Ex Parte Nijjer et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 22, 2017

14010294 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 22, 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. 14/010,294 08/26/2013 Rajinder Nijjer 0337 1027 43699 7590 Go Daddy Operating Company, LLC 14455 NORTH HAYDEN ROAD SUITE 219 SCOTTSDALE, AZ 85260 EXAMINER ROSTAMI, MOHAMMAD S ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2154 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/27/2017 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): 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 RAJINDER NIJJER and JIM CHRISTIAN Appeal 2017-008572 Application 14/010,294 Technology Center 2100 Before ALLEN R. MACDONALD, ADAM J. PYONIN and PHILLIP A. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges. MACDONALD, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2017-008572 Application 14/010,294 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of claims 1—14. App. Br. 3. Claims 15—20 are canceled. Advisory Action 2 (mailed May 13, 2016). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). Representative Claims Representative claims 1 and 13 under appeal read as follows (emphasis added): 1. A method, comprising: obtaining, by at least one computer server, a set of keywords using a computer network, each keyword in the set of keywords being relevant to a business; presenting to the user, by the at least one computer server, a first display containing a plurality of the keywords in the set of keywords and an interface with an option to refine the set of keywords on the first server; receiving, by the at least one computer server, a refined set of keywords from the user; and creating, by the at least one computer server, a website for the business', and inserting, by the at least one computer server, keywords from the refined set of keywords into one or more web pages of the website. 13. The method of claim 1, wherein the option to refine the set of keywords comprises an iterative process of presenting a subset of the keywords in the first display and replacing a removed keyword with a keyword from the set of keywords that is not in the subset 2 Appeal 2017-008572 Application 14/010,294 Rejections The Examiner rejected claims 1—14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Yu et al. (US 2012/0041938 Al; pub. Feb. 16, 2012) (“Yu ’938”) and Yu et al. (US 2013/0046584 Al; pub. Feb. 21,2013) (“Yu ’584”).1 Issues on Appeal Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 1 and 13 as being obvious? ANAFYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’ arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants’ conclusions. 1 Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because: Applicants’ Specification distinguishes creating a website from merely modifying the web pages of a website. See e.g. Paras. [0028]2 and [0032], An example creation process is described at paras. [0044-0047]. While the Specification 1 Separate patentability is not argued for claims 2—12 and 14. Except for our ultimate decision, the rejection of these claims is not discussed further herein. 2 We note Appellants’ Specification states “such creation may include converting a[n existing] website” and “the term website refers to any web property communicable via the Internet, such as websites, mobile websites, web pages within a larger website . . . and other organized data sources.” Spec. 128. 3 Appeal 2017-008572 Application 14/010,294 contemplates modifying an existing website, the claims are directed to creating a new website. App. Br. 5 (emphasis added). Appellants further contend Yu ’584 “does not describe that the server can create a website” as claimed: For example, when the described SEO is performed on an existing website, the server may collect identifying information of the business once during the previous website creation process, and again when the website is to be optimized; in contrast, performing the claimed method of SEO allows the server to only collect identifying information once, at the beginning of the website building process. App. Br. 5—6 (emphasis added). As to Appellants’ assertion, we disagree. Appellants’ argument that “the claims are directed to creating a new website” and “the claimed method of SEO allows the server to only collect identifying information once, at the beginning of the website building process” are not commensurate with the scope of the claim language. App. Br. 5—6 (emphasis added). The “creating” step of claim 1 is not explicitly so limited, nor do Appellants explain how claim 1 would be inherently so limited, nor do we find alternative language that would similarly mandate the argued “new” or “beginning” limitations. Rather, nothing in claim 1 precludes the performance of the website creating step at some earlier time with the remaining steps being performed at some later time on an existing website (the earlier created website). Appellants acknowledge Yu ’584 can perform modifications on existing websites (“Yu 2 [’584] describes a server that can perform modifications on existing websites.”). App. Br. 6. 2 4 Appeal 2017-008572 Application 14/010,294 Appellants also contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because: [Cjlaim 13 recites that the option to refine the set of keywords comprises an iterative process of presenting a subset of the keywords in the first display and replacing a removed keyword with a keyword from the set of keywords that is not in the subset. The Examiner holds that Yu 2 [’ 5 84 at paragraph 71 ] teaches this recitation, and Applicants disagree. App. Br. 8 (emphasis added). Applicants have reviewed Yu 2 [’584] in detail, including the passage [paragraph 71] cited by the Examiner, and have not identified any description of this feature with respect to Yu 2’s interface. The cited passage only indicates that “keywords may also be removed and will then be placed on an inactive list.” Yu 2 para. [0071]. At best, this indicates that keywords can be removed from the web page being modified, and removed keywords are placed on another list for tracking unused (i.e., inactive) keywords. The passage does not describe replacing the removed keyword in the user interface with another keyword that was not previously displayed to the user. Yu 1 does not cure this deficiency and the combination of references therefore does not teach or suggest all of the elements of the claim. App. Br. 8—9 (emphasis added). As to Appellants’ above assertion, we disagree. First, the issue before us is not whether Yu’584 teaches the subject matter of claim 13, but rather whether the combination of Yu ’938 and Yu’584 render obvious the subject matter of claim 13. Second, although Appellants acknowledge paragraph 71 of Yu ’584 discloses that keywords may be “removed” (App. Br. 8), Appellants overlook that Yu ’584 also states “[a] keyword may be added” (Yu ‘584, 171). We conclude it is well within the level of skill in the art to 5 Appeal 2017-008572 Application 14/010,294 sequentially perform Yu’s “removing” and “adding” of keywords so that a removed keyword is replaced with another keyword. CONCLUSIONS (1) The Examiner has not erred in rejecting claims 1—14 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). (2) Claims 1—14 are not patentable. DECISION The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1—14 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) 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)(l)(iv). AFFIRMED 6