Ex Parte Busch et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jul 11, 2012

10244263 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 11, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte EDWARD VERNON BUSCH, TROY ANTHONY HOWARD,
ANDREI STEPHAN MALACINSKI, TAI WOO NAM, and MARY
CATHERINE STREBLE
____________

Appeal 2010-000467
Application 10/244,263
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO, BRUCE R. WINSOR,
and ANDREW CALDWELL, Administrative Patent Judges.

WINSOR, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-000467
Application 10/244,263

2
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1-26, which constitute all the claims pending in this application. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention relates to collecting web form data and routing
the web form data to a data analysis system in real-time. (Spec. ¶ [0001]).
Claim 1, which is illustrative of the invention, reads as follows:
1. A real-time method for collecting web form data,
comprising:
replacing at least one of an existing submit method with a
new submit method and an existing on-submit handler with a
new on-submit handler attached to a web form in a requested
web page when the requested web page has been loaded;
receiving the web form having form data;
changing a destination for routing the web form based on
validation of the form data received to an analysis system; and
routing the web form to the analysis system where the
form data is collected.
The Examiner relies on the following prior art in rejecting the claims:
Goodman US 2003/0088475 A1 May 8, 2003
(filed Oct. 12, 2001)

EVENT HANDLER: onSubmit, 2 October 2000, available at
, pp. 1 (hereinafter
“onSubmit”).
AuthRequest.asp, 1998, available at , pp. 1-5 (hereinafter “Auth”).
Appeal 2010-000467
Application 10/244,263

3
Nottingham, Caching Tutorial for Web Authors and Webmasters,
available at , pp. 1-28.
Claims 1-4, 11-13, 17-21, 25, and 26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) over Goodman in view of onSubmit. (Ans. 3).
Claims 5, 14, 16, 22, and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
over Goodman in view of onSubmit and Nottingham. (Ans. 8).
Claims 6, 7, 15, and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
Goodman in view of onSubmit and Auth. (Ans. 9).
Claims 8-10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Goodman in
view of onSubmit, Nottingham, and Auth. (Ans. 11).
Rather than repeat the arguments here, we refer to the Brief (filed July
31, 2008)1 and the Answer (mailed July 1, 2009) for the respective positions
of Appellants and the Examiner.

ISSUE
The pivotal issue presented by Appellants’ contentions is as follows:
Does the combination of Goodman and onSubmit teach or suggest
“changing a destination for routing the web form,” as recited in claim 1? 2

ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds that Goodman discloses:

1 The Briefs filed Aug. 30, 2006 and Nov. 20, 2006 have not been
considered as they are deemed to have been superseded.
2 Appellants’ contentions raise additional issues. As we find the identified
issue to be persuasive of Examiner error and dispositive of the appeal, we do
not reach the additional issues.
Appeal 2010-000467
Application 10/244,263

4
[c]hanging a destination for routing the web form to an analysis
system (paragraph 0052-0054; paragraphs 0061-0062: Here, if
a user entered a vendor site through a host, then the web form
data (including credit card information) is transferred to the
host site. If the user did not enter the vendor site through a
host, then the host receives the web form data. Here, the
information is then entered into a host database (analysis
system) to store the information. Here, the database contains
information, including whether the credit card was
accepted/rejected, transaction date, shipping date, and customer
complaints).
(Ans. 4).
Appellants contend as follows, inter alia:
Goodman does not disclose or suggest, inter alia, “changing a
destination for routing the web form[.]” Rather, Goodman only
directs a user to another web page. (See, e.g., ¶ 0053). In
Goodman, if the cookie is present, “the action of the form tag
variable ... no longer directs the user to
CERTAINPRODUCT.COM order acquisition page, but rather
directs the user to host site's credit card number acquisition
page.” (¶ 0053).
(Ellipsis in original) (Br. 6-7).
The Examiner responds that “Goodman discloses making a
determination about the form data, and then replacing the existing submit
method with a new submit method (paragraphs 0052-0054).” (Ans. 16).
We agree with Appellants for the reason stated by Appellants. We
find that the passages cited by the Examiner (see Goodman ¶¶ [0052]-
[0054], [0061]-[0062]) teach directing a user from one web form to another
or transferring data from one web form to another. The Examiner has not
persuasively established that the cited portions of Goodman teach or suggest
“changing a destination for routing the web form” itself, as is recited in
claim 1.
Appeal 2010-000467
Application 10/244,263

5
Accordingly, we will not sustain the rejection of claim 1. In addition,
we will not sustain the rejection of (1) independent claims 11 and 19, which
were rejected on the same basis as claim 1 (Ans. 6-7); (2) independent claim
8, which recites a limitation substantially similar to that discussed supra, and
was rejected citing the same passages of Goodman (Ans. 12); and (3) claims
2-7, 9, 10, 12-18, and 20-26, which depend variously from claims 1, 8, 11,
and 19.
ORDER
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-26 is reversed.

REVERSED

rwk