Ex Parte Bleicher et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 30, 2013

10938756 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 30, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte PAUL A. BLEICHER, NICHOLAS STAMOS,
JEFFREY P. KLOFFT, and RICHARD M. DALE
____________

Appeal 2011-001518
Application 10/938,756
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD, JR., ERIC S. FRAHM, and
ANDREW J. DILLON, Administrative Patent Judges.

DILLON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 27, 29-33, 53, and 57-60. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants describe their invention as follows:
A system and method for managing clinical trial data
includes dynamically generating, at a server, a data entry form
Appeal 2011-001518
Application 10/938,756

2
to be displayed at a client. ... The form is generated from a
protocol database and a context received from the client, is
populated from the data database, and is published to the client.
... If the trial protocol changes during a trial, the generated
form is based on the protocol version active at the time data
was entered into the form. ... Furthermore, help is provided by
creating a link between the text of each question and
information about the question. The source of help may be any
or all of a protocol document, an investigative brochure, and a
study guide.
Spec., abstract.
Independent claim 27 is illustrative:
27. A clinical trial data entry method, comprising:
displaying a form on a computer screen, the form having
at least one query to which a user must respond to provide
clinical data during a clinical trial;
creating links between text of each query and detailed
help information related to the query, the detailed help
information being derived from at least one information source
other than the form, and the at least one information source
being separate from the detailed help information; and
if the user clicks on text of a query, displaying the
detailed help information corresponding to the query in a
separate window, the separate window including at least one
button operatively used to access and display the at least one
information source.
Appeal 2011-001518
Application 10/938,756

3
The Examiner relies on the following references as evidence of
unpatentability:
Hickman US 5,361,361 Nov. 1, 1994
Strahorn US 5,933,140 Aug. 3, 1999
Brandt US Pat. Pub. 2002/0130895 A1 Sep. 19, 2002
Spellman US 6,667,747 B1 Dec. 23, 2003

REJECTION
The Examiner rejected claims 27, 29-33, 53, and 57-60 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Brandt, Hickman, Spellman, and
Strahorn. Ans. 4-10.1

ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds the subject matter of illustrative claim 27 is
attained by obvious modifications of Brandt’s invention in view Hickman,
Spellman, and Strahorn. Ans., pp. 5-8. The relied-upon features of Brandt
include a webpage 24, hyperlink 25 of the webpage 24 to related help
information 25, separate window 26 displaying the help information 28, and
hyperlinks 29, 30 of the window 26 to remote source/s (i.e., other than the
webpage 24). Id. The proposed modifications include implementing the
webpage 24 as a “form … having at least one query” in view of Strahorn,
implementing the query’s text as a hyperlink to the help information in view

1 Throughout this opinion, we refer to the Appeal Brief filed May 5, 2010
(“App. Br.”) and the Examiner’s Answer mailed July 21, 2010 (“Ans.”).
Appeal 2011-001518
Application 10/938,756

4
of Spellman, and deriving the help information from the remote sources in
view of Hillman. Id.
Appellants present multifarious, unpersuasive Appeal Brief
arguments. We address the arguments one-by-one below.
Appellants argue:
The examiner has cited the phrase “in the form of so-
called web pages” from ... Brandt as disclosing “a dynamically
generated form ...,” as recited[.] This use by Brandt of the
word “form” does not refer to the type of form having queries
..., but refers to the general format or layout of a web page.
App. Br., p. 8.2 The Examiner correctly responds that Strahorn is cited as
suggesting Brandt’s webpage 24 be implemented as a “form … having at
least one query.” Ans., p. 11; cf., id. at pp. 7-8 and Strahorn, col. 1, ll. 33-46
(teaching a webpage “order form” with entry fields; also teaching hyperlinks
mapped to related help information). Appellants’ argument accordingly fails
to address the rejection. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981)
(“[O]ne cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually
where, as here, the rejections are based on combinations of references.”).
Appellants argue: “The cited portion of Brandt discloses only that a
web page is provided on demand, not that a form in the web page is
generated dynamically at the time of the demand[.]” App. Br., p. 8. We
disagree with Appellants in light of our interpretation of “dynamic”. See In
re Donaldson Co., Inc., 16 F.3d 1189, 1192 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (The Board
construes claims de novo.). In the context of computers, “dynamic” has
been generally defined:

2 Independent claims 31 and 60 recite a dynamically generated form.
Independent claims 27 and 53 do not recite a dynamically generated form.
Appeal 2011-001518
Application 10/938,756

5
Computers. (of data storage, processing, or programming)
affected by the passage of time or the presence or absence of
power: Dynamic memory must be constantly refreshed to
avoid losing data. Dynamic Web sites contain Web pages that
are generated in real time.
Random House Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary 610 (2d ed. 2001).
Appellants’ Specification does not further restrict the meaning of
“dynamic.” See Thorner v. Sony Computer, 669 F.3d 1362, 1366-67 (Fed.
Cir. 2012) (“To constitute disclaimer, there must be a clear and unmistakable
disclaimer.”). Given these considerations, the claim language “dynamically
generating and displaying a form” requires the form to be merely displayed
and generated in real time, e.g., when requested. Even assuming arguendo
Brandt does not disclose the webpage 24 as being generated in real time, the
general definition of “dynamic” evidences that web pages were known to be
dynamically generated. Thus, dynamically generating Brandt’s webpages
would nonetheless constitute a predictable variation of Brandt’s teachings.
Note also that mere common sense urges a dynamic updating – and in turn
dynamic generation – of time-sensitive information.
Appellants argue that “the combination of Brandt and Strahorn results
in a system in which a user accesses help information by clicking on a help
button, not by ‘clicking on text of a query’ to which a user must respond, as
recited[.]” App. Br., p. 9. The Examiner responds that Spellman “was
specifically relied upon for teaching ‘clicking on text’ for requesting help
information[.]” Ans., p. 12. The Examiner is correct. Strahorn is cited as
suggesting Brandt’s webpage 24 be implemented as a “form … having at
least one query,” whereas Spellman is cited as suggesting the query’s text be
implemented as a hyperlink to the help information. Ans., pp. 6-8; cf.,
Appeal 2011-001518
Application 10/938,756

6
Spellman, col. 2, ll. 8-12 (teaching hyperlink text mapped to related help
information).3 Appellants’ argument accordingly fails to address the
rejection.
Appellants’ argue:
[T]he examiner asserts that ... ‘detailed help information being
derived from at least one information source other than the
form ...,’ is disclosed by Brandt’s ... “... help information that
pertains ... to the information being displayed on a webpage”[.]
But information that pertains to a webpage is not necessarily
derived from other information sources.
App. Br. 10. The Examiner correctly responds that Hickman is cited as
suggesting the claimed derivation of help information from remote source/s.4
Ans., p. 14; cf., id. at pp. 5-6 and Hickman, col. 5, l. 55 – col. 6, l. 15
(teaching a window of help information topics derived from multiple files).5
Appellants’ argument accordingly fails to address the rejection.
Appellants argue: “Hickman discloses that help file directories may be
searched for topics that match search criteria ...[, but] this is different than
the claimed derivation of information at least because ... the user of the
claimed invention does not enter a search query.” App. Br., p. 10. The
Examiner correctly responds that Spellman is cited as suggesting Brandt’s
help information 28 be displayed in response to “clicking on text of query”,
whereas Hickman is cited as further suggesting the help information be

3 Strahorn similarly teaches a “version” of its webpage with hyperlink text
mapped to related help information. Col. 3, ll. 9-14; col. 4, ll. 33-46; claims
5 and 16.
4 Claims 27, 53, and 60 recite one source. Claim 31 recites multiple sources.
5 Spellman similarly teaches a single hyperlink can, via a macro, access
multiple files for help information. Col. 2, ll. 41 – col. 3, l. 20.
Appeal 2011-001518
Application 10/938,756

7
derived from remote source/s. Ans., p. 15; cf., id. at pp. 5-7. Appellants’
argument accordingly fails to address the rejection.
Appellants argue: “[D]irectories returned by Hickman as the result of
a user’s search query are not detailed help information that are separate from
the information source(s) because ... the user of Hickman must still select a
topic to view.” App. Br., p. 11. The Examiner responds that “[j]ust because
a user may further interact with the returned detailed title listing does not
preclude the aggregated help information from being considered detailed.”
Ans., p. 17. And, the Examiner further responds that “the filtered topics and
sub-topics displayed in [Hickman’s] help window can also be considered
detailed help information[.]” Ans., p. 17. We agree with the Examiner
insofar Appellants do not present any indication – much less a supported one
– of what “detailed” means within the context of help information.6
Appellants accordingly fail to address, as required, why the cited topics of
Hickman’s help window do not constitute “detailed” help information. See
In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1362-65 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (affirming in part
because appellant “merely argued that the claims differed from [the prior
art], and chose not to proffer a serious explanation of this difference.”); 37
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (“A statement which merely points out what a claim
recites will not be considered an argument for separate patentability of the
claim.”).
Appellants argue that Brandt’s “back button, next button, and close
button ... allow a user to navigate the help information that is displayed, but
does not allow the user to access and display the information source(s) from

6 Because “detailed” is a term of degree, Appellants’ Specification must
disclose a standard for measuring the requisite degree. See Datamize v.
Plumtree Software, Inc., 417 F.3d 1342, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
Appeal 2011-001518
Application 10/938,756

8
which the help information was derived.” App. Br., p. 10. The Examiner
responds:
Brandt taught listing in the table of contents frame of the help
window, contents to other items ... such that they are hypertext
links to hypertext files pertaining to the web page on display[.]
[T]he user navigates from said initial detailed help information
to various other help files via the hypertext links[.]
Ans., p. 13. We agree with the Examiner. Brandt states that “[t]he table of
contents frame [29 of the help window 26] presents hypertext links to
HTML files pertaining to the web page.” Brandt, ¶ 13. The hyperlinks are
mapped “to other items that pertain to the information in the help
information frame 28” and, more particularly, “to hypertext help files
pertaining to the web page.” Id. at ¶ 34. In light of these teachings, if the
information within Brandt’s help window 26 is derived from remote source/s
(as reasonably proposed in view of Hickman), then it would be common
sense to map the hyperlinks of that window 26 – i.e., the hyperlinks “to other
items that pertain to the information” (Brandt, ¶ 34) – to the remote sources
from which the help information is derived and are thus directly pertinent
thereto.
Appellants argue: “[T]he examiner argued that Brandt’s buttons are
used to ‘download[] a plurality of additional help files[.]’ But these files are
merely the files in which Brandt’s help information is stored. ... They are not
sources from which the help information itself is derived.” App. Br., p. 10.
The Examiner correctly responds that Hickman is cited as suggesting the
proposed derivation of Brandt’s help information 28 from remote source/s.
Ans., p. 13. Appellants’ argument accordingly fails to address the rejection.
Appellants argue:
Appeal 2011-001518
Application 10/938,756

9
Activation of [Spellman’s] hyperlink causes a second help file
to be displayed. ... The hyperlink ... is in a help file, not part of
a form having queries to which a user must respond. Thus,
Spellman’s links are between help files, not between the ‘text of
each query and detailed help information,’ as claimed[.]
App. Br., p. 12.7 The Examiner correctly responds that Spellman is cited as
suggesting implementation of a query’s text as a hyperlink mapped to help
information. Ans., p. 18. Appellants’ argument accordingly fails to address
the rejection.
For the foregoing reasons, we sustain the obviousness rejection of
claim 27 over Brandt, Hickman, Spellman, and Strahorn. As Appellants do
not present additional arguments for claims 29-33, 53, and 57-60, we also
sustain the obviousness rejection of these claims over Brandt, Hickman,
Spellman, and Strahorn.

ORDER
For the above reasons, the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 27,
29-33, 53, and 57-60 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)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED

tkl

7 Unlike claims 27, 53, and 60, claim 31 does not recite a query of hyperlink
text mapped to help information.