Ex Parte Williamson et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 22, 2009

10351023 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 22, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________

Ex parte MATTHEW MURRAY WILLIAMSON and PETER JAMES
RODGERS
__________

Appeal 2008-004311
Application 10/351,023
Technology Center 2400
__________

Decided:1 June 22, 2009
__________

Before: LANCE LEONARD BARRY, HOWARD B. BLANKENSHIP, and
STEPHEN C. SIU, Administrative Patent Judges.

SIU, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

1 The two month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, begins to run from the decided date
shown on this page of the decision. The time period does not run from the
Mail Date (paper delivery) or Notification Date (electronic delivery).

Appeal 2008-004311
Application 10/351,023

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–56. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We affirm.

Invention
The invention relates to methods of interacting with distributed
information networks, including interactions with different Web sites via the
Internet (Spec. 1, ll. 7–9).
Independent claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A method of enabling reuse of Web session data generated at
a server computer in a client/server environment during a Web
session, the method comprising:
recording a client's interaction with a Web site thereby
producing Web session data describing the Web session;
converting the Web session data into a document having a
portable format; and
transferring the portable format document to a user such that it
may be reused to regenerate at least a part of the Web session at a
later point in time.

References
The Examiner relies upon the following references as evidence in
support of the rejections:
Smith US 5,835,724 Nov. 10, 1998
Franklin US 6,125,352 Sep. 26, 2000
Bryant US 6,286,046 B1 Sep. 4, 2001

Appeal 2008-004311
Application 10/351,023

3
Jamtgaard US 6,430,624 Aug. 6, 2002

Håkon Wium Lie and Janne Saarela, “Multipurpose Web Publishing
Using HTML, XML, and CSS,” Commc’n of the ACM, Vol. 42 No. 10, 95–
101 (Oct. 1999).

Rejections
Claims 1–3, 17–19, 21–24, 29–34, 37–48, and 55 are rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Franklin.
Claims 4–11, 13, 14, 20, 25–28, and 49–54 are rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Franklin and Jamtgaard.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Franklin, Jamtgaard, and Lie.
Claims 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Franklin and Smith.
Claims 35, 36, and 56 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Franklin and Bryant.
ISSUE #1
Appellants argue that Franklin fails to disclose web session data
because “Franklin involves downloading information to the consumer from
a Web site . . . [but the downloaded information] is not data about the
session (or ‘state’)” (App. Br. 12).
Appeal 2008-004311
Application 10/351,023

4
Have Appellants shown that the Examiner erred in finding that
Franklin teaches or would have suggested Web session data?
ISSUE #2
Appellants argue “that Franklin does not disclose, teach, or suggest at
least ‘recording a client’s interaction with a Web site thereby producing Web
session data describing the Web session’” (App. Br. 10).
Have Appellants shown that the Examiner erred in finding that
Franklin teaches or would have suggested recording a client’s interaction
with a Web site, thereby producing Web session data describing the Web
session?
ISSUE #3
Appellants argue that “Franklin does not teach or suggest
‘transferring the portable format document to a user such that it may be
reused to regenerate at least a part of the Web session at a later point in
time’” (App. Br. 11–12).
Have Appellants shown that the Examiner erred in finding that
Franklin teaches or would have suggested transferring a portable format
document to a user such that it may be reused to regenerate at least a part of
the Web session at a later point in time?

FINDINGS OF FACT
The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of
the evidence.
Appeal 2008-004311
Application 10/351,023

5
1. The Specification discloses that a “Web session is defined as
the actions a user takes while interacting with at least one Web page
of the Web site. The user may interact with a Web site by entering the
URL of a Web page into a Web browser, or by clicking on hyperlinks
displayed in a Web page. Alternatively, the user may interact with a
Web site by filling in a form that is displayed in the Web browser,
adding items to a shopping cart, or by checking check boxes, or radio
buttons etc.” (Spec. 4, ll. 1–6).
2. The Specification discloses that “[e]ach time a user clicks on a
hyperlink or a button displayed in a Web page, or submits a filled in
form to the server etc[sic], this information may be logged at the
server. In an embodiment of the present invention, the server is
configured to log and store this information (or data) at the server.
The logged and stored (i.e., captured) information is referred to
hereinafter as ‘Web session data’” (Spec. 4, ll. 8–12).
3. Franklin discloses a user connecting to a merchant Web site to
shop for a refrigerator, wherein “[a] number of attributes are presented
to the consumer, each attribute capable of being set to one of a
number of values. Thus, for example, the user sets a color attribute to
‘Egg Shell White,’ sets an indoor water spout attribute to ‘No,’ and an
automatic ice-maker attribute to ‘Yes’” (col. 8, ll. 59–64).
4. Franklin discloses that “consumer-selectable options” include
“hyperlinks or buttons” (col. 10, ll. 64–65).
Appeal 2008-004311
Application 10/351,023

6
5. Franklin teaches that a “Web browser 120 directs a
corresponding message to the commerce client 122 causing
information . . . including the attributes selected, to be stored in a
gathered products database 148. . . . Such information includes, for
example . . . attributes set by the consumer [and] the URL of [the]
merchant site” (col. 8, ll. 66 and 67; col. 9, ll. 1–9).
6. Franklin teaches that later “[t]he commerce client 122 extracts
the information about the two refrigerators from the gathered products
information 148, and formats the information such that the consumer
can view it on the monitor 114” (col. 9, ll. 35–38).
7. Franklin teaches that “[a]fter the consumer enters the password,
the commerce client 122 accesses the payment source information
140, decrypts the information, combines it with information about the
merchant A refrigerator to assemble a goods and services order
(‘GSO’). The GSO is then encrypted and included as part of an HTTP
POST message which is sent to the URL of merchant A” (col. 9, ll.
45–51).

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
Anticipation
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102, “[a] single prior art
reference that discloses, either expressly or inherently, each limitation of a
claim invalidates that claim by anticipation.” Perricone v. Medicis Pharm.
Corp., 432 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (citation omitted).
Appeal 2008-004311
Application 10/351,023

7
“Anticipation of a patent claim requires a finding that the claim at issue
‘reads on’ a prior art reference.” Atlas Powder Co. v. IRECO, Inc., 190 F.3d
1342, 1346 (Fed Cir. 1999). “In other words, if granting patent protection
on the disputed claim would allow the patentee to exclude the public from
practicing the prior art, then that claim is anticipated, regardless of whether
it also covers subject matter not in the prior art.” Id. (internal citations
omitted).
Obviousness
The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying
factual determinations including (1) the scope and content of the prior art,
(2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art, and
(3) the level of skill in the art. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–
18 (1966).
“The combination of familiar elements according to known methods
is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.”
KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007).

ANALYSIS
Issue 1
Appellants provide identical arguments for independent claims 1, 41,
49, and 52–56 and make no additional arguments in support of dependent
claims 2–40, 42–48, 50, and 51. Therefore, we will decide the appeal of
claims 1–56 with respect to issue #1 on the basis of claim 1 alone. See 37
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
Appeal 2008-004311
Application 10/351,023

8
As set forth above, the Specification discloses that Web session data is
defined as actions a user takes while interacting with a Web page of a Web
site (FF 1). Franklin teaches a user selecting options (i.e., product attribute
selections) on a Web site through interfaces such as “hyperlinks or buttons”
(FF 3, 4). We find no distinction between a user in Franklin interacting with
interfaces on a Web site to select options (e.g., product attribute selections)
and a user interacting with a Web page of a Web site (“Web session data”)
as recited in the claims, nor have Appellants indicated a specific distinction.
Thus, we agree with the Examiner that Franklin discloses “Web session
data” as broadly but reasonably construed in light of the Specification to
include actions a user takes while interacting with a Web page.
For at least these reasons, we conclude that Appellants have not
sustained the requisite burden on appeal in providing arguments or evidence
persuasive of error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1, or of claims 2–56,
which fall therewith, with respect to issue #1.
Issue 2
Appellants provide identical arguments for independent claims 1, 41,
49, and 52–56 and make no additional arguments in support of dependent
claims 2–40, 42–48, 50, and 51. Therefore, we will decide the appeal of
claims 1–56 with respect to issue #2 on the basis of claim 1 alone. See 37
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
Appellants argue that Franklin “appears to disclose at most a process
for storing product information in a local shopping basket” (App. Br. 11)
and thus fails to teach or suggest “‘recording a client’s interaction with a
Appeal 2008-004311
Application 10/351,023

9
Web site, thereby producing Web session data describing the Web session’”
(App. Br. 10).
As described above, Franklin teaches storing product attribute
selections (i.e., “Web session data” (FF 1) in a gathered products database
(FF 5). Appellants have not shown a distinction between storing and
recording. The Specification even states that the Web session information is
“logged and stored (i.e., captured)” (Spec. 4) (emphasis added). Thus, we
find that Franklin shows interactions of the user (i.e., selecting product
attributes via interfaces) are recorded (i.e., stored) to produce Web session
data (i.e., actions a user takes when interacting with a Web page (FF 1)).
For at least these reasons, we conclude that Appellants have not
sustained the requisite burden on appeal in providing arguments or evidence
persuasive of error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1, or of claims 2–56,
which fall therewith, with respect to issue #2.
Issue 3
Appellants provide identical arguments for independent claims 1, 41,
49, and 52–56 and make no additional arguments in support of dependent
claims 2–40, 42–48, 50, and 51. Therefore, we will decide the appeal of
claims 1–56 with respect to issue #3 on the basis of claim 1 alone. See 37
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
As discussed above, the attributes set by the consumer (i.e., “Web
session data”) are transferred to and stored in a database (FF 5), then
extracted (or regenerated) for presentation to the consumer (FF 6). In
addition, if the user decides to complete a purchase, this information is used
Appeal 2008-004311
Application 10/351,023

10
as the basis for an HTTP POST message to a merchant URL (FF 7) which
constitutes regenerating at least a part of the Web session. Appellants have
failed to provide a logical rationale or reason why Franklin’s transferring
and extracting of consumer-selected attributes (“Web session data”) from a
database to regenerate the data is distinct from the recited transferring and
regenerating of Web session data. In fact, the concepts appear identical.
For at least these reasons, we conclude that Appellants have not
sustained the requisite burden on appeal in providing arguments or evidence
persuasive of error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1, or of claims 2–56,
which fall therewith, with respect to issue #3.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Based on the findings of facts and analysis above, we conclude that
Appellants have failed to demonstrate that the Examiner erred in finding
that:
1. Franklin teaches or would have suggested Web session data;
2. Franklin teaches or would have suggested recording a client’s
interaction with a Web site, thereby producing Web session data describing
the Web session;
3. Franklin teaches or would have suggested transferring a portable
format document to a user such that it may be reused to regenerate at least a
part of the Web session at a later point in time.

Appeal 2008-004311
Application 10/351,023

11
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–56.
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

nhl

HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY
Intellectual Property Administration
P.O. Box 272400
Fort Collins CO 80527-2400