Ex Parte Lyon

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 30, 2017

13849525 (P.T.A.B. May. 30, 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.
13/849,525 03/24/2013 Barrett Gibson Lyon FORT-010710 8776
64128 7590 06/01/2017
MICHAEL A DESANCTIS
HAMILTON DESANCTIS & CHA LLP
FINANCIAL PLAZA AT UNION SQUARE
225 UNION BOULEVARD, SUITE 150
LAKEWOOD, CO 80228
EXAMINER
TORRES-DIAZ, LIZBETH
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2495
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/01/2017 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 2017-003170
Application 13/849,525
Technology Center 2400
Before JASON V. MORGAN, NABEEL U. KHAN, and
KAMRAN JIVANI, Administrative Patent Judges.
JIVANI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 seeks our review, under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), of the
Examiner’s final decision rejecting claims 1—20. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Fortinet, Inc. Br. 3.
Appeal 2017-003170
Application 13/849,525
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The present patent application relates to the “intelligent redirection of
content requests.” Spec. 13.
Independent claim 1 is reproduced below, with bracketed material
added and emphasis applied to the disputed limitation.
1. A method for redirecting a content request, comprising:
receiving a content request at a redirect host that
communicates via a public network, wherein the content request
relates to content published by a publisher that is hosted by:
one or more servers residing within a private
network of the publisher; and
one or more servers residing external to the private
network, wherein the one or more servers are associated
with a resource provider that is registered with the redirect
host and configured to deliver content on behalf of the
publisher;
determining, by the redirect host, that the content request
is received from an internal client of the private network;
determining, by the redirect host, that an internal server of
the one or more servers residing within the private network is
available to service the content request; and
[LI] redirecting, by the redirect host, the client to the
internal server via a content redirect action associated with a
protocol of the content request.
The Rejections
Claims 1, 3—7, 9, 11—15, and 17—20 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Legout (WO 03/055178 Al; pub.
July 3, 2003). Final Act. 3—7.
Claims 1, 3—7, 9, 11—15, and 17—20 alternatively stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Legout. Final Act. 3—7.
2
Appeal 2017-003170
Application 13/849,525
Claims 2, 8, 10, and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Legout and Kramer (US 2002/0099957 Al; pub. July 25,
2002). Final Act. at 7—8.
ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 3—7, 9, 11—15, and 17—20
Appellant argues the Examiner’s rejections for these claims together.
As permitted by 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2015), we select claim 1 as
representative of this group and decide the appeal as to the Examiner’s
anticipation and obviousness rejections based on claim 1 alone.
We have considered Appellant’s arguments and Examiner’s Answer
thereto. We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments. Rather, we agree
with and adopt, as our own, the Examiner’s responses in the Answer at
pages 3—5. We further emphasize the following.
The Examiner finds, in relevant part, the Legout describes a client
(i.e., an internal client of the private network), redirection server proxy 66/68
(i.e., the redirect host), surrogate server 62 (i.e., a server residing within the
private network that is available to service the content request). Final Act.
3—\\ Ans. 3—\\ see also Legout’s Fig. 6. Legout discloses recursively
determining the surrogate server 62 closest to the subnetwork of the user
from among the multiple surrogate servers of network 58, to service a
client’s content request. Legout, Abst. The process disclosed by Legout
then “checks (10) whether the closest surrogate server has the content
requested by the user. If this is the case, the closest surrogate server is
selected. Else, the process loops by passing to the next closest surrogate
server, and checking whether it has the content requested by the user.” Id.
3
Appeal 2017-003170
Application 13/849,525
Appellant contends, “the pending claims are intended to encompass
the methodology shown and described with reference to FIGs. 7C and 7D.”
Br. 12. Appellant’s contention is misguided because it is not directed to the
actual claim language.
Appellant further contends Legout does not meet limitation LI
because “Legout actually teaches the use of redirection solely in connection
with redirection of the client from one redirection server to another. As
such, in the context of Legout, the requesting client is never redirected to a
server hosting the requested content.” Br. 15—16. We are not persuaded by
this argument because it is not responsive to the Examiner’s findings. The
Examiner further finds, and we agree, Legout meets limitation LI—under
both anticipation and obviousness standards—by describing:
The redirection server proxy returns to the end user - step 76 in
figure 6 - an HTTP redirect with the following URL:
HTTP://optimal_surrogate_server_address/best_adapted_
real_content_id.
Finally, the end user connects to the optimal surrogate server
asking for the best-adapted real content - step 78 in figure 6.
Legout, 18: 7—12; Ans. 3^4.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1, 3—7, 9,
11-15, and 17-20.
Claims 2, 8, 10, and 16
Appellant presents no further arguments related to these claims. Br.
15. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejections of claims 2, 8, 10,
and 16 for the reasons stated above.
4
Appeal 2017-003170
Application 13/849,525
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1—20.
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
5