throbber
U NITED STATES P ATENT AND TRADEMARK O FFICE
`
`UNITED STATES DEPA RTMENT OF COMMERCE
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
`P.O. ll<>x 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
`www.uspto.go''
`
`APPLICATION NO.
`
`FILfNGDATE
`
`FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
`
`ATTORNEY DOCKET NO.
`
`CONFIRMATION NO.
`
`90/008,374
`
`12/13/2006
`
`6,993.572
`
`23
`
`2875
`
`7590
`26362
`LOUIS J. HOFFMAN, P.C.
`11811 North Tall1m Boulevard, Suite 2 100
`Phoenix, AZ 85028
`
`04116/2010
`
`EXAMINER
`
`KOSOWSI<l, ALEXANDER J
`
`ART UNIT
`
`PAPER NUMBER
`
`3992
`
`MAILDATE
`
`04/16/2010
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`
`PAPER
`
`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.
`
`PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
`
`Page 1 of 16
`
`PRICELINE.COM LLC et al.
`Exhibit 1018
`
`

`

`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
`AND INTERFERENCES
`
`Ex parte DDR HOLDINGS, LLC,
`Appellant and Patent Owner
`
`Appeal 2009-0013987
`Reexamination Control 90/008,374
`Patent 6,993,572
`Technology Center 3900
`
`Decided: April 16, 2010
`
`Before SCOTT R. BOALICK, ST. JOHN COURTENAY, III and KEVIN F.
`TURNER, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`TURNER, Administrative Patent Judge
`
`DECISION ON APPEAL
`
`Page 2 of 16
`
`

`

`Appeal 2009-013987
`Reexamination Control 90/008,374
`United States Patent 6,993,572
`
`DDR HOLDINGs, LLC 1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. §§ 134(b) and 306
`
`from a final rejection of claims 1, 4, 5, 13, 17-22, and 24-26. We have
`
`jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. §§ 134(b) and 306.
`
`We heard oral arguments on October 21, 2009, a written transcript of
`
`which is included in the record.
`
`We REVERSE.
`
`STATEMENT OF THE CASE
`
`This proceeding arose from a request for ex parte reexamination filed
`
`by the Patent Owner on December 13, 2006 of United States Patent
`
`6,993,572 (issued January 31, 2006) to D. Delano Ross, Jr., et al.
`
`[hereinafter the '572 Patent] based on United States Patent Application
`
`10/461 ,997 (filed June 11, 2003).
`
`A related patent, United States Patent 6,629,135 (issued September
`
`30, 2003), based United States Patent Application 09/398,268 (filed
`
`September 17, 1999), is the parent application of the '572 Patent, is also the
`
`subject of a request for ex parte reexamination (Reexamination Control
`
`90/008,375), and is also presently being appealed (Appeal 2009-013988).
`
`That appeal is being concurrently decided with the instant appeal.
`
`1 DDR Holdings, LLC is the real party in interest and the current owner of
`the patent under reexamination.
`
`2
`
`Page 3 of 16
`
`

`

`Appeal 2009-013987
`Reexamination Control 90/008,374
`United States Patent 6,993,572
`
`Patentee's invention relates to commerce syndication where
`
`computer-based information providers receive outsourced electronic
`
`commerce facilities in a context sensitive, transparent manner (Spec. col. 1,
`
`11. 18-21 ). In the process, the host's look and feel is captured by selecting an
`
`example page of the host, retrieving the sample page from the host,
`
`identifying the look and feel elements from the sample page and saving the
`
`identified look and feel elements. "Look and feel elements" include logos,
`
`colors, page layout, navigation systems, frames, "mouse-over" effects, or
`
`other elements that are consistent through some or all of a host's website (id.
`
`at col. 14, 11. 6-17).
`
`Claims 1-27 are listed in the issued patent, where claims 2, 3, 6-12,
`
`and 14-16 are not subject to reexamination (Final Office Action 2), and
`
`claims 23 and 27 have been confirmed (Final Office Action 3). Claims 1,
`
`13, and 17, which we deem to be representative, read as follows:
`
`1. An e-commerce outsourcing process
`compnsmg:
`a) capturing a look and feel description associated
`with a host website and storing HTML code
`corresponding to the look and feel description at a
`second website;
`b) providing the host website with a link for
`inclusion within a page on the host website for serving to
`a visitor computer, wherein the provided link correlates
`the host website with a selected commerce object; and
`
`3
`
`Page 4 of 16
`
`

`

`Appeal 2009-013987
`Reexamination Control 90/008,374
`United States Patent 6,993,572
`
`c) upon receiving an activation of the provided
`link from the visitor computer, serving to the visitor
`computer from the second website page with a look and
`feel corresponding to the captured look and feel
`description of the host website associated with the
`provided link and with content based on the commerce
`object associated with the provided link;
`whereby the visitor receiving the served page at
`the visitor computer perceives the page as associated
`with the host website even though it is served from the
`second website.
`
`13. An e-commerce outsourcing system
`comprising:
`a) a data store including a look and feel
`description associated with a host web page having a
`link correlated with a commerce object; and
`b) a computer processor coupled to the data store
`and in communication through the Internet with the host
`web page and programmed, upon receiving an indication
`that the link has been activated by a visitor computer in
`Internet communication with the host web page, to serve
`a composite web page to the visitor computer wit a look
`and feel based on the look and feel description in the
`data store and with content based on the commerce
`object associated wit the link.
`
`1 7. An e-commerce outsourcing process
`comprising the steps of:
`a) storing a look and feel description associated
`with a first website in a data store associated with a
`second website;
`
`4
`
`Page 5 of 16
`
`

`

`Appeal 2009-013987
`Reexamination Control 90/008,374
`United States Patent 6,993,572
`
`b) including within a web page of the first
`website, which web page has a look and feel
`substantially corresponding to the stored look and feel
`description, a link correlating the web page with a
`commerce object; and
`c) upon receiving an activation of the link from a
`visitor computer to which the web page has been served,
`sewing to the visitor computer from the second website a
`composite web page having a look and feel
`corresponding to the stored look and feel description of
`the first website and having content based on the
`commerce object associated with the link..
`
`The prior art reference relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the
`
`claims is:
`
`Arnold
`
`6,016,504
`
`Jan. 18, 2000
`
`The Examiner rejected claims 1, 4, 5, 13, 17, 20-22, and 24-26 under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Arnold (Ans. 3-21), and rejected
`
`claims 18 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
`
`Arnold (Ans. 21-23).
`
`ISSUE
`
`Appellant contends that the Examiner's rejection is in error because
`
`Arnold does not disclose "'capturing a look and feel description associated
`
`with a host website,"' as recited in claim l (App. Br. 12). Appellant
`
`acknowledges that Arnold allows for customization to reflect the specific
`
`virtual outlet ("VO"), but that does not amount to "capturing" as disclosed
`
`5
`
`Page 6 of 16
`
`

`

`Appeal 2009-013987
`Reexamination Control 90/008,374
`United States Patent 6,993,572
`
`and claimed in the instant patent, even under the broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation standard (App. Br. 13-14). The Examiner finds that the
`
`"capturing" step only requires "that the data be obtained for use," and that
`
`the claim limitations do not specifically require a party other than the host
`
`itself to do the capturing (Ans. 24-25).
`
`Appellant also contends that the Examiner's rejection is in error
`
`because An1old does not disclose the use of a "commerce object [] as the
`
`language of claims 1, 13, and 17 variously require" (App. Br. 17). Appellant
`
`argues that "Arnold's link from the host website to the merchant directly
`
`does not correlate/correspond with a (selected) commerce object ... because
`
`[a commerce object] is defined as a product of a third-party merchant, not a
`
`product sold by the owner of the linked page" (App. Br. 17-18). Appellant
`
`also argues that the Examiner has ignored the explicit definition of
`
`"commerce object" found in the Specification and which serves to
`
`distinguish the claims from Arnold (App. Br. 19). The Examiner finds that
`
`the term "commerce object" "in light of general e-commerce" does not
`
`require the specifics argued by the Patent Owner (Ans. 26), and that the
`
`merchant's product web pages, in Arnold, "can be considered the
`
`'commerce object' which is linked from the Host" (Ans. 27).
`
`Only those arguments actually made by Appellant have been
`
`considered in this decision. Arguments which Appellant could have made
`
`but chose not to make in the Brief have not been considered and are deemed
`
`to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(vii).
`
`6
`
`Page 7 of 16
`
`

`

`Appeal 2009-013987
`Reexamination Control 90/008,374
`United States Patent 6,993,572
`
`Thus, the issues arising from the respective positions of Appellant and
`
`the Examiner are:
`
`Did the Examiner err in determining that Arnold discloses capturing
`
`the look and feel description associated with a host website under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 102( e) per claim 1?
`
`Did the Examiner err in determining that An1old discloses a link
`
`correlated with a commerce object under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) per claims 1,
`
`13, and 17?
`
`Did the Examiner err in determining that An1old teaches or suggests
`
`all of the elements of claims 18 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)?
`
`FINDINGS OF FACT
`
`1.
`
`The Specification of the '572 Patent defines "merchants" as
`
`"producers, distributors, or resellers of the goods to be sold
`
`through the outsource provider" (Spec. col. 23, 11. 18-19).
`
`2.
`
`The Specification of the '572 Patent defines "hosts" as "the
`
`operator of a website that engages in Inten1et commerce by
`
`incorporating one or more link to the e-commerce outsource
`
`provider into its web content" (Spec. col. 23, 11. 46-48).
`
`3.
`
`The Specification of the '572 Patent discloses that the role of the
`
`"outsource provider" is to "[ d]evelop and maintain the outsource
`
`provider service bureau -- the systems and software which provide
`
`the platform for e-commerce support services[, i]dentify and
`
`7
`
`Page 8 of 16
`
`

`

`Appeal 2009-013987
`Reexamination Control 90/008,374
`United States Patent 6,993,572
`
`recruit target Host websites and monitor/manage these
`
`relationships[, and c ]reate customer-transparent Host processing
`
`'pages' on a secure server to receive order and payment
`
`information" (Spec. col. 23, 1. 62 - col. 24, 1. 3).
`
`4.
`
`According to the Specification of the '572 Patent, the host's look
`
`and feel is captured by selecting an example page of the host,
`
`retrieving the sample page from the host, identifying the look and
`
`feel elements from the sample page and saving the identified look
`
`and feel elements. "Look and feel elements" include logos, colors,
`
`page layout, navigation systems, frames, 'mouse-over' effects, or
`
`other elements that are consistent through some or all of a host's
`
`website (Spec. col. 14, 11. 6-17).
`
`5.
`
`A link generator allows host to create and maintain the shopping
`
`opportunities that they can then place on their site, where each link
`
`is assigned a unique link ID, with the link ID identifying who the
`
`host is, who the merchant is, and what commerce object (catalog,
`
`category, product or dynamic selection) is linked to (Spec. col. 15,
`
`11. 10-16).
`
`6.
`
`Arnold discloses a method for establishing and maintaining a
`
`virtual outlet (VO) between an entity that controls and manages a
`
`web site and a merchant that controls and manages a different Web
`
`site. To the customer using the VO, it appears that the entire
`
`8
`
`Page 9 of 16
`
`

`

`Appeal 2009-013987
`Reexamination Control 90/008,374
`United States Patent 6,993,572
`
`process of ordering from the merchant is conducted entirely within
`
`the VO web pages (Arnold, Abs.; Fig. IA).
`
`7.
`
`A web page allows a person signing up for the VO to input
`
`information concerning the appearance that the VO expects for a
`
`merchant order web page that will be displayed when a customer
`
`hot links through the VO to the merchant site, where this
`
`"infom1ation includes a URL for a graphics file that contains the
`
`VO's logo, the desired background color, and other such
`
`information" (Arnold, col. 9, 11. 14-20; Fig. 6).
`
`8.
`
`A Catalog_ Browser routine allows a VO representative to browse
`
`through catalog Web pages supplied by the merchant, where items
`
`for sale are described and listed along with URLs corresponding to
`
`the order web page that the merchant will supply to a customer
`
`linking through a VO web page to the merchant site in order to
`
`purchase the item. (An1old, col. 10, 11. 41-47).
`
`9.
`
`Arnold further discloses that when a customer selects a merchant's
`
`hotlink on the VO website, the customer's computer is served a
`
`page from the merchant's computer with the look and feel
`
`corresponding to that entered by the person who signed up for the
`
`VO (An1old, col. 14, 11. 15-27).
`
`9
`
`Page 10 of 16
`
`

`

`Appeal 2009-013987
`Reexamination Control 90/008,374
`United States Patent 6,993,572
`
`PRINCIPLES OF LAW
`
`Anticipation is established when a single prior art reference discloses,
`
`expressly or under the principles of inherency, each and every limitation of
`
`the claimed invention. Atlas Powder Co. v. IRECO, Inc., 190 F.3d 1342,
`
`1347 (Fed. Cir. 1999); In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1478-79
`
`(Fed. Cir. 1994).
`
`"Section 103 forbids issuance of a patent when 'the differences
`
`between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such
`
`that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the
`
`invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said
`
`subject matter pertains."' KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc. , 550 U.S. 398, 406
`
`(2007).
`
`During examination of a patent application, a claim is given its
`
`broadest reasonable constmction consistent with the specification. In re
`
`Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 1404-05 (CCPA 1969). "[T]he words of a claim 'are
`
`generally given their ordinary and customary meaning."' Phillips v. AWH
`
`Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en bane) (i11ten1al citations
`
`omitted). The "ordinary and customary meaning of a claim term is the
`
`meaning that the term would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art in
`
`question at the time of the invention, i.e. , as of the effective filing date of the
`
`patent application." Id. at 1313.
`
`10
`
`Page 11 of 16
`
`

`

`Appeal 2009-013987
`Reexamination Control 90/008,374
`United States Patent 6,993,572
`
`ANALYSIS
`
`Appellant argues that the Examiner' s rejection is in error because
`
`Arnold does not disclose "capturing a look and feel description associated
`
`with a host website," as recited in claim l (App. Br. 12). Appellant
`
`acknowledges that An1old allows for customization to reflect the specific
`
`VO, but that does not amount to "capturing" as disclosed and claimed in the
`
`instant patent, even under the broadest reasonable interpretation standard
`
`(App. Br. 13-14). The Examiner finds that the "capturing" step only
`
`requires "that the data be obtained for use," and that the claim limitations do
`
`not specifically require a party other than the host itself to do the capturing
`
`(Ans. 24-25). Thus, the issue before us tun1s on claim construction.
`
`We begin our analysis by broadly but reasonably constn1ing the
`
`disputed claim term "capturing." During prosecution, "the PTO gives
`
`claims their 'broadest reasonable interpretation."' In re Bigio, 381 F.3d
`
`1320, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (quoting In re Hyatt, 211F.3d1367, 1372 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2000)). Claims are to be given their broadest reasonable interpretation
`
`consistent with the specification, and the language should be read in light of
`
`the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`In re Anier. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr. , 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004)
`
`(citations omitted).
`
`When we look to Appellant's Specification for context, we note that
`
`the instant Specification makes clear that the host's look and feel is captured
`
`by selecting an example page of the host, retrieving the sample page from
`
`11
`
`Page 12 of 16
`
`

`

`Appeal 2009-013987
`Reexamination Control 90/008,374
`United States Patent 6,993,572
`
`the host (FF 4). The Specification also makes clear the "host" is a separate
`
`entity from the party that does the capturing (FF 1-3).
`
`Consistent with Appellant's Specification, we broadly but reasonably
`
`construe "capturing" as requiring a party taking possession of something
`that was not previously in their possession (cf FF 1-3; see also Ora] Hearing
`
`Transcript p. 20). Given our claim construction, we find Arnold does not
`
`disclose or describe capturing as claimed.
`
`Thus, while the Examiner is correct that claim 1 does not specifically
`
`require a party other than the host itself to do the capturing (Ans. 9), we
`
`conclude that such a requirement is required by the claim by applying the
`
`proper claim interpretation to the elements therein. Similarly, while the
`
`Examiner is also correct that claim 1 does not require any sort of automatic
`
`retrieval of data (id.), we do not find that Arnold discloses such "capturing"
`
`through the disclosed data entry (FF 7). While the overall result achieved by
`
`Appellant's claimed method may be obtained by the methodology disclosed
`
`in Arnold, we do not find Arnold discloses the steps of method claim 1. As
`
`such, we find that An1old cannot anticipate claim 1, or claims dependent
`
`thereon, and thus we find that the rejection of claim 1, was made in error.
`
`Appellant also contends that the Examiner's rejection is in error
`
`because An1old does not disclose the use of a commerce object as recited in
`
`claims 1, 13, and 17 (App. Br. 17). Appellant argues that "Arnold's link
`
`from the host website to the merchant directly does not correlate/correspond
`
`with a (selected) commerce object ... because [a commerce object] is
`
`12
`
`Page 13 of 16
`
`

`

`Appeal 2009-013987
`Reexamination Control 90/008,374
`United States Patent 6,993,572
`
`defined as a product of a third-party merchant, not a product sold by the
`
`owner of the linked page" (App. Br. 17-18). Appellant also argues that the
`
`Examiner has ignored the explicit definition of "commerce object" found in
`
`the Specification and which serves to distinguish the claims from An1old
`
`(App. Br. 19). The Examiner finds that the tenn "commerce object" "in
`
`light of general e-commerce" does not require the specifics argued by the
`
`Patent Owner (Ans. 26), and that the merchant's product web pages, in
`
`Arnold, "can be considered the ' commerce object' which is linked from the
`
`Host" (Ans. 27). We agree with Appellant.
`
`The Specification of the '572 Patent defines a commerce object as "a
`
`catalog, category, product or dynamic selection" (FF 5). We af,rree with
`
`Appellant that the Examiner has not applied the definition of commerce
`
`object in the rejection of claims 1, 13 and 17 (App. Br. 19). In Arnold, the
`
`links provided correlate to a web page, as the Examiner acknowledges (Ans.
`
`27). As Appellant has argued: "[a] mere link to a merchant site, which in
`
`turn has links to a number of individual products, is not the same thing as
`
`correlating the referring page with a specific 'commerce object"' (App. Br.
`
`18). While the served web page in Arnold could contain a single catalog,
`
`category or product, we do not find any explicit disclosure in An1old that it
`
`does. As such, we do not find that An1old teaches all of the elements of
`
`claims 1, 13, and 1 7, and therefore the Examiner erred in finding those
`
`claims to be anticipated. In similar fashion, we also find the rejection of
`
`13
`
`Page 14 of 16
`
`

`

`Appeal 2009-013987
`Reexamination Control 90/008,374
`United States Patent 6,993,572
`
`dependent claims 4, 5, 20-22, and 24-26 to also have been made in error, by
`
`virtue of their dependence.
`
`With respect to the obviousness rejection of claims 18 and 19, where
`
`elements of those claims were found to be obvious over the disclosure of
`
`Amold, the rejection fails to cure the deficiencies of An1old which we have
`
`discussed supra. Since claims 18 and 19 depend from claim 17, where we
`
`find that An1old does not anticipate the latter claim, we find that the
`
`Examiner has not provided a proper basis for finding claims 18 and 19 to be
`
`obvious over Arnold.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`Appellant has shown that the Examiner erred in determining that: i)
`
`Arnold discloses capturing the look and feel description associated with a
`
`host website under 35 U.S.C. § 102( e); ii) Arnold discloses a link correlated
`
`with a commerce object under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e); and iii) Arnold teaches or
`
`suggests all of the elements of claims 18 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
`
`The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1, 4, 5, 13, 17-22, and
`
`DECISION
`
`24-26 is REVERSED.
`
`ack
`
`REVERSED
`
`14
`
`Page 15 of 16
`
`

`

`Appeal 2009-013987
`Reexamination Control 90/008,374
`United States Patent 6,993,572
`
`cc:
`
`LOUIS J. HOFFMAN, P.C.
`11811 North Tatum Blvd.
`Suite 2100
`Phoenix, AZ 85028
`
`15
`
`Page 16 of 16
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket