Ex Parte Malden et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 21, 2016

12479711 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 21, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/479,711 0610512009
22879 7590 03/23/2016
HP Inc,
3390 E. Harmony Road
Mail Stop 35
FORT COLLINS, CO 80528-9544
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Matthew Scott MALDEN
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.
82948420 2012
EXAMINER
HUTTON, NAN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2154
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/23/2016 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):
ipa.mail@hp.com
barbl@hp.com
yvonne.bailey@hp.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MATTHEW SCOTT MALDEN and JOHN LUDWIG COKER
Appeal2014-007800
Application 12/479,711
Technology Center 2100
Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, JEFFREY S. SMITH, and
ivIICHAEL ivL BARRY, Administrative Patent Judges.
SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2014-007800
Application 12/479,711
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the rejection of
claims 1, 3-8, 10-16, and 19-25, which are all the claims remaining in the
application. Claims 2, 9, 17, and 18 have been cancelled. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Illustrative Claim
1. A computer implemented method for search engine optimization
(SEO) comprising:
providing, via at least one computing device, an analysis
library containing analyses representing SEO best practices, the
analysis library extensible to receive additional analyses;
receiving, via the at least one computing device, a request
for optimizing a web page;
in response to the request, adding, via the at least one
computing device, the \veb page to a \veb library;
in response to adding the web page to the web page library
that is responsive to the request, monitoring, by an analysis
scheduler executed on the at least one computing device, for an
analysis event including an event indicating that content of the web
page has changed;
in response to detection of the analysis event,
providing, via the at least one computing device, the
web page to an automated analysis framework;
evaluating, by the automated analysis framework
executed on the at least one computing device, the web page
for conformance with the SEO best practices.
2
Appeal2014-007800
Application 12/479,711
Murashige
Grieselhuber
Monin, Jr.
Stouffer
Kim
Prior Art
US 2005/0060168 Al
US 2008/0071766 Al
US 2008/0091511 Al
US 2009/0132524 Al
US 2009/0299998 Al
Examiner's Rejections
Mar. 17,2005
Mar. 20, 2008
Apr. 17, 2008
May 21, 2009
Dec. 03, 2009
Claims 1, 6-8, and 10-16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Murashige, Grieselhuber, and Kim.
Claims 3, 4, and 19-25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Murashige, Grieselhuber, Kim, and Stouffer.
Claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Murashige, Grieselhuber, Kim, and Monin.
ANALYSIS
\Ve adopt the findings of fact made by the Examiner in the Final
Action and Examiner's Answer as our own. We concur with the conclusions
reached by the Examiner for the reasons given in the Examiner's Answer.
We highlight the following for emphasis.
Appellants contend Murashige does not teach evaluating a web page
in response to detecting an event indicating the content of the web page has
changed, as required by claim 1. App. Br. 8-9; Reply Br. 2--4. In particular,
Appellants contend Murashige teaches analyzing a website before, rather
than after, editing the website. See Reply Br. 4. Appellants' contention is
inconsistent with paragraph 53 of Murashige, which teaches performing
further analysis of a website after editing the website. Appellants'
contention is also inconsistent with Figure 2 of Murashige, which teaches
3
Appeal2014-007800
Application 12/479,711
running the site analysis again to incorporate changes made to the site since
the latest site analysis.
Appellants contend Stouffer does not teach avoiding performing the
evaluation in response to detecting the event indicating the web page content
has changed has not occurred, as required by claim 21. App. Br. 11; Reply
Br. 5-7. The Examiner finds that "when the system of Murashige detects no
change event related to the web site content change, the scheduler in Kim
communicates with the system in Stouffer to tell the system to avoid the
SEO analysis process." Ans. 7. Appellants contend the Examiner's
conclusion is based on misinterpreting Murashige. Reply Br. 7. We
disagree with Appellants as discussed in our analysis of claim 1.
Cumulative to the Examiner's finding, we highlight in an obviousness
analysis, precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the
challenged claim need not be identified because the inferences and creative
steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ can be taken
into account. See KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007).
Here, the inference drawn from Murashige' s teaching of re-analyzing an
edited web site to incorporate changes made to the site since the latest site
analysis, is not re-analyzing an unedited site. Murashige' s teachings thus
suggest "avoiding performance of the evaluating" the web page upon
"detecting that the analysis event" indicating that the content of the web
page has changed "has not occurred" within the meaning of claim 21.
We sustain the Examiner's§ 103 rejections of claims 1, 3-8, 10-16,
and 19-25.
4
Appeal2014-007800
Application 12/479,711
DECISION
The rejections of claims 1, 3-8, 10-16, and 19-25 are 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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(±).
AFFIRMED
5