Ex Parte SEIFERT et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 22, 2017

13494581 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 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.
13/494,581 06/12/2012 Michael SEIFERT 4614-0260PUS1 3095
127226 7590 06/26/2017
BIRCH, STEWART, KOLASCH & BIRCH, LLP
8110 Gatehouse Road
Suite 100 East
Falls Church, VA 22042-1248
EXAMINER
HUANG, JIAN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2177
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/26/2017 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):
mailroom @ bskb. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MICHAEL SEIFERT, PETER CHRISTIAN LAUB,
and MIKKEL HOY SORENSEN
Appeal 2017-000935
Application 13/494,581
Technology Center 2100
Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, JOHN D. HAMANN, and
STEVEN M. AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judges.
AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final
rejection of claims 1—10 and 12—22, i.e., all pending claims. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Sitecore A/S. Br. 1.
Appeal 2017-000935
Application 13/494,581
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Invention
According to the Specification, the invention relates to “a method and
a system for managing a website by means of a content management system
(CMS).” Spec. 1:3—4.2 The Specification explains that the “content
management system obtains, from a remote server, information regarding
objects which may form part of webpages supplied to a visitor of the
website,” and “[w]hen a visitor requests a webpage of the website, the
content management system dynamically generates a webpage matching the
request of the visitor.” Abstract.
Exemplary Claim
Independent claim 1 exemplifies the subject matter of the claims
under consideration and reads as follows:
1. A method for managing a website by means of a content
management system (CMS), said website and said CMS
residing on a server, the method comprising the steps of:
the content management system obtaining, from a remote
server, information regarding objects which may form part of
webpages supplied to a visitor of the website, each of said
objects comprising reference to one or more third party
services, and information regarding one or more predefined
rules relating to injection of the objects into webpages of the
website, wherein the remote server is separate from the one or
more third party services,
2 This decision uses the following abbreviations: “Spec.” for the
Specification, filed June 12, 2012; “Final Act.” for the Final Office Action,
mailed September 24, 2015; “Br.” for the Appeal Brief, filed February 10,
2016; and “Ans.” for the Examiner’s Answer, mailed August 26, 2016.
2
Appeal 2017-000935
Application 13/494,581
a visitor requesting a webpage of the website, by directly
contacting the server having the website and the CMS residing
thereon,
the content management system dynamically generating,
at the server having the website and the CMS residing thereon,
a webpage matching the request of the visitor, including the
content management system injecting one or more objects into
the webpage in accordance with the predefined rules and the
information regarding objects obtained from the remote server,
the generated webpage thereby containing the objects which the
predefined rules and the information regarding objects obtained
from the remote server prescribe, and
the content management system supplying the generated
webpage directly from the server to the visitor.
Br. Claims App. 1.
The Prior Art Supporting the Rejections on Appeal
As evidence of unpatentability, the Examiner relies on the following
prior art:
Hansen (“Hansen ’671”) US 2006/0271671 A1 Nov. 30, 2006
Hansen (“Hansen ’980”) US 2008/0275980 A1 Nov. 6, 2008
Cordasco US 2012/0151329 A1 June 14, 2012
(filed Feb. 21,2012)
The Rejections on Appeal
Claims 1—7, 9, 10, and 12—22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
as anticipated by Hansen ’980 (incorporating Hansen ’671 by reference).
Final Act. 2—20; Ans. 2—20.
Claim 8 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Hansen ’980 (incorporating Hansen ’671 by reference) and Cordasco. Final
Act. 21; Ans. 21.
3
Appeal 2017-000935
Application 13/494,581
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the rejections of claims 1—10 and 12—22 in light of
Appellants’ arguments that the Examiner erred. For the reasons explained
below, we disagree with Appellants’ assertions regarding error by the
Examiner. We adopt the Examiner’s findings in the Final Office Action
(Final Act. 3—23) and Answer (Ans. 2—29). We add the following to address
and emphasize specific findings and arguments.
The § 102(b) Rejection of Claims 1—7, 9, 10, and 12—22
“Server Having the Website
and the CMS Residing Thereon”
Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in rejecting independent
claims 1 and 19 because Hansen ’980 and Hansen ’671 (collectively
“Hansen”) do not disclose a “server having the website and the [content
management system] CMS residing thereon” as required by claim 1 and
similarly required by claim 19. Br. 7—9. Appellants note that the Examiner
maps the CMS to the modification module in Hansen’s reverse proxy server
120. Id. at 8. Appellants then argue that (1) the website resides on Hansen’s
target server 130 and (2) “the reverse proxy server 120 and the target server
130 are different servers.” Id. (emphasis omitted).
Appellants’ arguments do not persuade us of Examiner error because
the Examiner finds that Hansen discloses (1) the modification module is “a
software package”; (2) the server with the website is “also [a] software
package”; and (3) “both software packages can be installed on the same web
server hardware.” Ans. 22 (emphasis omitted); see Final Act. 3; Ans. 3, 25.
In particular, Hansen describes the reverse proxy server with the
modification module as a “software product.” Hansen ’980 ^fl[ 48, 92;
4
Appeal 2017-000935
Application 13/494,581
Hansen ’671 H 41, 76. Hansen instructs that the reverse-proxy-server
“software runs ... on a web server” and “[t]he web server hosts a website to
be tested and evaluated.” Hansen ’980 Tflf 49, 92; see Hansen ’671 42, 76.
In addition, Hansen discloses that “one . . . physical computer[]” can run the
reverse proxy server with the modification module and the server with the
website. Hansen’980 1 87; Hansen’671171. Accordingly, Hansen
discloses the modification module and the website on the same physical
server.
Obtaining Information Regarding
Predefined Rules from the Remote Server
Appellants assert that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1 and 19
because Hansen does not disclose that “[t]he CMS obtains information
regarding one or more predefined rules . . . from the remote server, i.e.,
from the same server from which it obtains information regarding the
objects.” Br. 7. Appellants also assert that the claims “clearly recite[] that
the information regarding one or more predefined rules are obtained from
the remote server” and Hansen “nowhere discloses where the alleged CMS
obtainfsl the alleged information regarding one or more predefined rules.”
Id. at 9.
Appellants’ assertions do not persuade us of Examiner error because
the Examiner finds that the “remote server” maps to an analytics server in
Hansen that communicates with the reverse proxy server to provide “tags
and embedded Java Scripts.” Ans. 23, 26 (citing Hansen ’980 50-51,
90); see Final Act. 4—5; Ans. 4—5, 27; see also Br. 10 (acknowledging that
the Examiner maps the “remote server” to the “third-party web analytics
platform”). The “tags and embedded Java Scripts” from the analytics server
5
Appeal 2017-000935
Application 13/494,581
correspond to “objects” and “predefined rules.” For instance, the
Specification explains that the term “objects” encompasses tags.
Spec. 1:11-12,5:6-8.
“The Remote Server Is Separate from
the One or More Third Party Services”
Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1 and 19
because Hansen “fails to teach ‘the remote server is separate from the one or
more third party services’ as recited in claims 1 and 19.” Br. 10. Referring
to the remote server discussed in Hansen ’980 paragraph 11, Appellants
contend that Hansen ’980 “fails to disclose that the remote server ... is
separate from the ‘one or more third party services’ as recited in claims 1
and 19.” Id. at 11. In addition, Appellants contend that Hansen ’980
“nowhere discloses where the remote server is located (no matter whether it
is operated by a third party vendor or by the site operator itself) . . . .” Id.
Appellants’ contentions do not persuade us of Examiner error because
the Examiner finds that Hansen discloses “the reverse proxy server can be
installed on the web server and runs as a hosted service on a third-party
hosting site.” Ans. 27. In particular, Hansen instructs that the reverse proxy
server can run “as a hosted service on a web server in a third-party data
center or facility.” Hansen ’980 192; Hansen ’671176. The Specification
explains that third-party services include third-party websites and third-party
servers. Spec. 3:19—21. The Examiner reasons that the third-party hosting
service differs from the third-party analytics service with the analytics server
corresponding to the “remote server.” Ans. 27. Accordingly, Hansen
discloses one or more third-party services separate from the “remote server.”
6
Appeal 2017-000935
Application 13/494,581
Summary for Independent Claims 1 and 19
For the reasons discussed above, Appellants’ arguments have not
persuaded us that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1 and 19 as
anticipated by Hansen. Hence, we sustain the rejection of claims 1 and 19.
Dependent Claims 2-7,9,10,12-15,19, and 20
Claims 2—7, 9, 10, 12—15, 19, and 20 depend directly or indirectly
from claim 1 or claim 19. Appellants argue that these dependent claims are
“allowable based on their respective dependence from independent claims 1
and 19.” Br. 15. Because Appellants do not present any separate
substantive patentability arguments for these dependent claims, we sustain
the anticipation rejection of these dependent claims for the same reasons as
claims 1 and 19. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
Dependent Claims 16,17,21, and 22
Claims 16 and 17 depend from claim 1 and specify “a web manager
accessing” either the “remote server” (claim 16) or the “content management
system” (claim 17) “via a user interface in order to define one or more rules
to be applied during the step of dynamically generating a webpage.” Br.
Claims App. 4. Claims 21 and 22 depend from claim 19 and include similar
limitations. Id. at 6.
Appellants note that the Examiner cited Hansen ’980 paragraph 57 as
disclosing both claimed alternatives, i.e., a manager accessing both the
“remote server” and the “content management system” via a user interface.
Br. 13 ; see Final Act. 12—13. Appellants admit that paragraph 57 “discloses
that the modification module includes a user interface.” Br. 13. Appellants
assert, however, that the Examiner wrongly rejected claims 16, 17, 21, and
22 because (1) “the server having the content management system (CMS)”
7
Appeal 2017-000935
Application 13/494,581
differs from the remote server and (2) the modification module (mapped to
the claimed CMS) “would have to be the remote server as well as the
content management system” for Hansen to anticipate all four claims. Id.
Appellants’ arguments do not persuade us of Examiner error. As
Appellants admit, Hansen discloses that the “modification module includes a
user interface for allowing the website operator to create site variations” and
“segment[] visitors by specific criteria.” Hansen ’980 1 57; Hansen ’671
144. Because the modification module corresponds to the claimed CMS,
Hansen discloses the subject matter of claims 17 and 22. See Final Act. 13;
Ans. 12—13. Thus, we sustain the anticipation rejection of claims 17 and 22.
Hansen also discloses the subject matter of claims 16 and 21. More
specifically, Hansen explains that the reverse proxy server can adapt an
analytics service’s tags so that content-variation test results “may be tracked
and analyzed within” the analytics service’s reporting system. Hansen ’980
1 50; see Final Act. 4 (citing Hansen ’980 1 50); see also Ans. 4, 27—28
(citing Hansen ’980 Tflf 50-51, 57). Hansen additionally explains that “data
from website content variations is accessible within” the analytics service’s
reporting system. Hansen ’980 1 53. Hence, a user interface allows the
website operator to define rules and access test results within the analytics
server corresponding to the “remote server.” Thus, we sustain the
anticipation rejection of claims 16 and 21.
Dependent Claim 18
Claim 18 depends from claim 1 and requires “the step of the remote
server communicating with the third party service in order to provide
information regarding one or more objects and/or regarding one or more
predefined rules from the third party service to the remote server.” Br.
8
Appeal 2017-000935
Application 13/494,581
Claims App. 4. Appellants assert that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 18 because Hansen “simply relates to how information is collected by
a third party web service during a visit, not how a remote server obtains
information regarding objects or rules from a third party web service.”
Br. 14. Based on that assertion, Appellants contend that Hansen “fails to
teach the subject matter of claim 18.” Id.
Appellants’ arguments do not persuade us of Examiner error. As
discussed above for claims 1 and 19, the Examiner finds that Hansen
discloses an analytics server corresponding to the “remote server” that
communicates with the reverse proxy server. Ans. 23, 26—28. As also
discussed above for claims 1 and 19, Hansen instructs that the reverse proxy
server can run “as a hosted service on a web server in a third-party data
center or facility.” Hansen ’980 192; Hansen ’671176; see Ans. 27. As
discussed above for claims 16 and 21, Hansen explains that the reverse
proxy server can adapt an analytics service’s tags. Hansen ’980 1 50. In
addition, the Examiner finds that the reverse proxy server “provides several
types of segmentation criteria,” for example, based on “past visitor history”
or “customer segments.” Ans. 28—29 (citing Hansen ’980 Tflf 50-51, 90); see
Hansen ’980 57, 90; Hansen ’671 44, 74. Because the third-party
service (hosting the reverse proxy server) communicates with and provides
information to the analytics server corresponding to the “remote server,”
Hansen discloses the subject matter of claim 18. Thus, we sustain the
anticipation rejection of claim 18.
The § 103(a) Rejection of Claim 8
Claim 8 depends indirectly from claim 1. Appellants argue that
claim 8 is “allowable based on its dependence from independent claim 1.”
9
Appeal 2017-000935
Application 13/494,581
Br. 15. Because Appellants do not present any separate substantive
patentability arguments for claim 8, we sustain the obviousness rejection for
the same reasons as claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1—10 and 12—22.
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). See
37 C.F.R. §41.50(f).
AFFIRMED
10