Ex Parte Lyon

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 8, 2017

13019953 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 8, 2017)

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.
13/019,953 02/02/2011 Barrett Gibson Lyon FORT-010600 1456
64128 7590
MICHAEL A DESANCTIS
HAMILTON DESANCTIS & CHA LLP
FINANCIAL PLAZA AT UNION SQUARE
225 UNION BOULEVARD, SUITE 150
LAKEWOOD, CO 80228
EXAMINER
HENDERSON, ESTHER BENOIT
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2458
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/10/2017 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):
mdesanctis @ hdciplaw.com
docket @ hdciplaw .com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte BARRETT GIBSON LYON
Appeal 2016-006061
Application 13/019,953
Technology Center 2400
Before BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, GREGG I. ANDERSON, and
SHARON FENICK, Administrative Patent Judges.
ANDERSON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 1—20.1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We affirm.
1 In this Opinion, we refer to the Appeal Brief (“Br.,” mailed November 30,
2015), the Final Office Action (“Final Act.,”mailed June 23, 2015), and the
Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,”mailed March 22, 2016), and the original
Specification (“Spec.,”filed February 2, 2011).
Appeal 2016-006061
Application 13/019,953
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
A. The Invention
The invention describes how content requests and Domain Name
System (“DNS”) requests are handled on a hybrid system, i.e., the same
system. Spec. ]f 1. A third party request handling server 104 services
requests for content from publisher 102 from client 106. Id. at| 10. The
server redirects the requests to endpoints to service the requests, such as
content server 108. Id. The client uses DNS server 110 to resolve desired
Uniform Resource Locators (“URLs”) and “connect to appropriate servers,
such as request handling server 104.” Id.
Figure 1C of Appellant’s Specification is reproduced below.
FIG. 1C
“Figure 1C is a block diagram illustrating an embodiment of a manner in
which a content request from a client is serviced.” Spec. 15. As shown in
Figure 1C, the request handling server 104 “also functions as a name server
that is capable of at least partially resolving the domain name of publisher
102.” Id. at 114. “Employing request handling server 104 as a name server
for at least partially resolving the domain name of publisher 102 provides
the flexibility to dynamically select and/or change the type of DNS response
2
Appeal 2016-006061
Application 13/019,953
provided for the domain name of publisher 102 based on one or more criteria
and/or publisher preferences.” Id. at| 15.
B. Illustrative Claim
Claims 1, 13, and 17 are independent claims, respectively to a
method, a system, and a computer program product. Claims 2—12 depend
directly or indirectly from claim 1. Claims 14—16 depend from claim 13.
Claims 18—20 depend from claim 17. Claim 1, reproduced below, is
illustrative:
1. A method for responding to a request, comprising:
receiving a request at a server that is at least in part
configured with DNS (Domain Name System) functionality;
in the event that the request comprises a content request,
responding to the request, by the server, by either directly
servicing the request or redirecting the request to another server
capable of handling the request; and
in the event that the request comprises a DNS request, at
least partially resolving, by the server, a domain name of the
request and responding to the request with a DNS response.
C. The Rejections
Claims 1—20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) as being
unpatentable over Sivasubramanian, et al. (US 2009/0327517 Al, published
Dec. 31, 2009) (“Sivasubramanian”). Final Act. 3.
D. Issue
Only those arguments actually made by Appellant in the Briefs have
been considered in this Decision. Arguments that Appellant did not make in
the Briefs are waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv)(2012).
3
Appeal 2016-006061
Application 13/019,953
Appellant’s arguments present the following issue:
Must claim 1 be construed narrowly to require that only a single
server process both content requests and DNS requests?
ANALYSIS
The issue above at Statement of the Case section D is the only issue
raised on appeal. See Br. 11 (“Nowhere in Sivasubramanian is it taught or
reasonably suggested that the same server or processor of a system can
process both content requests and DNS requests as required by independent
claims 1, 13 and 17.”) Appellant proceeds to argue that the Examiner has
not shown that both content requests and Domain Name System (“DNS”)
requests are handled on the same server. Id. at 11—13. The same issue is
presented as to the remaining independent claims 13 and 17. Id. at 13—14.
No additional arguments are advanced relating to the dependent claims. See
id. at 14 (wherein Appellant argues simply that all pending claims should be
allowed for the reasons set forth in relation to the independent claims).
Turning to the merits, Appellant argues that the claim language be
interpreted to mean “the same server or processor of a system can process
both content requests and DNS requests as required by independent claims
1, 13 and 17.” Br. 11 (emphasis added). We begin by construing the
language from claim 1, which recites, in pertinent part, as follows:
receiving a request at a server that is at least in part configured
with DNS (Domain Name System) functionality;
in the event that the request comprises a content request,
responding to the request, by the server, by either directly
servicing the request or redirecting the request to another
server capable of handling the request. (Emphasis added.)
4
Appeal 2016-006061
Application 13/019,953
The claim language does refer to “a” server and later to “the
server,” suggesting a single server. However, nothing in the claim
language requires that a single server handles both the request for
content and the DNS request. Indeed, the first mention of “a server”
is only for “domain name service (DNS) functionality.” When the
content is requested, according to the claim, “the server” may be used
or the request may be “redirect[ed] ... to another server capable of
handling the request.” Thus, the claim includes the case where more
than one server is used for the claimed method.
That the “same server” is not required is also supported by the
Specification, which discloses
[a]s depicted in Figure ID, request handling server 104
includes a web server 118 and a DNS server 120. In
various embodiments, web server 118 and DNS server
120 may comprise different physical units or may be a
part of the same physical unit.
Spec. 118. Further, as the Examiner pointed out, the Specification and
drawings showed that “the invention’s servers are separate entities.” Ans. 4
(citing Spec., Figs. IB, 1C, ID). The Examiner found that while the
invention may “be embodied in the same domain (as shown in Figure 1 D),
the Web server and the DNS server are separate entities from the request
handling server[,] which appellants are contesting is one server.” Id.
On this record, therefore, applying the broadest reasonable
interpretation in light of the specification, claim 1 is not limited to a single
“server or processor of a system [that] can process both content requests and
DNS requests.” Instead, claim 1 is broad enough to read on separate servers
for handling content requests and for DNS requests.
5
Appeal 2016-006061
Application 13/019,953
The Examiner has shown that Sivasubramanian includes two servers,
one for each type of request. See Final Act. 3-4 (citing Sivasubramanian |
19 (for content requests), || 36-37 (for DNS requests)). Appellant does not
argue that Sivasubramanian fails to disclose two servers, one for content
requests and one for DNS name requests. Indeed, Appellant argues that
Sivasubramanian teaches a Webserver for content, Br. 12 (citing
Sivasubramanian, Fig. 1, element 110), and separate DNS servers, id. (citing
Sivasubramanian, 119, Fig. 1, numbers 118, 124, 130).
We therefore sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1. Appellant
does not separately argue the other claims. See Br. 13—14. Accordingly, we
also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2—20. See 37 C.F.R. §
41.37(c)( 1 )(iv)(2012).
CONCEUSION
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1—20 under § 103.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—20 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
6