Ozonat, Mehmet Kivanc. et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Feb 18, 2020

12409561 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Feb. 18, 2020)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
12/409,561 03/24/2009 Mehmet Kivanc Ozonat 82249664 1620
146568 7590 02/18/2020
MICRO FOCUS LLC
500 Westover Drive
#12603
Sanford, NC 27330
EXAMINER
MUELLER, KURT A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2157
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/18/2020 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
software.ip.mail@microfocus.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MEHMET KIVANC OZONAT, SVEN GRAUPNER,
SUJOY BASU, and DONALD E. YOUNG
Appeal 2019-000476
Application 12/409,561
Technology Center 2100
Before BETH Z. SHAW, SCOTT B. HOWARD, and
JASON M. REPKO, Administrative Patent Judges.
SHAW, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL

Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 2, 6–8, 11, 12, 14, and 16–20. See
Final Act. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as EntIT Software LLC.
Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2019-000476
Application 12/409,561
2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a transforming a description of services for
web services. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed
subject matter:

1. A method executed by a computer system, comprising:
analyzing an initial description of services provided by a service
requestor to identify a first set of key terms;
searching a public network with the first set of key terms to
discover web sites of service providers offering services associated with
the first set of key terms;
crawling the web sites to extract information on services offered by
the service providers;
identifying web forms for the service requestor to initiate a
business with the service providers from the extracted information,
wherein each respective web form of the identified web forms is
associated with a corresponding service provider of the service providers,
and includes questions asked by the corresponding service provider;
developing filtered information based on comparing the identified
web forms and finding common words in the identified web forms;
transforming the initial description into an improved description of
services based on a comparison of data included in the filtered
information; and
applying the improved description in:
identifying a second set of key terms;
searching the public network to discover further web sites of
further service
providers offering services associated with the second set of key
terms;
crawling the further web sites to extract information on services
offered;
identifying further web forms for the service requestor to initiate a
business with the further service providers from the extracted information
of the further web sites, and developing filtered information based on the
identified further web forms.
Appeal 2019-000476
Application 12/409,561
3
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Sarkar
Gardner
US 2006/0074980 A1
US 2007/0050201 A1
Apr. 6, 2006
Mar. 1, 2007

REJECTION
Claims 1, 2, 6–8, 11, 12, 14, and 16–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 by Gardner and Sarkar. Final Act. 8.
OPINION
Appellant presents various arguments against the rejection on appeal.
For example, Appellant argues that Sarkar and Gardner fail to teach
“transforming the initial description into an improved description of services
based on a comparison of data included in the filtered information,” as
recited in claim 1. Appeal Br. 24. In the Final Rejection, the Examiner cites
to paragraphs 53, 90, and 91 and Figures 4a–4e of Gardner as teaching this
limitation because “the user can select and manipulate the forms relevant to
the desired services, and thus transform and improve the description of
services to discover those services which are matching results to the user
selections.” Final Act. 9, (emphasis omitted).
Appellant argues that “Gardner describes a user entering information
into screens or a form, and of leading a user to a form on a website so that
the user can apply for a product.” Appeal Br. 24. “There is absolutely
nothing in Gardner that even remotely hints at a computer system
transforming the initial description into an improved description of services
based on a comparison of data included in the filtered information.” Id.
Appeal 2019-000476
Application 12/409,561
4
Paragraph 53 of Gardner discusses a customer database 38, which
captures customer information via form-filling and captures data for
customers. Gardner ¶ 53. Paragraph 90 of Gardner describes Figure 2, and
mentions a description of a product. Gardner ¶ 90. A user can click on an
“apply” button 73 if a user is interested in a product, and button 73 leads the
user to a website of that service provider where the user can apply for that
product. Id. Paragraph 91 describes actions that occur upon the user clicking
the “apply” button, such as storing a record, and providing the user with a
URL. Id. Figures 4a through 4e of Gardner illustrate user screens produced
for collecting user input. Gardner ¶ 39.
We agree with Appellant that these cited portions of Gardner do not
appear to teach “transforming the initial description into an improved
description of services based on a comparison of data included in the filtered
information,” as recited in claim 1. In the Answer, the Examiner states that
“the form is transformed based on the input,” (Ans. 5), but the Examiner
does not sufficiently explain why transforming the form based on the input
teaches “transforming the initial description into an improved description of
services based on a comparison of data included in the filtered information,”
as recited in claim 1 (emphasis added).
Accordingly, constrained as we are by the record, we do not sustain
the rejection of independent claim 1. For the same reasons, we do not sustain
the rejection of independent claims 6 and 11, which contain similar
limitations. For the same reasons, we also do not sustain the rejection of the
remaining pending dependent claims.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejection is reversed.
Appeal 2019-000476
Application 12/409,561
5

DECISION SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 6–8,
11, 12, 14,
16–20
103 Sarkar, Gardner 1, 2, 6–8,
11, 12, 14,
16–20

REVERSED