Ex Parte Malden et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 21, 201612479711 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 21, 2016) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation