Ex Parte Roy et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 18, 2015

11787268 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 18, 2015)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte PATRICK ROY and ROBERT DESBIENS
____________________

Appeal 2012-010852
Application 11/787,268
Technology Center 2400
____________________

Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, ROBERT E. NAPPI, and
JAMES W. DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judges.

MacDONALD, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2012-010852
Application 11/787,268

2
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1–20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse.
Exemplary Claim
Claim 1 under appeal reads as follows (emphasis and formatting
added):
1. A method of validating request data transmitted between an
untrusted client and a server based on characteristics of a previous
response comprising:
[(a)] receiving the request data from the untrusted client;
[(b)] building a response with a validation rule, the response
having a characteristic indicative of a constraint to be
applied to subsequent request data, the validation rule
including the constraint;
[(c)] sending the response to the untrusted client;
[(d)] receiving a subsequent request that includes the
subsequent request data and the validation rule; and
[(e)] validating the subsequent request data using the validation
rule.
Examiner’s Rejections
1. The Examiner rejected claims 1–7 and 11–20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Chlan (US 6,385,642 B1; May 7, 2002).
1

2. The Examiner rejected dependent claims 8–10 as being
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combination of Chlan and
Anderson (US 6,021,202; Feb. 1, 2000).
2

1
Separate patentability is not argued for claims 2–7 and 11–20. We treat
claim 1 as representative. Except for our ultimate decision, claims 2–7 and
11–20 are not discussed further herein.
2
Separate patentability is not argued for claims 8–10. Rather, rejection of
these claims turns on our decision as to the underlying § 102 rejection.
Appeal 2012-010852
Application 11/787,268

3
Appellants’ Contention
Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) because:
Chlan discloses that “the login page includes username
and password form fields to be filled-in and submitted by the
web server 20 (step 308). As is understood by those reasonably
skilled in the art of the present invention, form fields may be
reported to a web server 20 through a ‘post’ or ‘get’ technique.”
(Col. 6, lines 7-13). It is respectfully submitted that username
and password form fields is not a validation rule or a
constraint. While the web server can validate the username and
password and constrain access to the web server to authorized
users of the web server, the login page itself does not appear to
include any such validation rule or constraint. Rather, the
login page appears to merely receive the input of a username
and password and to pass the inputted username and password
back to the web server. Chlan further discloses that
“[s]ubsequently, login CGI attempts to locally validate the login
information (step 314), such as by making sure the correct
number and types of digits were entered by the user in the
username and password fields. If the information does not pass
local validation processing, the login page is re-sent to the user
with an error message (not shown), and processing continues
back at step 306. If the information passes local validation
processing, the information is sent to the data source 31 as part
of a request (or transaction) for additional data regarding that
user (step 316).” (Col. 6, lines 29-38). While it appears that in
Chlan the login page can be used to capture the username and
password for validation via a login CGI at the web server, it
appears that, in Chlan, the validation of the username and
password is performed by a login CGI at the web server.
Therefore, Chlan does not disclose “building a response with a
validation rule, the response having a characteristic indicative
of a constraint to be applied to subsequent request data, the
validation rule including the constraint,” as required by claim 1.
(Reply Br. 5–6)(emphasis added).
Appeal 2012-010852
Application 11/787,268

4
Issue on Appeal
Did the Examiner err in rejecting claim 1 as being anticipated because
Chlan fails to disclose the argued limitations?

ANALYSIS
As to Appellants above cited contention, we agree. The Examiner’s
analysis is not sufficient to support a finding that Chlan anticipates the
claims.

CONCLUSIONS
(1) Appellants have established that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claims 1–7 and 11–20 as being anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
(2) Appellants have established that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claims 8–10 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
(3) On this record, claims 1–20 have not been shown to be
unpatentable.

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1–20 are reversed.

REVERSED