Ex Parte O et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 26, 2017

12102207 (P.T.A.B. May. 26, 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.
12/102,207 04/14/2008 Patrick J. O'Sullivan RSW920070373US1/IBM075PA 9732
58505 7590 05/31/2017
STEVENS & SHOWALTER, L.L.P.
BOX IBM
7019 CORPORATE WAY
DAYTON, OH 45459-4238
EXAMINER
WEINRICH, BRIAN E
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2169
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/31/2017 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):
PTO@sspatlaw.com
ssllp@speakeasy.net
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte PATRICK J. O'SULLIVAN, EDITH H. STERN, and
BARRY E. WILLNER
Appeal 2017-000735
Application 12/102,207
Technology Center 2100
Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, JAMES R. HUGHES, and ERIC S. FRAHM,
Administrative Patent Judges.
DIXON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2017-000735
Application 12/102,207
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims
1—5, 7, 9—15, 19—22, and 25.1 Claims 6, 8, 16—18, 23, 24, and 26 have been
canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.
The invention relates to preserving a copy of information addressed
by a uniform resource locator (URL), for example, a web page, and
notifying a preservation service user if changes to the web page are made
(see Spec. 33—34, 41). Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the
claimed subject matter:
1. A method of preserving the state of network-accessible
information comprising:
receiving, by a server providing a preservation service, a
preservation request from a requesting client machine, the
preservation request comprising an indication of a portion of the
information addressed by a uniform resource locator that defines
relevant content for preservation;
in response to receiving the preservation request,
obtaining, by the server, a copy of the portion of the information
addressed by the uniform resource locator that defines relevant
content for preservation;
after obtaining the copy, monitoring, by the server, the
information associated with the uniform resource locator for
changes to the relevant content;
1 We note there is a prior decision on appeal (“Decision”) for the present
application, dated November 14, 2014, in which we affirmed then pending
claims 1—5 and 7—25.
2
Appeal 2017-000735
Application 12/102,207
based on the monitored information, identifying, by the
server, whether the relevant content has changed since obtaining
the copy of the relevant content; and
conveying, by the server, an indication, to the requesting
client machine, when a change to the relevant content has been
identified.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Ball US 2002/0120648 A1 Aug. 29, 2002
Yamane US 2003/0041093 A1 Feb. 27, 2003
REJECTION
The Examiner made the following rejection:
Claims 1—5, 7, 9-15, 19-22, and 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Yamane and Ball.
ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 10, 12, 14, 15, and 25
Appellants contend Yamane does not teach “receiving, by a server
providing a preservation service, a preservation request from a requesting
client machine,” as recited in claim 1, because Yamane describes a request
for previously stored information, as opposed to a request for information
that should be preserved (Appeal Br. 9; Reply Br. 4). Appellants also
contend Yamane does not teach “after obtaining the copy, monitoring, by the
server, the information associated with the uniform resource locator for
changes to the relevant content; based on the monitored information,
identifying, by the server, whether the relevant content has changed since
3
Appeal 2017-000735
Application 12/102,207
obtaining the copy of the relevant content,” as further recited in claim 1,
because Yamane’s content distributor that monitors changes in content is not
the same server that receives the requests for previously stored information
(Appeal Br. 9—10; Reply Br. 6). We are not persuaded by Appellants’
arguments.
First, we look to the Specification to construe the claimed
“preservation request.” The Specification provides, in an example
embodiment, “the preservation request 122A serves as a subscription to the
preservation service 112 for preserving the state of network-accessible
information that is located at the identified URL” (Spec. 134). Further, the
Specification provides that in response to a preservation request, a
preservation service performs the following:
As an illustrative example, the preservation service 112 may
communicate a copy of the unmodified web page or the
determined relevant content thereof, to the contact address
specified in the preservation request 122 A. Alternatively, if the
pre-modified content has been archived in a suitable storage
location that is accessible to the processing device 102 A or a user
associated with the processing device 102A or a user associated
with the processing device 102 A, then the indication may include
information necessary for the user to retrieve the pre-modified
content from the storage.
(Spec. 141). Accordingly, we find the broadest reasonable interpretation of
the claimed “preservation request” is a request for content in a pre-modified
state—i.e., a certain version of the content—where the content request may
be served from a storage location.
Yamane discloses a request for a web page served by a web server
102, where the content of the page can be updated while the request is being
4
Appeal 2017-000735
Application 12/102,207
served (see Yamane, ]Hf 32—33, 79). Specifically, Yamane describes the
following:
To maximize server availability, the content can be updated
while the web server continues to respond to requests. This is
achieved by creating a copy of the files that will be changed, and
putting the copy of those files in a place accessible to the web
server. . . . Users who, at the time of switchover from the old to
the new content, are involved in a transaction that involves a
series of related web pages may need to continue to access the
“old” content for some time after the switchover, until the
transaction is complete.
(Id.). Based on this disclosure, we find that Yamane’s web server receives a
“preservation request,” as construed above, because it stores and serves an
old version of content, i.e., pre-modified content, to a user while the content
is being modified. We are thus not persuaded by Appellants’ argument that
the claimed “preservation request” is different than Yamane’s request for
previously stored information (see Appeal Br. 9).
We are also not persuaded by Appellants’ argument that Yamane’s
same web server that receives content requests does not monitor and identify
when relevant content has changed (Appeal Br. 9-10). Yamane discloses
that a content distributor 125 manages version control of content and
identifies changes to files (Yamane, Tflf 47, 50). However, information
regarding changes to files is transmitted from the content distributor through
an agent 106 to a web server interface 104 (Yamane, 148). Further,
Yamane, discloses that “[ajfter the agent has completed modifications to the
files, the web server interface can be signaled to again use the normal area”
(Yamane, 179). Accordingly, Yamane teaches that the web server interface
104, which is part of web server 102 (see Yamane, Fig. 3), receives
signaling regarding changes to files and when to begin serving the changed
5
Appeal 2017-000735
Application 12/102,207
files. We find that the web server’s waiting for signaling on changes to files
and acting upon received signaling to serve changed files meets the
“monitoring” and “identifying” limitations recited in claim 1. Claim 1 does
not require more than simply being receptive to and actually receiving
signaling for meeting the claimed “monitoring” and “identifying”
limitations.
We are, therefore, not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting
independent claim 1, and independent claim 25 and dependent claims 2, 4, 5,
10, 12, 14, and 15 not specifically argued separately.
Claim 3
Appellants contend Yamane does not teach “storing ... the obtained
copy of the relevant content... in a manner that associates the stored
content with the identified contact information,” as recited in claim 3
(Appeal Br. 10-11). We agree with Appellants.
The Examiner finds Yamane’s disclosure of maintaining a change list
that tracks changes to source files served by the web server, where the
change list includes files ownership information, meets the limitation of
“contact information” (see Final Act. 8; Ans. 6). However, claim 3 recites
“receiving with the preservation request, contact information associated with
the preservation request.” In other words, the contact information is
included in the preservation request from the client machine. In contrast,
Yamane’s ownership information relates to the user identifier of the file
owner of a file served by the web server, and does not relate to the
requesting client machine (see Yamane, ]Hf 52—56, 63).
We are, therefore, constrained by the record to find the Examiner
erred in rejecting claim 3.
6
Appeal 2017-000735
Application 12/102,207
Claim 7
Appellants contend Yamane does not teach “implementing... at least
one predefined rule or policy to distinguish relevant content from a
remainder of content associated with the uniform resource locator,” as
recited in claim 7 (Appeal Br. 11—12; Reply Br. 9-10). We are not
persuaded by Appellants’ argument.
As we found in our prior decision on appeal, Yamane’s handling of a
browser request for a web page teaches the claim 7 limitation “implementing
... at least one predefined rule or policy to distinguish relevant content from
a remainder of content associated with the uniform resource locator”
(Decision, 8). That is, serving a web page equates to distinguishing between
relevant content of the web page addressed by a URL and other content
associated with the URL (id.). More specifically, we agree with the
Examiner’s finding that Yamane’s distinguishing between different versions
of content addressed by the URL teaches the argued limitation (see Ans. 7).
We are, therefore, not persuaded by the record to find the Examiner
erred in rejecting claim 7.
Claim 9
Appellants contend Yamane does not teach “wherein monitoring the
information for changes to the relevant content comprises at least one of
polling or subscribing to changes to the corresponding content associated
with the uniform resource locator,” as recited in claim 9 (Appeal Br. 12;
Reply Br. 11). We are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument.
As discussed above regarding claim 1, Yamane discloses that
information regarding changes to files is transmitted to through an agent 106
7
Appeal 2017-000735
Application 12/102,207
to a web server interface 104, which is a part of web server 102 (Yamane, 1
48). Further, Yamane discloses the agent 106 directs web server 102 to
intercept all requests for files that are changing (Yamane, 179). Absent a
specific definition of what “subscribing to changes” requires, we find that
Yamane’s sending information to the web server interface regarding
changing files and directing the web server to intercept requests for changing
files meets the limitation of “subscribing to changes” because the changes
are shared with the web server. That is, Yamane’s web server system is set
up so as to share file change information with the web server, which
constitutes a subscription, under the broadest reasonable interpretation of
“subscribing to changes.”
We are, therefore, not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting claim
9.
Claim 11
Appellants contend Yamane does not teach “wherein at least one
policy that sets an expiration after which no additional monitoring for
changes to the relevant content will be conducted is based upon at least one
characteristic of an email application, at least one characteristic of a word
processing application or at least one characteristic of a presentation
application,” as recited in claim 11 (Appeal Br. 13). We agree with
Appellants.
The Examiner cites Yamane’s expiration time of a web page in the
caching server for meeting the claim 11 limitation of an “expiration after
which no additional monitoring for changes to the relevant content will be
conducted” (Final Act. 11; Ans. 8). However, the expiration of a page in a
caching server is different than an expiration period for monitoring changes
8
Appeal 2017-000735
Application 12/102,207
to the content stored on the web server. The expiration time of a page in the
caching server relates to the length of time for storing recently served
content (see Yamane, 1 89), and does not relate to a time period after which
changes to content are no longer monitored.
We are, therefore, constrained by the record to find the Examiner
erred in rejecting claim 11.
Claim 13
Appellants contend Yamane does not teach “providing the user with
an option of retrieving the stored version of the recognized uniform resource
locator or loading a current version of information at the recognized
uniform resource locator,” as recited in claim 13 (Appeal Br. 14). We agree
with Appellants.
Yamane discloses the web server issues a cookie to the user’s browser
that indicates a particular version of the requested content such that all
requests from the browser receive consistent information according to the
cookie (Yamane, Tflf 81—83). We do not find, however, this teaches
“providing the user with an option of retrieving the stored version ... or
loading a current version of information,” as recited in claim 13. Yamane
does not disclose the user can control which cookie is issued, or change the
cookie which it is issued in order to select either a previously stored or
current version of requested content.
We are, therefore, constrained by the record to find the Examiner
erred in rejecting claim 13
9
Appeal 2017-000735
Application 12/102,207
Claims 19—22
Appellants contend Yamane does not teach “providing the user an
option to view either the archived version of the content or a current copy of
the content at the recognized uniform resource locator,” as recited in claim
19 (Appeal Br. 16).
As discussed above regarding similar claim 13, Yamane discloses the
web server issues a cookie to the user’s browser that indicates a particular
version of the requested content such that all requests from the browser
receive consistent information according to the cookie (Yamane, 81—83).
We do not find, however, this teaches “providing the user an option to view
either the archived version of the content or a current copy of the content at
the recognized uniform resource locator,” as recited in claim 19. Yamane
does not disclose the user can control which cookie is issued, or change the
cookie which it issued in order to select either a previously stored or current
version of requested content.
We are, therefore, constrained by the record to find the Examiner
erred in rejecting independent claim 19, and dependent claims 20—22 for
similar reasons.
CONCLUSIONS
Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 3,
11, 13, and 19-22, but did not err in rejecting claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 9, 10, 12,
14, 15, and 25.
10
Appeal 2017-000735
Application 12/102,207
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejection of claims 3,11, 13,
and 19-22 is reversed, and the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 9,
10, 12, 14, 15, and 25 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-IN-PART
11