UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

Transcription

1

2 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte ROBERT PARSONS, WARREN ADELMAN, MICHAEL CHADWICK and ERIC WAGNER Appeal Technology Center 2400 Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., JEFFREY S. SMITH, and CATHERINE SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judges. WHITEHEAD JR., Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants are appealing the final rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. 134(a). Appeal Brief 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. 6(b) (2012). We affirm. Introduction The invention is directed to the field of Domain Names and Remote Computing and, more specifically, systems and methods for using a domain name in conjunction with a client to access a remote computer or server system in a hosting provider's data center. Specification 1.

3 Representative Claim (disputed limitations emphasized) 21. A system comprising: a. a remote desktop program displayed on one or more client computers communicatively coupled to a network; b. a virtual workstation environment hosted on one or more server computers and resolving, after authentication, from a domain name registered to a registrant, wherein the virtual workstation environment is controlled by the remote desktop program; c. an online community comprising one or more software applications hosted by one or more software vendors and configured to receive from the registrant a selection of the one or more software applications; d. a hosting control panel hosted on the one or more server computers hosting the virtual workstation environment and configured to: i. install, on the one or more server computers, one or more software applications available from the one or more software vendors; and ii. receive from the registrant, via one or more data entry fields on the hosting control panel, a selected sub domain and a uniform resource locator for a path within the virtual workstation environment to the one or more software applications; and e. a web browser configured to display the one or more software applications on the remote desktop program responsive to the registrant entering the selected sub domain concatenated to the domain name into the web browser on the one or more client computers, wherein the remote desktop program is embedded in the web browser. Rejections on Appeal Claims are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims of copending Application Number 12/140,454. Answer Claims are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims of copending Application Number 12/140,450. Answer

4 Claims rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention. Answer 14. Claims 21-27, and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Plesk 8.3 for Windows Administrator s Guide and cpanel User Guide and Tutorial. Answer Claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Plesk, cpanel and Reisman (US Patent Application Publication Number 2003/ A1; published December 11, 2003). Answer Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Plesk, cpanel and Damico (US Patent Number 5,819,285; issued October 6, 1998). Answer Claims 32 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Plesk, cpanel and Galea (US Patent Application Publication Number 2007/ A1; published January 11, 2007). Answer Claims 36 and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Plesk, cpanel and IBM s Cloud Computing. Answer ANALYSIS Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed September 29, 2011), the Answer (mailed December 22, 2011) and Reply Brief (January 31, 2012) for the respective details. 3

5 Double Patenting Rejections Appellants filed terminal disclaimers to overcome the double patenting rejections (Appeal Brief 10) however the Examiner maintained the rejections because the terminal disclaimers were not approved (Answer 26). Furthermore, Appellants did not address the merits of the double patenting rejections therefore we sustain the double patenting rejections of claims U.S.C. 112, Second Paragraph Rejection Appellants argue that references to the cloud as well as the internet can be used without confusion to one of ordinary skill in the art because the terms are well known. Appeal Brief The Examiner finds the cloud could be any of a variety of public networks or other networking segments, it is not clear what the cloud is referring back to and Therefore there is clear lack of antecedent basis with regards to the phrase the cloud. Answer 27. We find Appellants arguments persuasive because the cloud terminology is a term of art and does not render the claim indefinite because of a lack on antecedence. See id. at U.S.C. 103 Rejection Appellants contend the CPanel reference is absolutely silent regarding an online community made up of one or more software vendors. Reply Brief 4. Appellants further contend the CPanel reference only discloses a Scripts Library that is a sharp contrast to the definition of a software community as defined in Appellants Specification [0088] and recited in independent claim 21. See id. 4

6 The Examiner finds the CPanel reference discloses an online community on pages and in the form of PHP nuke, phpwiki as well as other software applications. Answer 17. We do not agree with the Examiner s findings. We find Appellants arguments persuasive because the CPanel sections cited by the Examiner only discloses a script library as Appellants contend. See CPanel, pages and ; Appeal Brief 7-9. The Examiner attempts to support his findings by citing additional CPanel paragraphs however, the additional paragraphs fail to support his findings. See Answer 36. Consequently, we do not sustain the Examiner s obviousness rejection of independent claim 21, as well as, dependent claims which depend upon 21. DECISION The Examiner s provisional nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejections of claims are sustained. The Examiner s 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, rejection of claim is reversed. The Examiner s 35 U.S.C. 103(a) rejections of claims are reversed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R (a)(1)(iv). See 37 C.F.R (f). AFFIRMED lv 5