Ex Parte Armandpour et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 8, 2013

11450930 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 8, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
__________

Ex parte TIM ARMANDPOUR and MASROOR MALIK
__________

Appeal 2011-011258
Application 11/450,930
Technology Center 2100
__________

Before DEMETRA J. MILLS, LORA M. GREEN, and
JEFFREY N. FREDMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

FREDMAN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal1 under 35 U.S.C. § 134 involving claims to a method
automatically executed by software stored in memory of a computerized
server connected to Internet for collecting information for subscribing
persons. The Examiner rejected the claims as obvious. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.

1 Appellants identify the Real Party in Interest as Yodlee.Inc (see
App. Br. 3).
Appeal 2011-011258
Application 11/450,930

2
Statement of the Case
Background
“The present invention is in the field of Internet navigation and data
communication, and pertains more particularly to methods and apparatus for
detecting Website changes and reporting the information to website
developer” (Spec. 1, ll. 9-12).
The Claims
Claims 29 and 87-89 are on appeal.2 Claim 29 is representative and
reads as follows:
29. A method automatically executed by software stored
in memory of a computerized server connected to Internet
for collecting information for subscribing persons,
comprising:
automatically linking to a first website by the software
on behalf of a first person requesting navigation;
extracting first information directly associated with a
specific identification of the first person from the first
website by the software executing a first navigation routine,
the first navigation routine comprising executable
instructions created with object-oriented tools for navigating
to the first website and within the first website, the first
navigation routine including one or more site-logic blocks
comprising software modules providing
navigation/interaction templates that include interaction
tasks identified and executed by evaluating the architecture
of the site, the one or more site[-]logic blocks each being
modular parts of the first navigation routine, the first
navigation routine being one of a plurality of navigation
routines accessing Web sites [sic] executable on behalf of

2 Appellants acknowledge that “[c]laims 87-89 stand or fall with
the independent claims” (App. Br. 16).
Appeal 2011-011258
Application 11/450,930

3
the first person and navigation routines executable by
second persons;
noting an error by the software while extracting
information from the fist [sic first?] website, including
detecting a defunct site-logic block having at least a failed
interaction task in the first navigation routine;
changing the first navigation routine to generate an
updated first navigation routine according to the error noted
while extracting information from the first website, where
changing the first navigation routine includes receiving
developer input replacing only the defunct site-logic block
with one or more operational site-logic blocks, and after the
first navigation routine is changed, automatically replacing
only the defunct site-logic block with the one or more
operational site-logic blocks in any other navigation routines
in the plurality of navigation routines identified by the
software as utilizing the defunct site[-]logic block for
gathering information for other subscribing persons as
employing the defunct site-logic block;
extracting the first information from the first website
using the updated first navigation routine;
extracting second information directly associated with
a specific identification of the first person from a second
website by executing a second navigation routine by the
software, the second navigation routine comprising
instructions for navigating to the second website and within
the second website, the second navigation routine including
one or more site-logic blocks, the one or more site[-]logic
blocks each being modular parts of the second navigation
routine, the second navigation routine being one of the
plurality of navigation routines executable on behalf of the
first person;
aggregating and summarizing by the software the
extracted first information with the extracted second
information; and
storing the aggregated and summarized data in an
information repository.

Appeal 2011-011258
Application 11/450,930

4
The issue

The Examiner rejected claims 29 and 87-893 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as obvious over DaCosta,4 Heninger,5 and Bogrett6 (Ans. 4-10).
The Examiner finds that DaCosta teaches an automatic method
comprising
[E]xtracting first information directly associated with a
specific identification of the first person by the software
executing a first navigation routine . . . from the first website
by the software executing a first navigation routine, the first
navigation routine comprising executable instructions . . .
created with object oriented tools . . . for navigating to the
first website and within the first website, the first navigation
routine including one or more site-logic blocks, comprising
software modules providing navigation/interaction templates
that include interaction tasks identified and executed by
evaluating the architecture of the site

(Ans. 4-5). The Examiner finds that DaCosta teaches “noting an error by the
software while extracting information from the first website . . . changing the
first navigation routine to generate an updated first navigation routine
according to the error noted while extracting information from the first
website” (id. at 6).
The Examiner relies upon Heninger to teach “building software
components in a modular fashion such that each modular component could

3 We note that the statement of rejection in the Examiner’s Answer
omitted claims 87-89; however, findings were provided for these
claims which are before us on appeal (Ans. 9-11; Final Rej. 7-8).
4 DaCosta et al., US 6,826,553 B1, issued Nov. 30, 2004.
5 Heninger, A., US 6,029,207, issued Feb. 22, 2000.
6 Bogrett, S., US 6,842,758 B1, issued Jan. 11, 2005.
Appeal 2011-011258
Application 11/450,930

5
be constructed, modified, and tested independently” (Ans. 8). The Examiner
finds that Bogrett teaches “maintaining client applications wherein all
upgrades to client software was done automatically by a server by generating
an incremental update for transmitting to the client, wherein the incremental
update includes only the modules of code that need to be updated” (id. at 8-
9).
The Examiner finds it obvious that “the modular software components
of Heninger would have provided the developers of DaCosta a better way of
maintaining, editing, and correcting failed navigation scripts . . . by allowing
the developers to fix only the modular part of the failed navigation and
interaction script” (id. at 8). The Examiner also finds it obvious to update
DaCosta’s software by “only updating the defunct software modules as
taught in Bogrett, because Bogrett taught that by only updating the defunct
software modules in an incremental update the client gained the benefit of
executing quickly and always being up-to-date and the system gained the
benefit of minimizing network traffic” (id. at 9).
The issue with respect to this rejection is: Does the evidence of record
support the Examiner’s conclusion that DaCosta, Heninger, and Bogrett
render obvious the method of claim 29?
Findings of Fact
1. The Specification teaches that “navigation templates are
executable instruction orders containing the logic blocks. Furthermore, the
functional logic blocks are modular and self-installable within the navigation
templates” (Spec. 9, ll. 15-18).
Appeal 2011-011258
Application 11/450,930

6
2. DaCosta teaches “collecting unstructured data from one or more
web sites on the Internet and providing structured data, for example, to
navigate to multiple web sites and extract data snippets” (DaCosta, col. 2, ll.
12-15).
3. DaCosta teaches “precisely locating and extracting the select
data with a granularity specified by the user from any information source
such as search engine results, web pages, other web-accessible documents”
(DaCosta, col. 2, ll. 32-35).
4. DaCosta teaches that the “extracted data may include account
type, symbol, description, quantity, high, low, change, last price and market
value, for example” (DaCosta, col. 11, ll. 28-30).
5. DaCosta teaches that:
[I]f a web site requires a user to enter a login name and
password to reach an orientation page and then asks for a set
of preferences to go to specific web pages or other web-
accessible documents of interest, it is an object of the
present invention to enable a client application to record this
path once, then play it back many times including the dialog
interaction with the server.

(DaCosta, col. 5, ll. 44-51.)
6. DaCosta teaches that:
[T]he navigation recording module 12 memorizes which
anchors were clicked and which forms were submitted 70
and maps 80 each user event to an element in the recorded
HTML object or element hierarchy. This information is
preferably stored 90 in an Extensible Markup Language
(“XML”) file . . . the navigation XML file preferably
includes the series of steps that correspond to different web
pages or other web-accessible documents that are loaded
during the recorded initial navigation process. Each step
Appeal 2011-011258
Application 11/450,930

7
includes information about the web page or other web-
accessible document and a collection of elements that
correspond to HTML elements, for example, such as
hyperlinks and form fields that are acted upon. Each
element includes information on how to locate the
corresponding HTML element and what action to perform
on or with it.

(DaCosta, col. 7, ll. 29-53.)
7. DaCosta teaches that “if a web page or other web-accessible
document has changed dramatically, an e-mail alert is sent to any user of the
script, and the script is marked with a flag. In response to the e-mail, the
extraction module 20 can then be executed to re-teach the data extraction to
produce a new script” (DaCosta, col. 6, ll. 35-40).
8. DaCosta teaches that:
[S]cripts are stored at a centralized repository that is
accessible through the Internet, for example. In this way, if
there are multiple users of a script, should that script fail it is
easy to ensure each of the users has a corrected script as
soon as possible, i.e., as soon as it is downloaded to the
central repository. One can activate a script by requesting
access to it, temporarily storing it and then locally running
that script.

(DaCosta, col. 18, ll. 35-41.)
9. DaCosta teaches that “data from different web sites can be
gathered for simultaneous display in formats such as MS Word, MS
PowerPoint or MS Excel, for example, or for further processing according to
each user’s particular needs, i.e., extraction of statistics, computations or
other processing” (DaCosta, col. 6, ll. 44-50).
10. Heninger teaches that:
Appeal 2011-011258
Application 11/450,930

8
Computer systems, including both hardware and
software components, are rapidly becoming more powerful
and sophisticated. One reason for the rapid expansion is a
system architecture whereby the components of the
computer system are designed and built in a modular
fashion. As long as the interface between components is
established, each modular component can be constructed,
modified, and tested independently. Modularity leads to
better computer products at minimal cost.

(Heninger, col. 1, ll. 20-29.)
11. Heninger teaches that “[m]odular software design has advanced
in the prior art through the use of object-oriented programming. Object-
oriented programming allows the software designer to associate a packet of
information with a set of functions (methods) for manipulating the
information” (Heninger, col. 2, ll. 15-19).
12. Bogrett teaches that “the server 30 determines whether some or
all of the modules or resources are outdated . . . . If some or all of the
modules or resources are outdated . . . the server 30 generates an incremental
update for the client 110. The incremental update includes only the modules
that need to be updated” (Bogrett, col. 10, ll. 45-51).
Principles of Law
“The combination of familiar elements according to known methods
is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.”
Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1161 (Fed. Cir.
2007) (quoting KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007).
“[W]hen a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that
is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the
Appeal 2011-011258
Application 11/450,930

9
field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable result.” KSR,
550 U.S. at 416.

Analysis
Appellants argue “that the recordings made by the API 10 of DaCosta
cannot read on the software executed in site[-]logic blocks, as claimed.
Software is claimed in [A]ppellants[’] invention having specific
functionality which must be shown in the art” (App. Br. 12). Appellants
contend that “DaCosta teaches navigation recordings in which a software
application is used to execute the recordings or create a new recording from
a manual session” (id.).
We appreciate Appellants’ point that the script based implementation
of DaCosta differs from the object-oriented implementation required by
claim 29, which requires a “first navigation routine comprising executable
instructions created with object-oriented tools.”
However, as carefully delineated by the Examiner, DaCosta teaches
each of the process steps required by claim 29 (Ans. 4-9; FF 2-9). Heninger
teaches the use of object oriented programming (FF 11) and modular
software components (FF 10). We agree with the Examiner that the ordinary
artisan would have been motivated to code the process taught by DaCosta
using the modular, object oriented programming techniques of Heninger,
since “the modular software components of Heninger would have provided
the developers of DaCosta a better way of maintaining, editing, and
correcting failed navigation scripts (column 18, lines 34-67) by allowing the
developers to fix only the modular part of the failed navigation and
Appeal 2011-011258
Application 11/450,930

10
interaction script” (Ans. 8). Here, using the object oriented modular
programming code of Heninger to achieve the same goals as DaCosta
represents the “adaptation of an old idea or invention . . . using newer
technology that is commonly available and understood in the art.” Leapfrog,
485 F.3d 1162.
Appellants contend that the “claimed navigation routines and the
recorded scripts of DaCosta are not analogous” (App. Br. 12).
We are not persuaded. The test for non-analogous art is first whether
the art is within the field of the inventor’s endeavor and, if not, whether it is
“reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was
involved.” In re Wood, 599 F.2d 1032, 1036 (CCPA 1979). “A reference is
reasonably pertinent if, even though it may be in a different field” of
endeavor, it logically would have commended itself to an inventor’s
attention in considering his problem “because of the matter with which it
deals.” In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 659 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
DaCosta is drawn to a similar problem as that of the claim, where
DaCosta teaches “precisely locating and extracting the select data with a
granularity specified by the user from any information source such as search
engine results, web pages, other web-accessible documents” (DaCosta, col.
2, ll. 32-35; FF 3), just as claim 29 is drawn to “collecting information for
subscribing persons.”
Both DaCosta and claim 29 are also concerned with “noting an error
by the software while extracting information” where DaCosta teaches that
“if a web page or other web-accessible document has changed dramatically,
an e-mail alert is sent to any user of the script, and the script is marked with
Appeal 2011-011258
Application 11/450,930

11
a flag. In response to the e-mail, the extraction module 20 can then be
executed to re-teach the data extraction to produce a new script” (DaCosta,
col. 6, ll. 35-40; FF 7). We therefore find that DaCosta is analogous and
reasonably pertinent to the concerns and problems associated with claim 29.
Appellants argue “that having the modulated software taught in
Heninger would not benefit DaCosta’s recordings, because said recordings is
not executable software, as claimed” (App. Br. 15). Appellants contend that
“there is no benefit in combining DaCosta and Heninger for one with skill in
the art, thus negating any motivation suggested by the Examiner. The
modular teaching in Heninger cannot be combined with script recordings of
DaCosta because recordings are not software” (id.).
We are not persuaded. The Examiner provides several specific
reasons to utilize the modules and object oriented programming of Heninger
to perform the functions disclosed by DaCosta, including that
Heninger taught wherein it would have been beneficial for
each one of the recorded navigation and extraction steps that
make up the generated scripts of DaCosta to have been fully
modular elements to provide the advantages of being more
easily designed, generated, tested, installed, and maintained
as well as leading to better computer products at a minimal
cost

(Ans. 16).
Conclusion of Law
The evidence of record supports the Examiner’s conclusion that
DaCosta, Heninger, and Bogrett render obvious the method of claim 29.
Appeal 2011-011258
Application 11/450,930

12
SUMMARY
In summary, we affirm the rejection of claim 29 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as obvious over DaCosta, Heninger, and Bogrett. Pursuant to
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1), we also affirm the rejection of claims 87-89, as
these claims were not argued separately (see App. Br. 16).

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).

AFFIRMED

cdc