagree.
Initially, Appellant does not contest the Examiner’s findings with
respect Walker or WordPress. Appeal Br. 19–20.5 Appellant’s challenges
are limited to the applied teachings of PHP and Fedorynski. Appeal Br. 21–
26; Reply Br. 2–7. Specifically, Appellant contends that none of the other
cited references teaches or suggests the limitation allegedly taught by
Fedorynski. Appeal Br. 19–21; Reply Br. 2. The Examiner asserts that
Appellant is improperly challenging the references individually. Ans. 21.
However, Appellant is only clarifying the Examiner’s findings regarding the
disputed limitations. The Examiner does not dispute Appellant’s statements
regarding the other references, but it does not alter that the Examiner finds
PHP or Fedorynski teach or suggest the disputed limitations. Id.
First, with respect to PHP’s teachings, Appellant contends:

5 Appellant states, “[t]here is no acquiescence to, or agreement with, the
Examiner's rejections in the [Final Office Action], nor is there any
acquiescence to, or agreement with, the Examiner's assertions regarding
what the applied references show or teach.” Appeal Br. 18. Nevertheless,
Appellant may not reserve arguments. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
Appeal 2019-002207
Application 14/635,821

9

According to the Examiner, [PHP] teaches creation of a new
URL by incorporating “an identifier” into a first URL, but the
identifier of the [PHP] reference is clearly not a theme draft
identifier. What’s more, just like Walker and the [WordPress]
reference, the Examiner recognizes on Page 8 of the [Final Office
Action] that does not disclose the [PHP] reference teaches “the
new URL directed to a modified version of the first web
page.” In fact, not only does the [PHP] reference fail to teach
creating a new URL by incorporating the theme draft identifier
into the first URL and the new URL directed to a modified version
of the first web page, the [PHP] reference expressly teaches that
“the content and appearance of the website page can be changed
automatically without the need to make changes to the html
code of the page.” [PHP] at Page 1.
Appeal Br. 20–21. As Appellant acknowledges, however, the Examiner
only finds that PHP teaches or suggests that its new URL incorporates an
“identifier.” See Final Act. 8 (“creating a new URL by incorporating an
identifier into a first URL (page 2, ‘If we want to create a dynamic web
page, then we have to create a dynamic url that will create a parameter query
contains a variable string.’)”). The Examiner relies on Walker and
WordPress to teach or suggest “a theme draft identifier.” Ans. 22; see
Final Act. 7. Thus, the Examiner finds that a person of ordinary skill in the
art would have had reason to combine the teachings of Walker and
WordPress regarding “the theme draft identifier” with those of PHP to teach
or suggest this limitation. Final Act. 8. On this record, we are not persuaded
the Examiner errs.
Second, Appellant contends that Fedorynski discloses:
The rendered web page, however, is an original web page
addressed by the base URL, and it is not a modified version of
the web page. [Fedorynski ¶¶ 3–8.] The rendered web page
includes instructions for displaying dynamic content, and the
indexable fragment determines what dynamic content will be
Appeal 2019-002207
Application 14/635,821

10

displayed, but it is the coding of the original web page that
renders the dynamic content. Id. Even though the web page
“looks” different to a user (i.e., it looks “modified”), it is the
exact same web page addressed at the base URL even after the
indexable fragment is added. And because the exact same web
page is delivered to the user’s browser from the web server, the
Fedorynski reference fails to teach a new URL directed to a
modified version of a first web page.
Appeal Br. 22–23, 25; see Reply Br. 5 (Fedorynski’s new URL is not
“directed to” a modified version of the first web page). Appellant appears to
contend that a web page with different content is not a modified web page,
but that only a web page with a different theme is a modified web page.
Nevertheless, Fedorynski discloses, “a user may be provided with a
modified URL which has a one-to-one correspondence with a modified
webpage, so that the user may thereafter utilize such a modified URL to
provide a direct link to the specific modified version of the webpage in
question.” Fedorynski ¶ 8 (emphases added); see Final Act. 8; Ans. 8.
Thus, we agree with the Examiner that a person of ordinary skill in the art
would understand a web page with different content to be modified. Walker
and WordPress supply teachings regarding the nature of the modification,
that is, the “theme.” See Final Act. 7; Ans. 7.
Appellant notes Fedorynski discloses an example of an original URL
“www.examplesportsnews.com” and of a modified URL
www.examplesportsnew.com#football.” Appeal Br. 24; see Fedorynski ¶ 7
(describing use of “#”). According to Appellant,
This new URL can be saved, re-loaded, or sent to a friend, and
when the URL is re-used, the original web page is retrieved.
Then, rather than having to manually re-navigate to the football
content, this original web page will use the URL fragment to
automatically navigate to the football content “through
Appeal 2019-002207
Application 14/635,821

11

implementation of software functions which are capable of
independently modifying such selected portions” of the original
web page. Fedorynski at [0008]. According to Fedorynski, these
techniques provide benefits of increased loading speed as well as
an improved user experience.
Appeal Br. 24. Nevertheless, Appellant challenges the teachings of
Fedorynski individually, instead of in combination with the teachings of
Walker, WordPress, and PHP. Claim 1 recites, “the new URL directed to a
modified version of the first web page.” Walker and WordPress teach that
the webpage’s theme may be modified and a theme draft identifier may
identify that modification, PHP teaches that a new URL may be created by
incorporating an identifier, e.g., “a theme draft identifier,” into the first
URL, and Fedorynski teaches that the new URL, as taught by Walker,
WordPress, and PHP, may be directed to a modified version of the first web
page. Ans. 21. We are not persuaded that the Examiner errs in combining
the teachings of the applied references in this manner to achieve the
limitations of claim 1.
Finally, Appellant introduces a new contention in the Reply Brief,
asserting that:
The Examiner impermissibly parses the claimed limitation in
ways that render the limitation fragmented and incoherent. There
is no motivation provided by the Examiner or found by Appellant
for any such fragmentation of a single, cohesive claim limitation,
it is unclear why such fragmentation would occur to one of
ordinary skill in the art. More to the point, there is no reason
asserted by the Examiner or understood by Appellant why one of
skill would see the fragmented features identified by the
Examiner in the applied art and combine them to form the
expressly recited limitation of claim 1.
Appeal 2019-002207
Application 14/635,821

12

Reply Br. 3–4. This contention is not responsive to any new argument made
in the Examiner’s Answer and, therefore, is improper. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.41(b)(2).
Nevertheless, the Examiner bases the rejection of claim 1 on the
combined teachings of various references. As the U.S. Supreme Court
explained, “in many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the
teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle.” KSR Intern.
Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 420 (2007). Thus, when the teachings of
various references are combined to determine that a claim is rendered
obvious, some degree of parsing is inevitable. Here, the Examiner provides
sufficient support for its combination of the teachings of the applied
references. Final Act. 7 (reason to combine the teachings of Walker and
WordPress; citing WordPress, 62), 8 (reason to combine the teachings of
Walker, WordPress, and PHP; citing PHP, 1), 9 (reason to combine the
teachings of Walker, WordPress, PHP, and Fedorynski; citing Fedorynski
¶ 8); see KSR, 550 U.S. at 418 (“‘[R]ejections on obviousness cannot be
sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some
articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal
conclusion of obviousness.’”). Therefore, we are not persuaded by
Appellant’s conclusory contentions that the Examiner improperly parses the
claim limitations or that the Examiner fails to provide sufficient reason to
combine the teachings of the applied references to achieve the methods of
claim 1.
Consequently, we are not persuaded that the Examiner errs in
rejecting claim 1, and we sustain the obviousness rejection of claim 1.
Appeal 2019-002207
Application 14/635,821

13

2. The Remaining Claims
As noted above, claims 11 and 16 recite limitations corresponding to
the disputed limitations of claim 1, and Appellant challenges the rejection of
independent claims 11 and 16 for substantially the same reasons as claim 1.
Appeal Br. 18; see Final Act. 7. Each of claims 2–10, 12–15, and 17–20
depends directly or indirectly from independent claim 1, 11, or 16. Appeal
Br. 27–32 (Claims App.). Because we are not persuaded the Examiner errs
with respect to the obviousness rejection of claim 1, we also are not
persuaded the Examiner errs with respect to the obviousness rejections of
claims 11 and 16, as well as to the pending claims dependent therefrom. For
this reason, we sustain the obviousness rejections of those claims.
DECISIONS
1. The Examiner does not err in rejecting:
a. claims 1, 5–7, 10–12, 15–17, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
rendered obvious over the combined teachings of Walker,
WordPress, PHP, and Fedorynski;
b. claims 2–4, 9, 13, 18, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as rendered
obvious over the combined teachings of Walker, WordPress, PHP,
Fedorynski, and Beesley;
c. claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as rendered obvious over the
combined teachings of Walker, WordPress, PHP, Fedorynski, and
Khan; and
d. claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as rendered obvious over the
combined teachings of Walker, WordPress, PHP, Fedorynski, and
Rogish.
Appeal 2019-002207
Application 14/635,821

14

2. Thus, on this record, claims 1–20 are unpatentable.
CONCLUSION
For the above reasons, we affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting
claims 1–20.
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § References Affirmed Reversed
1, 5–7, 10–
12, 15–17,
20
103 Walker,
WordPress, PHP,
Fedorynski
1, 5–7, 10–
12, 15–17,
20

2–4, 9, 13,
18, 19
103 Walker,
WordPress, PHP,
Fedorynski,
Beesley
2–4, 9, 13,
18, 19

8 103 Walker,
WordPress, PHP,
Fedorynski, Khan
8
14 103 Walker,
WordPress, PHP,
Fedorynski,
Rogish
14
Overall
Outcome
1–20
No time for taking any action connected with this appeal may be
extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1).

AFFIRMED